Girl Charged With Child Porn

[Keikan]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/gi...ith_child_porn/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/girl_charged_with_child_porn/)


A 15 year-old American girl has been charged with child pornography offences after posting pictures of herself online.

The unnamed teenager is accused of sending photos of herself "in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts" to people she met in online chat rooms, AP reports. Police found dozens of inappropriate photos when they seized the girl's PC.

The teenager has been charged with the possession and distribution of child pornography as well as the sexual abuse of children. ®

[tesco]

that last sentence is kinda dumb...

[Rat Faced]

I can see how the distribution of Child Porn works there, but if they are photo's of herself then surely she cant be charged with (and i dont know how else to put this) abusing herself..

[MagicNakor]

I believe child prostitution falls under the "sexual abuse" section of most laws, and at 15, that's what she is. A child prostitute.

:ninja:

[J'Pol]

Quite right, all child pornographers should be arrested and charged.

Even if it is photos of herself.

[bujub22]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 April 2004 - 22:06
I can see how the distribution of Child Porn works there, but if they are photo's of herself then surely she cant be charged with (and i dont know how else to put this) abusing herself..
really kinda stupid!

it's pictures of herself what wrong with givin out pictures of yourself ,even if there nude there still yours!

and child pornography <_< well no cuz 1 she almost 18 give 3 yrs ,but at her age she had to be tought sex ed in which she either learn sex in school or at home?
which leads to who&#39;s really at blame here? the school for teaching these type of things or home for not know what she was up too&#33;


all i like to say is i like to see the outcome to this ;)

[clocker]

Originally posted by bujub22@20 April 2004 - 14:23

which leads to who&#39;s really at blame here? the school for teaching these type of things or home for not know what she was up too&#33;



Let&#39;s blame Microsoft and her computer manufacturer and whoever taught her to take pictures and her ISP too, while we&#39;re at it.

God forbid this tempest in a teapot should be her fault/responsibility.

[leftism]

Thank God this "child pornographer" <_< is going to jail.

I&#39;m sure the world will be a much safer place now. :rolleyes:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by leftism@21 April 2004 - 00:00
Thank God this "child pornographer" <_< is going to jail.

I&#39;m sure the world will be a much safer place now. :rolleyes:
I had always taken you to be an atheist, or at the very least agnostic.

I&#39;ve said it before, one lives and learns.

On the other hand I had taken you to be one who did not support the supply of lewd photographs of 15 year olds.

I am not sure which revelation shocks me more.

I will have to take that under advisement.

[sArA]

15... hmmm... is anyone surprised? less than a year off the legal age in the UK anyway.

How many people would have had sex at 15 if they could have?

Yes, a little extreme, particularly with the video cam stuff, but I cannot see how anyone can call a 15 year old a child. A teenager, yes, a youth, an adolescent but I think of a child as pre-pubescent.

Sexual maturity and mental maturity are of course not the same, but societies both past and present have perceived one as an indicator of the other, regardless of physical age.

Please don&#39;t get me wrong. I do not think that what she did was acceptable behaviour for a teenager but...as usual, authorities do seem to go over the top with stuff.

I say, take her PC away, ground her until 16 and send for compulsory appropriateness training to learn a few skills in having a little class. :D

[leftism]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol
On the other hand I had taken you to be one who did not support the supply of lewd photographs of 15 year olds.


:rolleyes:

I do not "support the supply of lewd photographs of 15 year old girls".

However I do not support jailing a 15 year old girl for posting pictures of herself on the net, labelling her a "child pornographer" and charging her with "sexual abuse of children".

That is overzealous to the point of ludicrousness.

There are plenty of real peadophiles and child pornographers for the police and courts to allocate their finite resources to.

This girl is not one of them.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by leftism@21 April 2004 - 00:43

I do not "support the supply of lewd photographs of 15 year old girls".


Yes you did.

You implied that for someone to post these photographs was acceptable, as long as the poster was also the subject.

[bujub22]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+20 April 2004 - 20:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 20 April 2004 - 20:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leftism@21 April 2004 - 00:43

I do not "support the supply of lewd photographs of 15 year old girls".


Yes you did.

You implied that for someone to post these photographs was acceptable, as long as the poster was also the subject. [/b][/quote]
nah&#33; ....that aint right :angry:

[leftism]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by leftism@

I do not "support the supply of lewd photographs of 15 year old girls".

Yes you did.

You implied that for someone to post these photographs was acceptable, as long as the poster was also the subject. [/b]

No I did not.

I said that she should not be jailed for what she has done and should not be facing such serious charges or be labelled a "child pornographer".

Thats quite different from "implying" that what this girl did is "acceptable".

e.g. I don&#39;t think people should be jailed for sticking chewing gum on seats but it doesn&#39;t automatically follow that I find such behaviour acceptable.

As Sara said...

<!--QuoteBegin-Sara
Please don&#39;t get me wrong. I do not think that what she did was acceptable behaviour for a teenager but...as usual, authorities do seem to go over the top with stuff[/quote]

Most people in this thread seem to think this is OTT. Do you think they all "support the supply of lewd photographs of 15 year old girls" as well?

[downloader2008]

I think the people who were "involved" with her should get in just as much if not more trouble than her... they knew what they were doing, and I think they should be punished... I think there should be more police catching sickos online...

[vidcc]

15 year olds today have the luxury of access to the internet which brings as many dangers as it does benefits. 15 year olds seem to be more worldly wise these days as well, even if the "wiseness" is often taken over by juvenile stupidity.
I am probably the biggest anti child porn and anti peadophile person one could meet...i would if allowed burn off the genitals of peadophiles with a blow lamp, they are evil people that need to be removed from society ( i am not advocating violence or vigilante actions...just dreaming)
Having stated my stance on this i have to say that this to me is more a case of juvenile stupidity than her being a child pornographer.
She does need to be taught a lesson.....how that lesson should be learnt is the question and i hope if it does end up in court that the judge is a good one.

all this aside what i would like to know is how this 15 year old managed to do this in the first place? I am not a great one for "blame the parents" every time a child does something wrong but to not control internet usage of one so young is irresponsible at the very least. My son is 16 and he isn&#39;t allowed unmonitored access ( my router has the option of mailing the log to me ) I allow him some slack but he doesn&#39;t get to use the net with his door closed.

[Alex H]

Wow, horny teenager, theres a shock.

Personally I don&#39;t think you can say "You&#39;re now 18 (or 16), you are now an adult and can go out and have sex", or "You&#39;re 17 (or 15), you&#39;re only a child and you&#39;re not allowed to have sex".

Having sex, or just doing sexual things is part of what makes you an adult. You don&#39;t just turn 18 and are suddenly capable of being the "consenting" adult, out to face the world on you&#39;re own.

I think the police will drop the charges out of embarresment. What&#39;s going to happen if she asks for a trial by jury for those charges?

Prosecutor: And then what did you do?

Girl: Well, I came home from school, turned on my computer and webcam and started masturbating.

The jusry would aquit her out of sympathy. The prosecutor and DA would look terrible for making her go through that, and I think the general public would realise she exercised poor judgement but doesn&#39;t deserve to be dragged through the courts for it.


Downloader2008 - There were a lot of posts a while ago on child pornography and what you can do about giving shit to people who trade in it. You can log their IP addresses and send them to anti child porn organisations and they will crack down on them. Ask a mod to dig the threads out if you can&#39;t find them.

But do we realy need more police out there? If we all do a little bit, we can crack down on child porn ourselves.

[chalice]

Nope.

Zero Tolerance is Zero Tolerance.

Most things I can be malleable on but fuck that.

I&#39;d be intersted to know of her upbringing.

[kAb]

Now this is just ridiculous.
I can see if she was doing it with other people, but if this was entirely of her doing, then what is the problem? Protection? Fine, put her through a program so she sees what happens to people like her, but charging her, what a waste of time & money. Go after the REAL child pornographers instead.

[Wolfmight]

in the medevil days, children would marry and have sex at as low as age 13. Yes, this is a true fact.

[Arm]

Originally posted by leftism@20 April 2004 - 18:00
Thank God this "child pornographer" <_< is going to jail.

I&#39;m sure the world will be a much safer place now.&nbsp; :rolleyes:
:angry: You just broke my sarcasm meter. It was off the scale. Now Arm shall break yours. ;)

So, ah the jury aquitted her outta sympathy. :blink: Why not just aquitt R. Kelly and Michelle Jackson(or Michael. Looks like Michelle to me) because they are all a bunch of child raping fuckers who all need to be castrated and thrown into a big tank of acid.

