Org Mobile Site
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.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.
Originally Posted by :
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 ?I would question the need to prosecute in this instance.
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
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.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.
Originally Posted by lars573:
I'm be shocked if the rules for a role in the hay and digital boobies weren't different.
hehe...I'm be shocked if the rules for a role in the hay and digital boobies weren't different.
digital boobies...
hehe...
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?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.
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.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.
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...
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...
Originally Posted by :
"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."Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it," said Seranko.
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...
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...
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
No, he was 23 and she was 17 when the pictures were taken.
The law treats these things differently. No, he was 23 and she was 17 when the pictures were taken.
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).
Originally Posted by :
she looks 18 or older, its fine
If she looks like 18 but has 17 or 16, its fine also?she looks 18 or older, its fine
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.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.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
(21 for my girls).
You know, I've been planning this trip to Bergen.... (21 for my girls).
Originally Posted by :
digital boobies...
Do you mean boobies in a digital media format ?digital boobies...
http://www.galapagosonline.com/Galap...s/Boobies.html
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
Do you mean boobies in a digital media format ?
http://www.galapagosonline.com/Galap...s/Boobies.html
Well, done Tribes! Do you mean boobies in a digital media format ?
http://www.galapagosonline.com/Galap...s/Boobies.html
Originally Posted by :
Well, done Tribes!
Silly me Well, done Tribes!
obviously when he said boobie he really meant tits
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientis...tits_unfai.php
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Well, done Tribes!
I know. I love it when people post tits and boobies in the Backroom. Well, done Tribes!
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.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.
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.
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.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 if they were gay girls send msgs to each other? a warning for both?
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 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.
. 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
What a load of . 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.What a load of
. 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.Originally Posted by :
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
Ah, what odd moments that bring our opinions together in perfect harmony.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
But to bring us back from the brink of an ice age in Hell...
Originally Posted by :
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. Enjoy your morally bankrupt nanny state. I'm pleased to say I do not live in such a society.
CR
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?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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.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?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
What a load of . 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.What a load of
. 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.
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.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO