Teens send each other naked pictures, get charged with child pornography

GREENSBURG, Pa. -- Three teenage girls who allegedly sent nude or semi-nude cell phone pictures of themselves, and three male classmates in a Greensburg Salem High School who received them, are charged with child pornography.

The government at work - and of course it's all to protect the children whose lives they are trying to permanently destroy.

"It's very dangerous," said Seranko. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing until it's already done."

Somewhat like shooting people in the kneecaps for not wearing a seatbelt.

Oh, and they found the photos by searching a kids phone after they took it from him during school - 4th amendment be damned!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

GREENSBURG, Pa. -- Three teenage girls who allegedly sent nude or semi-nude cell phone pictures of themselves, and three male classmates in a Greensburg Salem High School who received them, are charged with child pornography.

Police said the girls are 14 or 15, and the boys charged with receiving the photos are 16 or 17. None are being identified because most criminal cases in Pennsylvania juvenile courts are not public.

"It was a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude," said Capt. George Seranko of the Greensburg Police Department.

Police said school officials learned of the photos in October. That's when a student was seen using a cell phone during school hours, which violates school rules. The phone was seized, and the photos were found on it, police said. When police investigated, other phones with more pictures were seized.

"Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it," said Seranko.

The Greensburg Salem School District issued a statement on Tuesday saying there was “no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds or during the school day other than the violation of the (school's) electronic devices policy.”

The school district said it only became aware of the arrest of the students on Monday and will continue to work cooperatively with police, as well as continue to enforce its electronic devices policy and educate students on the dangers of inappropriate use of electronic devices.

Police said the girls are being charged with manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys face charges of possession.

"It's very dangerous," said Seranko. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing until it's already done."

So the state is telling them its better to have sex instead of *gasp!* sending each other nude photos, because the penalties for sex are much less severe.

CR

Omfg.

This would be hilarious if not for the tyrannical government thingy. I'm lost for words.

EDIT: This reminds me of another case: a norwegian 23-year old with a 17-year old girlfriend(age of consent in Norway is 16) goes on a vacation to Canada. His laptop is searched in customs, toll officials find one naughty pic of his gf on it, guy gets a 90 days prison sentence.... Nice.

Holy crap that's awesome in every single aspect. People being blamed for sending each other pictures of themselves naked.

After seeing this news report yesterday, I actually looked up the relevant PA Criminal Code statute. The way its written, someone under 18 could actually be charged with creating and possessing child pornography if they took a picture of themselves and never showed it to anyone. Sometimes the letter of the law is not in the spirit of the law.

Sometimes I think that laws are written by robots for robots...

...lets see how much taxpayers' money will be wasted this time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasoforos

Sometimes I think that laws are written by robots for robots...

...lets see how much taxpayers' money will be wasted this time.

---

Anyone have the article of the Teenage girl that was charged with raping herself through masturbation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

Anyone have the article of the Teenage girl that was charged with raping herself through masturbation?

---

Please, tell me that's a joke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Please, tell me that's a joke.

---

Self-rape. I love it! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Oh, and they found the photos by searching a kids phone after they took it from him during school - 4th amendment be damned!

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The 4th amendment doesn't apply by any stretch of the imagination .
That would require the initial action being taken against the reasonable expectation of privacy , since the clear policy was mobile phones would be siezed on premesis then the unreasonable search and seizure line is pissing in the wind . The next phase of the process where the police became involved is plain and simple too , the school is legally obliged to inform of illegal activity and since naked pictures of underage girls fits the definition child pornography and child pornography is a crime then tough luck .

Quote:

---

So the state is telling them its better to have sex instead

---

Yes Rabbit the State told them to have sex:dizzy2:

For Great Justice too, no doubt.

Good Lord. This is sublime in its ridiculousness...

I would question the need to prosecute in this instance. Doesn't seem like a good use of taxpayer dollars. At best we have minors engaging in inappropriate behaviors with females under the age of consent; no real pedo component here. Surely they have other more significant issues to pursue...


However....CR:

4th ammendment may not apply. Under 18s have few legal rights and, in the strictest sense, cannot own property in their own names. Therefore, if they used a cell phone on school property during school hours and it was a known school policy (signed off on by parents) that any such phones would be confiscated, then the school was operating appropriately. Same can be said for searching the phone if there were prior notice that all confiscated phones would be searched. Absent express or implied consent or a duly signed warrant, however, I do not think the cell phone material should be admissable.