:ninja: Just like the song I am listening to
PAYBACKS A BITCH MOFHERTUCKER

<_< Ok I fucked that up. :frusty:

[leftism]

Originally posted by Arm+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Arm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
<!--QuoteBegin-leftism

Thank God this "child pornographer" <_< is going to jail.

I&#39;m sure the world will be a much safer place now. :rolleyes:


You just broke my sarcasm meter. It was off the scale. Now Arm shall break yours.

So, ah the jury aquitted her outta sympathy. Why not just aquitt R. Kelly and Michelle Jackson(or Michael. Looks like Michelle to me) because they are all a bunch of child raping fuckers who all need to be castrated and thrown into a big tank of acid.

Just like the song I am listening to
PAYBACKS A BITCH MOFHERTUCKER
[/b][/quote]

What&#39;s the connection between "child raping fuckers" and this 15 year old girl?

PS Jacko hasn&#39;t been found guilty yet.

[Keikan]

Originally posted by vidcc@20 April 2004 - 18:22
15 year olds today have the luxury of access to the internet which brings as many dangers as it does benefits. 15 year olds seem to be more worldly wise these days as well, even if the "wiseness" is often taken over by juvenile stupidity.
I am probably the biggest anti child porn and anti peadophile person one could meet...i would if allowed burn off the genitals of peadophiles with a blow lamp, they are evil people that need to be removed from society ( i am not advocating violence or vigilante actions...just dreaming)
Having stated my stance on this i have to say that this to me is more a case of juvenile stupidity than her being a child pornographer.
She does need to be taught a lesson.....how that lesson should be learnt is the question and i hope if it does end up in court that the judge is a good one.

all this aside what i would like to know is how this 15 year old managed to do this in the first place? I am not a great one for "blame the parents" every time a child does something wrong but to not control internet usage of one so young is irresponsible at the very least. My son is 16 and he isn&#39;t allowed unmonitored access ( my router has the option of mailing the log to me ) I allow him some slack but he doesn&#39;t get to use the net with his door closed.
Ya but what are you worried about him accessing? Porn? He&#39;s 16 come on.

[Alex H]

Does anyone believe this is charge is worth pursuing?

[Arm]

Originally posted by leftism@20 April 2004 - 22:35
What&#39;s the connection between "child raping fuckers" and this 15 year old girl?

PS Jacko hasn&#39;t been found guilty yet.
:frusty: I fucked it up and couldnt come up with anything better. And there is no connection so trying a 15 year old girl with child pornography because of a self-made tape makes no sense either. :blink:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Keikan@20 April 2004 - 20:05
Ya but what are you worried about him accessing? Porn? He&#39;s 16 come on.
Hmm...are you a parent?

So what exactly is this thread about?...a girl of 15 posting pornographic pictures of herself on the net.....do you think this would happen if her parents did as i do?
I have kept a check on him always, i like to think i am a good parent. I don&#39;t particularly want him to look at porn, but it&#39;s only natural for a young man to be curious, he knows all about sex and has a healthy like of girls...he also has a healthy respect of them because i tried to raise him to be a gentleman and respectful. When he is an adult and has his own place he can do whatever he wants..until then he abides by my rules. I am not a tyrant, i do negotiate on most things and treat him with the same respect i like him to give me, but sometimes being a good parent is not about being too easy going.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Alex H@20 April 2004 - 20:12
Does anyone believe this is charge is worth pursuing?
yes ....she and all other underage persons need to realise that this thing isn&#39;t acceptable and if she gets away scot free it not only sends out the wrong message to other teenagers but it also has a dangerous knock on effect of youngsters being coersed into doing this sort of thing by unscrupulous peadophiles online and keeping it "their little secret". 15 year old girls like older boys, they have cars and a bit of money...15 year olds are also easier to coerse into doing things like this

And no...this is more a case of juvenile stupidity so to pursue it as if she was a child pornographer is overzealous to say the least...but she does need to realise this is totally unacceptable

[masta.z]

Originally posted by vidcc+21 April 2004 - 02:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 21 April 2004 - 02:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@20 April 2004 - 20:12
Does anyone believe this is charge is worth pursuing?
yes ....she and all other underage persons need to realise that this thing isn&#39;t acceptable and if she gets away scot free it not only sends out the wrong message to other teenagers but it also has a dangerous knock on effect of youngsters being coersed into doing this sort of thing by unscrupulous peadophiles online and keeping it "their little secret". 15 year old girls like older boys, they have cars and a bit of money...15 year olds are also easier to coerse into doing things like this

