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

[Sigurd]

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).

[Caius]

she looks 18 or older, its fine

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

[HoreTore]

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.

(21 for my girls).

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

[Tribesman]

digital boobies...

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

Well, done Tribes!

[Tribesman]

Well, done Tribes!

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

[Watchman]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Vladimir]

Well, done Tribes!

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

[Husar]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

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?

[HoreTore]

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 . 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

[Peasant Phill]

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.

[Husar]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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.

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

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

[HoreTore]

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

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

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

Indeed we agree on that too!

Somebody toss Satan a winter jacket!

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[julius_caesar_the_first]

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.

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.