HT:

The chap who visited Canada had it coming. Tourists and visitors are ALWAYS responsible for complying with local laws. The rule is, if in doubt, don't. Assuming that you will receive the same rights overseas as you would in your own country is a foolish assumption.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Omfg.

This would be hilarious if not for the tyrannical government thingy. I'm lost for words.

EDIT: This reminds me of another case: a norwegian 23-year old with a 17-year old girlfriend(age of consent in Norway is 16) goes on a vacation to Canada. His laptop is searched in customs, toll officials find one naughty pic of his gf on it, guy gets a 90 days prison sentence.... Nice.

---

Hmmm. I'd have to see that article. Not that I'm proud of this, but the age of consent in Canada was 14 until 2008, when it was raised to 16. Something doesn't ring true. Perhaps he was dating her when she was only 13 and he was 19, and the pictures were from when she actually was underage? In that case, he is in fact disgusting and probably deserves more than 90 days in the slammer.

Quote:

---

I would question the need to prosecute in this instance.

---

ah but what about zero tolerance for crimes and the voice of the moral majority who want to protect young Americans from a glimpse of a nipple ?
Actually I reckon the law should come down harder , if one of the individuals had three photos on his phone he should be charged and convicted on three different occasions then give him the old 3 strikes and life without parole stuff :2thumbsup:

I've been following this on Faux News for a while and it is hilarious seeing O'Reilly claiming that the government acted correctly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The 4th amendment doesn't apply by any stretch of the imagination .
That would require the initial action being taken against the reasonable expectation of privacy , since the clear policy was mobile phones would be siezed on premesis then the unreasonable search and seizure line is pissing in the wind . The next phase of the process where the police became involved is plain and simple too , the school is legally obliged to inform of illegal activity and since naked pictures of underage girls fits the definition child pornography and child pornography is a crime then tough luck .


Yes Rabbit the State told them to have sex:dizzy2:

---

The seizure was legal but the search was not. It could only be searched if there was reasonable suspicion of illegal activity on the phone. While it didn't say in the article, I'm guessing that there wasn't reasonable suspicion.

We covered a case like this in my American law class last year. Well, except what was found was a list of clients for a girls drug business in that case.

edit: I found a summary of the case http://www.aclu-il.org/legal/highsch...dseizure.shtml
The second part of the decision section is the relevant part

Thats easy Woad .
Leaving aside the obvious that the picture which the pupil must have liked may have been a screensaver and as such was in plain view , there is in all likelyhood that the phone (as most are now) was also a camera , since the ban on electronic devices would extend to unsanctioned use of cameras on premesis .
So there was a reasonable cause to examine if the cameraphone had been used in school .
Run that past your lecturer in law if you doubt that such a search can be defined as reasonable in scope or if the reasonable expectation of privacy had been violated.:2thumbsup:

That case doesn't really apply, they were in trouble for smoking and the princeple searched the phone for evidence relating to the said smoking. In the process he found all the pot stuff. There's pretty obvious reasonable cause in that search.


Here it sounds like someone was texting, there phone was taken away, and then some teacher went through it for no appearent reason. Now the extent that a teacher conducted a formal search is a different point, for example if they were to hear people talking in a bathroom then discover smokers, that's not a violation. Were if they were to go through every locker it would be. I don't really see a big 4th addmendent issue here. It's more a matter of if a teacher looking through a confiscated phone is ethical. Personally I would say that its wrong, but that doesn't disquallify its abillity to be used in court. (Unless if it was confiscated to be searched then theres another layer. All it is really is a set of fine lines.)

I think the focus would be better deserved on the hyberbole of the charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

However....CR:

4th ammendment may not apply.

---

Yes, likely that is the case. However, it should apply. I find it abhorrent the government can compel you to do something and take your rights as you do what they say - in this example, the government compels kids to go to school and parents to get their kids to school, but suspends some of their rights.

Quote:

---

I've been following this on Faux News for a while and it is hilarious seeing O'Reilly claiming that the government acted correctly.

---

Sheesh, what a tool. And must you call it 'faux news'? I don't go around saying 'communist news network' all day.

Quote:

---

Yes Rabbit the State told them to have sex

---

I didn't say that. The incentives created by the government make the punishment for having sex less severe than seeing a photo of the same person naked. In short, the state is saying having sex is better than - or not as bad as - seeing a nude photo.

CR

Quote:

---

Yes, likely that is the case. However, it should apply.

---

Hey if you don't like the constitution write a new one .:idea2:
Hold on, you like the constitution when judges say it means what you want it to mean but you don't like it when judges say it means what you don't want it to mean
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

the government compels kids to go to school and parents to get their kids to school,

---

Stand up against your tyrannical government .
Exercise your rights , give your kids some home skoolin:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hold on, you like the constitution when judges say it means what you want it to mean but you don't like it when judges say it means what you don't want it to mean

---

I always love the Constitution - just not always the judges.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Hmmm. I'd have to see that article. Not that I'm proud of this, but the age of consent in Canada was 14 until 2008, when it was raised to 16. Something doesn't ring true. Perhaps he was dating her when she was only 13 and he was 19, and the pictures were from when she actually was underage? In that case, he is in fact disgusting and probably deserves more than 90 days in the slammer.

---

I'm be shocked if the rules for a role in the hay and digital boobies weren't different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I always love the Constitution - just not always the judges.

CR

---

It wouldn't hurt to rewrite it, I'm just afraid of what it would look like after.

I agree with Tribesman. The problem here is not that these minors constitutional rights were violated. It's that the administration and police dept. are blisteringly stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The chap who visited Canada had it coming. Tourists and visitors are ALWAYS responsible for complying with local laws. The rule is, if in doubt, don't. Assuming that you will receive the same rights overseas as you would in your own country is a foolish assumption.

---

Who thinks about stuff like this? Seriously? I have 120 gigs on my laptop. I have no clue what half of it is. I'm not sure, but I think I have some pictures of my ex there somwhere. She is 6 months younger than me, and 17 at the time... Better not take the laptop on a trip, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Hmmm. I'd have to see that article. Not that I'm proud of this, but the age of consent in Canada was 14 until 2008, when it was raised to 16. Something doesn't ring true. Perhaps he was dating her when she was only 13 and he was 19, and the pictures were from when she actually was underage? In that case, he is in fact disgusting and probably deserves more than 90 days in the slammer.

---

No, he was 23 and she was 17 when the pictures were taken.

Norwegian link, can't find an english one(nobody really cares about us...):

http://www.tv2nyhetene.no/innenriks/article2494442.ece

Idiocy, I mentioned not long ago something similar happened to a friend of a friend, hes now on the sexual offenders register (for a while ? or forever ?)

The law should use some common sense when it comes to such matters rather than label children the same way they would label a dirty old man getting pictures of children...

Quote:

---

"Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it," said Seranko.

---

This moron merely reflects a wide-spread 'sensitivity' to, well, to 'issues'. These days anything involving sexuality and minors is defined as an 'issue', underpinned by Christian and feminist notions of infantile innocence and sexuality. Don't change your Constitution if you object to this; change your culture.

I'd rather say they should be set free because of infantile innocence.
They should not protect the children from taking and sending around their own pictures to their own friends, they should protect them from getting jailed for years and being molested several times in jail...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, he was 23 and she was 17 when the pictures were taken.

---

The law treats these things differently.
Canadian law says nude pictures of girls under 18 are child pornography. No good to argue that you didn't know. Law of the land rules so to say.

Our law (Norway) however, apparently sees this differently. Even though the age of consent is 16, pictures of nude girls have no age limit. The pictures are evaluated ad hoc. The base decision of whether the pictures falls under child pornography is the physical maturity of the girl. If she looks 18 or older, its fine. Alas, pictures of a 26 year old that looks like a 15 year old would be treated as child pornography.

I would welcome a law of 18 on all accounts. This is when we define they are adults. (21 for my girls).

Quote:

---

she looks 18 or older, its fine

---

If she looks like 18 but has 17 or 16, its fine also?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

I'm be shocked if the rules for a role in the hay and digital boobies weren't different.

---

hehe...

digital boobies...

hehe...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

The law treats these things differently.
Canadian law says nude pictures of girls under 18 are child pornography. No good to argue that you didn't know. Law of the land rules so to say.

---

Yes, yes, law of the land and all that. It's still retarded. Laws are to protect people from harm - when noone is hurt, like in this case, it's retarded to punish people. Contrary to what some people believe, you can't legalize morality, people must be free to choose their own morality. If you want people to adhere to your own moral code, then you must do so by persuasion and argument, NOT by law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

(21 for my girls).