And no...this is more a case of juvenile stupidity so to pursue it as if she was a child pornographer is overzealous to say the least...but she does need to realise this is totally unacceptable [/b][/quote]
when she&#39;s 16 (in britain) she can have sex, she can videotape herself and her bf having sex and they can watch it all they want... but sending it to other people over the internet and it suddenly becomes illegal? somehow that doesn&#39;t make sense to me. If it&#39;s of herself then it&#39;s harming nobody atall, so why should she be punished?



p.s. jackson is innocent ;)

Peace, Masta.z&#33; :music1:

[ricky123]

:huh: so what happened to the girl afterall , ;)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by masta.z@21 April 2004 - 06:52
when she&#39;s 16 (in britain) she can have sex, she can videotape herself and her bf having sex and they can watch it all they want... but sending it to other people over the internet and it suddenly becomes illegal? somehow that doesn&#39;t make sense to me. If it&#39;s of herself then it&#39;s harming nobody atall, so why should she be punished?



p.s. jackson is innocent ;)

Peace, Masta.z&#33; :music1:
as far as i&#39;m aware the age of majority is 18 in the uk...yes you can have sex at 16 but you can&#39;t see an X rated movie, you can&#39;t buy alcohol and you can&#39;t vote....and as far as i&#39;m aware you can&#39;t post pictures of yourself of a certain pornographic standard at any age in the UK without breaking obscenity laws.

lets be absolutely clear here...being 15 is not 16 and certainly is not 18 as someone posted.....there is a definate line. A goal is not awarded if you hit the post in a game of football because it&#39;s "close enough".
Nearly all teenagers think they know more about life than the older generations and think they are grown up, i certainly did. I know now that i was wrong to think that.

[dwightfry]

Originally posted by chalice@20 April 2004 - 19:46
Nope.

Zero Tolerance is Zero Tolerance.

Most things I can be malleable on but fuck that.

I&#39;d be intersted to know of her upbringing.
Zero tolerance is bull shit&#33; Everything isn&#39;t black and white...there are gray areas. Zero tolerance ignores the original intent of the law. Fuck Zero Tolerance in ANY situation.

[chalice]

Originally posted by dwightfry+21 April 2004 - 17:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dwightfry @ 21 April 2004 - 17:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice@20 April 2004 - 19:46
Nope.

Zero Tolerance is Zero Tolerance.

Most things I can be malleable on but fuck that.

I&#39;d be intersted to know of her upbringing.
Zero tolerance is bull shit&#33; Everything isn&#39;t black and white...there are gray areas. Zero tolerance ignores the original intent of the law. Fuck Zero Tolerance in ANY situation. [/b][/quote]
There is no grey area here. There were paedophilic photographs circulating on the net. The person who circulated them has been caught. The law has been upheld.

So paedophilia, in some cases, is acceptable? Physical abuse of children, in some cases, is acceptable?Wife-beating, in some cases, is acceptable?

Fuck that. I won&#39;t tolerate it. Good luck to you if you can.

[j2k4]

Chalice-

You make a good point; all cases such as result in the "culprit" being apprehended should be adjudicated-the punishment/treatment can and should fit the circumstances, though, as I think Renfield is trying to get across.

This is obviously not a run-of-the-mill incident, but whatever the outcome, there ought to be a punitive as well as a therapeutic aspect to the ultimate disposition of this case. ;)

[leftism]

Originally posted by chalice
There is no grey area here. There were paedophilic photographs circulating on the net. The person who circulated them has been caught. The law has been upheld.

So as far as you&#39;re concerned there is no difference between someone who posts pictures of a 7 year old being raped and this 15 year old girl?

Common sense dictates that the punishment should fit the crime. Treating this girl as if she is a hardcore paedophile is not common sense. Why? Because she&#39;s clearly not a hardcore paedophile, just a silly teenage girl.

Think about it for a moment.

In a few years time she&#39;s going to start looking for a job, and as far as a future employer is concerned she&#39;s a peadophile and a danger to children&#33;

Considering the crime, that punishment is completely ridiculous.