---

You know, I've been planning this trip to Bergen.... :eyebrows:

Quote:

---

digital boobies...

---

Do you mean boobies in a digital media format ?
http://www.galapagosonline.com/Galap...s/Boobies.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes, yes, law of the land and all that. It's still retarded. Laws are to protect people from harm - when noone is hurt, like in this case, it's retarded to punish people. Contrary to what some people believe, you can't legalize morality, people must be free to choose their own morality. If you want people to adhere to your own moral code, then you must do so by persuasion and argument, NOT by law.

---

Regardless of the fact that it is silly to prosecute the girls (definately) and the boys (probably), have you considered that young women should not be encouraged to objectify themselves in order to gain the attentions of older men.

Some questions:

Are these three couples?

Are they sexually active?

How did they find the other two guys, were the pictures being swapped around?

It would let the girls off with a stern warning, the boys I would slap a community service order on. That's for the pictures, there is plenty of scope for finding other offences here, I think.

As regards the Law, it is the Law. It has little to do with morality, it is there to protect society at large as well as the individual. We legislate an age of consent in order to make a clear point about what is and is not acceptable, this protects those under age and over age.

If you have sex with a 16 year old girl in this country, it's legal, and the father can't call foul on you; have sex with a 15 year old and society will string you up, which also protects you from personal vengence.

If we don't take a legislative stance on moral issues we cannot have any laws, at which point we devolve to things like blood duels and honour killings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Do you mean boobies in a digital media format ?
http://www.galapagosonline.com/Galap...s/Boobies.html

---

Well, done Tribes! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Well, done Tribes!

---

Silly me :oops:
obviously when he said boobie he really meant tits
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientis...tits_unfai.php

:laugh4:
I think I just learned something interesting about bird names in English... :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Well, done Tribes! :laugh4:

---

I know. I love it when people post tits and boobies in the Backroom. ~:eek:

So I better never take my notebook anywhere because the customs officers will search on it and may find something that id forbidden in wherever I go and jail me for life in that foreign country? Woah, so either leave your laptop alone or have a lawyer from that other country come over and check your laptop for 10000 bucks before you go there. you know what,m forget about this tourist altogether. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

:laugh4:
I think I just learned something interesting about bird names in English... :yes:

---

Tribes hasn't even gotten to the Swallow yet.....


:smartass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It would let the girls off with a stern warning, the boys I would slap a community service order on. That's for the pictures, there is plenty of scope for finding other offences here, I think.

---

What? why? both are under age; it is no different for the girls as it is for the guys, both are under 18 (can't buy/view porn) so it should be a no brainer. police should of let the school deal with it.

what if they were gay girls send msgs to each other? a warning for both?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Regardless of the fact that it is silly to prosecute the girls (definately) and the boys (probably), have you considered that young women should not be encouraged to objectify themselves in order to gain the attentions of older men.

---

What a load of :daisy: . Objectify? HAH! It's a little something called "arousing each other", "flirting", "sexual games", etc etc. If you're not into that sort of thing - fine. But don't push those morals on the rest of us.

And please, try not to play the "free sex and drugs hippie"-card on me. CR, the one who posted this, is a hardcore conservative, and he's no more fan of this than me*. This is the territory of the parents - NOT the government. The parents are responsible for their children's moral upbringing, not the state. If the parents deem this behaviour worthy of a smack, then they're free to do so, of course. But it's their responsibility, their territory.

*you're free to kill me if I'm wrong on this, CR :whip:

Well, another great example of lawfully stupid.

I do agree that we should protect children and teens in general from taking such actions. They may think there is nothing wrong now but those pictures may come back to haunt them later. Pictures can lead their own life on the internet and there is nothing one can do to stop the damage they can do.
However, I don't see the point in punishing the teens as they haven't caused damaged to anyone except possibly themselves. I don't get the notion of Anglo-Saxon law to put the most stress on punishment rather than prevention (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Sensibilisation would be much more appropriate in this case. Keep in mind that these are teens being teens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Regardless of the fact that it is silly to prosecute the girls (definately) and the boys (probably), have you considered that young women should not be encouraged to objectify themselves in order to gain the attentions of older men.

---

But after 18 it's fine to do so? And when women dress up to look nice, why is this?