[j4y3m]

Being charged as a peadophile/child pornographer could ruin her life and maybe even drive her into doing stuff like this again for money, okay she&#39;s done something wrong but she didn&#39;t do it to anybody else. I think she should be charged with something but not a child pornographer. :blink:

[chalice]

Originally posted by leftism+21 April 2004 - 18:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 21 April 2004 - 18:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice
There is no grey area here. There were paedophilic photographs circulating on the net. The person who circulated them has been caught. The law has been upheld.

So as far as you&#39;re concerned there is no difference between someone who posts pictures of a 7 year old being raped and this 15 year old girl?

Common sense dictates that the punishment should fit the crime. Treating this girl as if she is a hardcore paedophile is not common sense. Why? Because she&#39;s clearly not a hardcore paedophile, just a silly teenage girl.

Think about it for a moment.

In a few years time she&#39;s going to start looking for a job, and as far as a future employer is concerned she&#39;s a peadophile and a danger to children&#33;

Considering the crime, that punishment is completely ridiculous. [/b][/quote]
Leftism,

When has the punishment ever fitted the crime with regards to child abuse? She has been charged not convicted. I&#39;m willing to bet she hasn&#39;t been remanded.

This case must be investigated. What possesses a child to behave this way? We do not know if she was coerced. Perhaps she was encouraged by a true paedophile (by your definition of the word).

I do think she should have been charged. Whether or not she will be jailed is a matter for the judge. Laughable sentences are regularly handed down to child abusers anyway so I can&#39;t see her doing much porridge.

There is a vast difference between this girl and active paedophiles but the sentence (if the charge is proven) will reflect that.

As for ruining her future, I &#39;m sad for her but its of her own doing (maybe).

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by masta.z@21 April 2004 - 14:52

when she&#39;s 16 (in britain) she can have sex, she can videotape herself and her bf having sex and they can watch it all they want... but sending it to other people over the internet and it suddenly becomes illegal? somehow that doesn&#39;t make sense to me. If it&#39;s of herself then it&#39;s harming nobody atall, so why should she be punished?


They can have sex and they can video tape it.

Legally they cant watch it, as its porn, and you need to be 18 to watch porn.


I think there was actually a case of the 17 year old Star of an X Rated movie (shows how long ago it was) being refused permission to go to the Premier of her own movie by the courts, depite the fact it was X rated because of the Love scene she starred in.... (Off Thread: In my opinion it shouldnt even have been an X Rated, you didnt "see" anything, but things were stricter here then)


If im correct, then in many States this young lady can marry and have children. To give her a Criminal Record as a "Sex Offender" for this is ludicrous.

If someone else had taken the photographs, then the book should be thrown at them.

If there are adults that watched her cam, then the book should be thrown at them.

She just needs a clip around the ear by her parents and the PC taken off her.

[jetje]

Next post isn´t ment as controversial, to make it clear i´m totally against childpronography and sexual abuse in any way.
----------------------------On this topic-----------------------------------------------------

This is just stupid. It&#39;s a clear case to me where fear of... has become a bigger danger then the real aspect of a deed.

It&#39;s quite simple society changes and techniques are there for everyone to make photo&#39;s and print that, or publish it on the net. This child used the easy acces of these techniques to do something that probably isn&#39;t wise and for sure wasn&#39;t thought over well... someone should have a good nice decent educating talk with her and then let it all go... why? Cause it&#39;s a child that just did something daring she&#39;s probably discovering herself and all the exciting of sex.. That&#39;s called puberty... Everyone that grows up is in a discovering fase and probably sometimes does things that are not really wise and even later may regret.

Let me make it clear that everyone that abuses people for sex are wrong, especially when it´s kids. If they get caught they should get trialled.

But if simple nude pictures of a child are chilpornography i know a lot of mums that could be arrested for having that. There are millions of moms all over the world that have pics of their nude babys and their children taking a bath or playing in a pool in the garden... ;) including my own dear mom...
Also wondering if a tape or webcamsex of a fifteen your old intended to be seen by another 15 year old is childpornograpghy... Or when two fifteen year olds undress themselves in front of eachother and have sex, do they have sex with a minor then...
btw, i´m guilty as charged for the last part... luckily for me it´s been more then 25 years ago so the moralty knights can´t prosecute me anymore...

What worries me is the obsession of some when it comes to childpornography, i´m online a lot, i surf the net for the past few years, i´m participate filesharing for a few years now. And i never have encountered childpornography, why, cause i ain´t searching for that. I won´t deny it´s probably out there but you also can find plans for making bombs. I also know that there are some peope that get of on childpornography, with wich i totally disagree... but reading a topic like this i´m asking myself who would be watching if they had a webadres of a beautifull 16 year old playing with herself on a webcam... alot that complain would be thrilled to see it... They probably don´t realise they´re watching childpornography.
Btw i wouldn´t, in the first place probably cause i ain´t lookin for that sort of webentertainment so i only would know it´s there if i read about a innocent stupid girl that get´s prosecuted in a post on a forum like this ;)

I guess that all the media attention on these issues have done wrong, more people are getting curious in finding this stuff and watch it before they report it....
as i started my post: This is just stupid. It&#39;s a clear case to me where fear of... has become a bigger danger then the real aspect of a deed.

[leftism]

Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This case must be investigated. What possesses a child to behave this way? We do not know if she was coerced. Perhaps she was encouraged by a true paedophile (by your definition of the word).

I do think she should have been charged. Whether or not she will be jailed is a matter for the judge.[/b]

Of course it should be investigated., but the charges she is facing are ridiculous. I don&#39;t understand how any rational person can believe they are appropriate in this case.

Is she really a child pornographer? (In the moral sense not the technical sense) Is she really a child abuser? Of course not.

At most she should be charged with indecency.


Originally posted by chalice@

There is a vast difference between this girl and active paedophiles but the sentence (if the charge is proven) will reflect that.

I thought you said there was no grey area?

If you add up the minimum sentence for each charge, she&#39;s looking at a loong time in jail. The judge isn&#39;t going to have much leeway. If she is found guilty she&#39;s not going to get a sentence that will reflect the crime.

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
As for ruining her future, I &#39;m sad for her but its of her own doing (maybe).[/quote]

A ruined life for a mistake you made when you were 15 and didn&#39;t even hurt anybody?

That&#39;s not justice.

[chalice]

Originally posted by leftism+21 April 2004 - 20:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 21 April 2004 - 20:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>This case must be investigated. What possesses a child to behave this way? We do not know if she was coerced. Perhaps she was encouraged by a true paedophile (by your definition of the word).

I do think she should have been charged. Whether or not she will be jailed is a matter for the judge.[/b]

Of course it should be investigated., but the charges she is facing are ridiculous. I don&#39;t understand how any rational person can believe they are appropriate in this case.

Is she really a child pornographer? (In the moral sense not the technical sense) Is she really a child abuser? Of course not.

At most she should be charged with indecency.

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice@

There is a vast difference between this girl and active paedophiles but the sentence (if the charge is proven) will reflect that.

I thought you said there was no grey area?

If you add up the minimum sentence for each charge, she&#39;s looking at a loong time in jail. The judge isn&#39;t going to have much leeway. If she is found guilty she&#39;s not going to get a sentence that will reflect the crime.

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
As for ruining her future, I &#39;m sad for her but its of her own doing (maybe).[/quote]

A ruined life for a mistake you made when you were 15 and didn&#39;t even hurt anybody?

That&#39;s not justice. [/b][/quote]
I can&#39;t agree. Reportedly, there were dozens of images. If it was a silly mistake by a fifteen year old, it was an ongoing one.

Should children then have free rein? Does her immaturity absolve her even if she is a conscious, sexual being?

I think the charges should stick. I do not, however, think she should be tried as an adult. What other option do the police have? She is clearly a child pornographer in the strict sense of the word. She is clearly not a paedophile. However, who did she distribute these images to? Was it other children? If so she is abusing children. Was it to adults? If so, they are also abusing children and she is assisting them. She is also clearly not an adult. So she should be tried according to legislation provided for minors.

If she doesn&#39;t reoffend with in five years (with a juvenile record, I believe) her record will be scrubbed.

[leftism]

In that case we will have to agree to disagree chalice.

My main point is that she is not a child pornographer or a child abuser so she shouldn&#39;t be treat like one.

No-one is saying that her age absolves her of responsibility. No one is saying that children should be given free reign.

The issue is whether the charges she is facing are appropriate. Imo, for the reasons I mentioned above, they are not.

edit:


Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>What other option do the police have?[/b]

The police could have charged her with indecency/obscenity.

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
She is clearly a child pornographer in the strict sense of the word[/quote]

She is not a child pornographer in the moral sense of the word.

[Rat Faced]

Your record for "Sex Offences" and other serious offences are not "scrubbed".. thats an urban myth.