Women carry children. Their ability to do this is based on their genetic makeup and their health. Both of these can be assessed by how they look. These days women cheat by using aides to hide or accenuate features. Men therefore want fit, young women. Breasts = sexual maturity, facial symetry = oestrus, clear skin = less liklihood of infection / young.

You're not going to undo this basic fact.

What irritates me on this issue is that the laws use the simple but useless chronological age rather than the more useful but difficult psysiological, or even cognitive maturity.

Some 15 year olds are in all ways more "ready" than 18 year olds.

Nude pictures are unlikely to damage anyone (pictures depicting more... niche markets might however). There are pictures of famous actresses and even the French President's wife! The attitude these days on a professional level is "so what?"

And a complete hypothetical: a underage girl either takes her own or has a picture of herself taken and sent to an over age person. Are they culpable as soon as they recieve the picture? Should they inform the police that they've been sent it?

It all seems a massive hoo-ha about nothing - slapping penalties on teens for being horny. Perhaps if all had their age on their chests in permanent marker it'd help all ensure that they wern't ogling someone that's the wrong age.

~:smoking:

Yay, I posted something everybody dissagrees with!

Ok, look, I'm not saying that women shouldn't dress up to look nice, or that physical attraction is some evil thing. I mean, criky, if that was the case we'd all be in jail. Having said that, don't try to tell me that naked mobile pics are the same as wearing a wondabra. Seriously guys, do you think 14 year old girls should be sending naked digital photos to older boys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

And a complete hypothetical: a underage girl either takes her own or has a picture of herself taken and sent to an over age person. Are they culpable as soon as they recieve the picture? Should they inform the police that they've been sent it?

---

Well, they shouldn't be sharing it and keeping it on their phone. If a picture of an underage girl is taken by someone else then that person is guilty of producing child pornography, so they should be prosecuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What a load of :daisy: . Objectify? HAH! It's a little something called "arousing each other", "flirting", "sexual games", etc etc. If you're not into that sort of thing - fine. But don't push those morals on the rest of us.

And please, try not to play the "free sex and drugs hippie"-card on me. CR, the one who posted this, is a hardcore conservative, and he's no more fan of this than me*. This is the territory of the parents - NOT the government. The parents are responsible for their children's moral upbringing, not the state. If the parents deem this behaviour worthy of a smack, then they're free to do so, of course. But it's their responsibility, their territory.

---

Um "free sex and drugs hippe"? Nope, strawman.

They're underage, so "flirting" and "sexual games" are not allowed. In any case, a picture of yourself naked isn't flirting, it's advertising. If a girl sent me a picture like that I wouldn't be impressed, regardless of how she looked; if I was an unpleasent man, however, I might keep it and show it to my friends.

This was a stupid thing for these girls to do, which shows they aren't mature enough to deal with this sort of thing. As far as this being the perview of the parents' it ceased to be so once their children broke the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

This is the territory of the parents - NOT the government. The parents are responsible for their children's moral upbringing, not the state. If the parents deem this behaviour worthy of a smack, then they're free to do so, of course. But it's their responsibility, their territory.

---

:yes: :applause:

Quote:

---

Nude pictures are unlikely to damage anyone

---

That depends , take the case in Rochester NY , no one was damaged really when the underage girl sent photos to her boyfriends phone , but she might be considered damaged by the fact that he then sent those photos on to his friends .
OK yes its a silly girl who didn't think that one through when she sent the pictures , but is an even sillier boy as he is facing a possible 7 year jail term for distributing child pornography .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

They're underage, so "flirting" and "sexual games" are not allowed. In any case, a picture of yourself naked isn't flirting, it's advertising.

---

Enjoy your morally bankrupt nanny state. I'm pleased to say I do not live in such a society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What irritates me on this issue is that the laws use the simple but useless chronological age rather than the more useful but difficult physiological, or even cognitive maturity.

Some 15 year olds are in all ways more "ready" than 18 year olds.

---

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately there is no way to accurately determine the cognitive age of a person. Psychological tests are good, but not perfect and they can be time consuming. It could also make legislation designed to stop pedophiles too ambiguous and full of loop holes.

But then again, because of this arbitrary age of consent many people I know could be charged with pedophilia, even if it wasn't actually the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Seriously guys, do you think 14 year old girls should be sending naked digital photos to older boys?