Once on the Sex Offenders list, you are there for life.

[chalice]

Originally posted by leftism+21 April 2004 - 21:16--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 21 April 2004 - 21:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> In that case we will have to agree to disagree chalice.

My main point is that she is not a child pornographer or a child abuser so she shouldn&#39;t be treat like one.

No-one is saying that her age absolves her of responsibility. No one is saying that children should be given free reign.

The issue is whether the charges she is facing are appropriate. Imo, for the reasons I mentioned above, they are not.

edit:


Originally posted by chalice@
What other option do the police have?

The police could have charged her with indecency/obscenity.

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
She is clearly a child pornographer in the strict sense of the word

She is not a child pornographer in the moral sense of the word. [/b][/quote]
Sorry, Leftism, I added a rather late edit.

See my last for why I don&#39;t think this is a victimless crime.

If we have to agree to disagree then fair enough. :)

[chalice]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@21 April 2004 - 21:22
Your record for "Sex Offences" and other serious offences are not "scrubbed".. thats an urban myth.

Once on the Sex Offenders list, you are there for life.
My bad. This is an unfortunate side-effect but it can&#39;t be allowed to interfere with the process of law.

RF, does this apply to minors? I honestly don&#39;t know.

[Rat Faced]

Im sure it does.

Its described as a "Scarlet Letter for Life"... The Judge may be able to order something though, maybe we should ask the American contingent?



However, remember this is the USA with the Plea Bargain system.

It may well be that those charges are dropped and a Guilty Plea to something equaly stupid is put in.

[leftism]

Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Sorry, Leftism, I added a rather late edit.[/b]

np :)

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice
See my last for why I don&#39;t think this is a victimless crime.[/quote]

I have to admit I found that a bit confusing. If she sent the images to one of her classmates, then she is sexually abusing them and if she sent the images to an adult of her own free will (i.e. no coercion) then that adult is sexually abusing her with her assistance?

If a 15 year old chick had sent me naughty photos of herself when I was a 15 year old kid in school I don&#39;t think I would have felt too traumatised&#33; :lol:

Seriously though.. calling this child abuse is almost insulting people who have suffered real abuse.

However, I fear we&#39;ll just have to disagree on this one :)

[chalice]

Originally posted by leftism@21 April 2004 - 21:36
If she sent the images to one of her classmates, then she is sexually abusing them and if she sent the images to an adult of her own free will (i.e. no coercion) then that adult is sexually abusing her with her assistance?

If a 15 year old chick had sent me naughty photos of herself when I was a 15 year old kid in school I don&#39;t think I would have felt too traumatised&#33; :lol:

Seriously though.. calling this child abuse is almost insulting people who have suffered real abuse.

My point is that we aren&#39;t completely aware of the level of child abuse going on there.

Apparently she was distributing her photos to people she met on the net. Children of any age could have viewed it. It didn&#39;t necessarily have to be one of her classmates. An adult viewing any paedophilic image (with the occasional exception of the police and the legal system) is an abuse of children. No two ways about it.

Not to call it child abuse, imo, is certainly an insult to people who have been victim to it.

And if a fifteen year old girl had started sending me naked photos of her self when I was fifteen, after I fainted I&#39;d start thinking that maybe she needs her head looking at.
:lol:

[leftism]

Originally posted by chalice

And if a fifteen year old girl had started sending me naked photos of her self when I was fifteen, after I fainted I&#39;d start thinking that maybe she needs her head looking at.
:lol:


My point exactly&#33; You wouldn&#39;t have been a victim of child abuse would you? :)

Imho calling this child abuse definitely trivialises an issue that is infinitely more serious than this specific incident.

[chalice]

Originally posted by leftism+21 April 2004 - 22:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 21 April 2004 - 22:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice

And if a fifteen year old girl had started sending me naked photos of her self when I was fifteen, after I fainted I&#39;d start thinking that maybe she needs her head looking at.
:lol:


My point exactly&#33; You wouldn&#39;t have been a victim of child abuse would you? :)

Imho calling this child abuse definitely trivialises an issue that is infinitely more serious than this specific incident. [/b][/quote]
Thankfully not. But I do have great sympathy for those that suffer it.

It just seems to me that child abuse is on the increase. We owe a lot of it to the proliferation the net has permitted.