---

As far as I know girls\women tend too look for boys\men that are older than them. If that is the way your hypothetical 14 year old girl chooses to attract a guy then it's her choice to do so.

Also the age of the person receiving the photo determines his reaction. For example if I would have received a nude photo from a 14 year old girl when I was, say, 15 or 16 I would of liked it. Now at 21 I would ignore it simply because I prefer girls closer to my age. The obvious exception are pedophiles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by julius_caesar_the_first

As far as I know girls\women tend too look for boys\men that are older than them. If that is the way your hypothetical 14 year old girl chooses to attract a guy then it's her choice to do so.

---

Women want a man that's a few years older than themselves, with an upper age limit of probably 45. Basically a man in his "prime". Again, men will use tricks to try to look younger and more virile than they are.

I imagine you mean a typical 14 year old girl. Unless she's got her age stamped on her, how do you know her age? You can guess but in some cases you could be a 7 year jail sentence out. Lusting after someone you perceive to be 19 but is 15 for example.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I imagine you mean a typical 14 year old girl. Unless she's got her age stamped on her, how do you know her age? You can guess but in some cases you could be a 7 year jail sentence out. Lusting after someone you perceive to be 19 but is 15 for example.:

---

Yes I meant a typical 14 year old girl. Although I'm 70% right when guessing the age of a girl there is always that 30% when I could be wrong and wind up in jail without any fault of my own, especially if she lied about her age (which happens quite often).

I got to laugh this made it to .Org since I live not to far away from there. Stupid horny kids :rtwno:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by julius_caesar_the_first

Yes I meant a typical 14 year old girl. Although I'm 70% right when guessing the age of a girl there is always that 30% when I could be wrong and wind up in jail without any fault of my own, especially if she lied about her age (which happens quite often).

---

Which is why you won't get punished for anything if you are judged to have taken appropriate measures to make sure she's over 16 here. For example, if you hit on a girl in a bar with an age requirement of 20(which means serving alcohol stronger than beer and wine) who sneaked in using a fake ID, for example, then you won't be facing any charges.

When there are no victims, there is no reason for a punishment. The age of consent-laws are there to protect children from pedophiles and being taken advantage of - it's not there to protect them from sex. If parents feels the need to keep their teenagers away from sex, then they will have to do so themselves.

Found an interesting bit of analysis - and comparision - on the topic here.

Personally, I blame overzealousness mixed with lingering Puritanism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The age of consent-laws are there to protect children from pedophiles and being taken advantage of - it's not there to protect them from sex.

---

If this is true it will be contained in the statute, demonstrate that or you don't have a case. A legal system works by having laws, if you break them you are punished, end of. Currently laws in the US say that naked pictures of girls/women under 18 are illigal and constitute child pornography. They also say that sex under a certain age is rape.

As I said, if you think it's wrong you change the law, you don't flout it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If this is true it will be contained in the statute, demonstrate that or you don't have a case. A legal system works by having laws, if you break them you are punished, end of.

---

Well then good sir, demonstrate where it says "Age of consent" in any book of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Currently laws in the US say that naked pictures of girls/women under 18 are illigal and constitute child pornography. They also say that sex under a certain age is rape.

---

Which is so silly it's honestly beyond words. But do enjoy your nanny state. Because, after all, when the citizens are too dumb to protect themselves, it's nice to have Big Brother protecting you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As I said, if you think it's wrong you change the law, you don't flout it.

---

Incorrect. If you think the law is retarded, I see no problem in breaking said law. However, thinking you won't get punished when caught is also retarded. But that does not mean that you get punished is also not retarded.

But I have a question for you then, Phillipvs:

I had a girlfriend when I was 17. She was 6 months younger than me, so 16 for the first few months of our relationship. We had this "thing", when she was horny and wanted me to come over for some youknowwhat, she would get undressed(with varying degrees of underwear on, or none), take a picture and send it to me on my phone, instead of just asking me to come over. It was a sex-game, and an extremely arousing one too. Made things very intense.

The question is, in your opinion, should I be punished for this? If so, how? Am I a sex offender because I had sex and recieved naughty pics of my girlfriend in my youth? Should she be punished for this? Both her parents and mine knew we had sex, and neither had a problem with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I had a girlfriend when I was 17. She was 6 months younger than me, so 16 for the first few months of our relationship. We had this "thing", when she was horny and wanted me to come over for some youknowwhat, she would get undressed(with varying degrees of underwear on, or none), take a picture and send it to me on my phone, instead of just asking me to come over. It was a sex-game, and an extremely arousing one too. Made things very intense.

The question is, in your opinion, should I be punished for this? If so, how? Am I a sex offender because I had sex and recieved naughty pics of my girlfriend in my youth? Should she be punished for this? Both her parents and mine knew we had sex, and neither had a problem with it.

---

You're normal, you're healthy, so you're horny as hell. That's a felony.

Normal people shouldn't exist on this planet. Their thoughts and emotions must be frustrated, thwarted and debilitated by law, education and religion. They must be made to feel guilty, dirty and despicable like the majority of mankind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well then good sir, demonstrate where it says "Age of consent" in any book of law.

---

Age at which you can consent to sex, so the law is there to stop you having sex.

Quote:

---

Which is so silly it's honestly beyond words. But do enjoy your nanny state. Because, after all, when the citizens are too dumb to protect themselves, it's nice to have Big Brother protecting you.

---

It's the law, it's also pretty well known law these days with all the pedo cases.

Also, stop with the ad hominin attacks, I have not advocated a "Nanny State" merely obedience to the Law as it stands

Quote:

---

Incorrect. If you think the law is retarded, I see no problem in breaking said law. However, thinking you won't get punished when caught is also retarded. But that does not mean that you get punished is also not retarded.

---

How will your Utopia function if no one follows the Law? Will the Police, the State follow the Law when prosecuting?

Quote:

---

But I have a question for you then, Phillipvs:

I had a girlfriend when I was 17. She was 6 months younger than me, so 16 for the first few months of our relationship. We had this "thing", when she was horny and wanted me to come over for some youknowwhat, she would get undressed(with varying degrees of underwear on, or none), take a picture and send it to me on my phone, instead of just asking me to come over. It was a sex-game, and an extremely arousing one too. Made things very intense.

The question is, in your opinion, should I be punished for this? If so, how? Am I a sex offender because I had sex and recieved naughty pics of my girlfriend in my youth? Should she be punished for this? Both her parents and mine knew we had sex, and neither had a problem with it.

---

What Adrian said, perfectly normal and a felony. This also very different because you are quite explicitely in a consenting sexual relationship.

You haven't asked me the most important question though, should it be illegal?

A: Well of course not, if you're old enough to do it I can't see why you aren't old enough to be filmed doing it. The Law is full of such absurdities, particually concerning age, and they should be changed. Until they are, however, the Law should be abided by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The question is, in your opinion, should I be punished for this? If so, how? Am I a sex offender because I had sex and recieved naughty pics of my girlfriend in my youth? Should she be punished for this? Both her parents and mine knew we had sex, and neither had a problem with it.

---

Nope. The first thing that comes to mind is 'cute', Americans (well some) can be sooooooo childish when it comes to sex. My mom bought me condoms when I was 14, but all I could think of when I was 14 was becomming a jedi. They ended in someone's neck they are great water-balloons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Olaf The Great

Anyone have the article of the Teenage girl that was charged with raping herself through masturbation?

---

I've been trying to get that article but nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What a load of :daisy: . Objectify? HAH! It's a little something called "arousing each other", "flirting", "sexual games", etc etc. If you're not into that sort of thing - fine. But don't push those morals on the rest of us.

---

I always think it's preposterously stupid and oppressive to punish people for doing something that may harm them.

Quote:

---

And please, try not to play the "free sex and drugs hippie"-card on me. CR, the one who posted this, is a hardcore conservative, and he's no more fan of this than me*. This is the territory of the parents - NOT the government. The parents are responsible for their children's moral upbringing, not the state. If the parents deem this behaviour worthy of a smack, then they're free to do so, of course. But it's their responsibility, their territory.

*you're free to kill me if I'm wrong on this, CR :whip:

---

Ah, what odd moments that bring our opinions together in perfect harmony.

But to bring us back from the brink of an ice age in Hell...

Quote:

---

Enjoy your morally bankrupt nanny state. I'm pleased to say I do not live in such a society.

---

Liberals and conservatives both have their own flavors of nanny states.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

But to bring us back from the brink of an ice age in Hell...

---

You sure about that, CR? Read on for my reply....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Liberals and conservatives both have their own flavors of nanny states.

---

Indeed we agree on that too!

Somebody toss Satan a winter jacket!