I believe no instance of this crime can be trivialized and I find it quite insulting that you think I&#39;m treating the matter lightly.

You&#39;ve hurt my feelings now, Leftism. I&#39;m off for a cry.

[masta.z]

Originally posted by chalice@21 April 2004 - 15:34

What possesses a child to behave this way?
proof that you don&#39;t know many girls of 15, 16 or 17... i do, and i know for certain that more than one of them has done or still does this sort of thing from time to time



as far as i&#39;m aware the age of majority is 18 in the uk...yes you can have sex at 16 but you can&#39;t see an X rated movie, you can&#39;t buy alcohol and you can&#39;t vote....and as far as i&#39;m aware you can&#39;t post pictures of yourself of a certain pornographic standard at any age in the UK without breaking obscenity laws

yes the age of majority is 18 but their still allowed to watch themselves... (i personally disagree with 18 b4 they can view x-rated films)


Legally they cant watch it, as its porn, and you need to be 18 to watch porn

see above


oh and i agree 100% with jetje&#39;s post... every one of the million things he said :blink:

[leftism]

Originally posted by chalice+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It just seems to me that child abuse is on the increase. We owe a lot of it to the proliferation the net has permitted.[/b]

Absolutely. But charging this girl with child abuse will not make any difference to that because its a completely separate issue. I think its safe to say that the majority of child porn isn&#39;t of this nature.

<!--QuoteBegin-chalice

I believe no instance of this crime can be trivialized and I find it quite insulting that you think I&#39;m treating the matter lightly.

You&#39;ve hurt my feelings now, Leftism. I&#39;m off for a cry.
[/quote]

Sorry about that dude :D, but saying this is a case of child abuse does trivialise the issue. This incident is not child abuse, it&#39;s far less serious than that. Most people in this thread seem to agree with that.

[chalice]

Originally posted by masta.z+21 April 2004 - 22:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (masta.z &#064; 21 April 2004 - 22:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice@21 April 2004 - 15:34

What possesses a child to behave this way?
proof that you don&#39;t know many girls of 15, 16 or 17... i do, and i know for certain that more than one of them has done or still does this sort of thing from time to time [/b][/quote]
I knew plenty of 15 year old girls when I was 15. Have they changed much in 15 years?

[leftism]

I knew plently of 15 year old girls when I was 15. Have they changed much in 15 years?

Probably not but access to the net was nowhere near as widespread as it is now.

When I was at school (10 years ago) a small proportion of the girls (10% ish) were sleeping with 18+ year old guys. Not a particularly pleasant thought :( but thats the reality of the situation.

I doubt it&#39;s improved much over the last decade.

[masta.z]

Originally posted by chalice+21 April 2004 - 18:38--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 21 April 2004 - 18:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by masta.z@21 April 2004 - 22:30
<!--QuoteBegin-chalice@21 April 2004 - 15:34

What possesses a child to behave this way?
proof that you don&#39;t know many girls of 15, 16 or 17... i do, and i know for certain that more than one of them has done or still does this sort of thing from time to time
I knew plenty of 15 year old girls when I was 15. Have they changed much in 15 years? [/b][/quote]
unless i only know the wrong ones then yeah they must have

[Arm]

Originally posted by dwightfry@21 April 2004 - 12:12
Zero tolerance is bull shit&#33; Everything isn&#39;t black and white...there are gray areas. Zero tolerance ignores the original intent of the law. Fuck Zero Tolerance in ANY situation.
:beerchug: Hell yeah about time people agreed with me. :) Actually nothing is black and white to me.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by chalice
As for ruining her future, I &#39;m sad for her but its of her own doing (maybe). So when are you legally accountable for your actions? 18? 16? 15?

Her actions seem to be less like a school teacher raping a student in the toilet block and more like a drunk walking around with no pants.

Public indecency would be a better option, so she does get a slap on the wrist and gets to grow up with out having PAEDOPHILE flash up on a computer screen every time she goes for a job.

Child abuse? Isn&#39;t that something that someone else does to you?

[dwightfry]

Child Pornography laws were not put in place with the intent to prosecute 15 yr old girls exploring there sexuality via 21st century tools.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by dwightfry@22 April 2004 - 06:59
Child Pornography laws were not put in place with the intent to prosecute 15 yr old girls exploring there sexuality via 21st century tools.
Well-put, Renfield, and this is where the tailoring of the penalty to suit the offense can take place; as I said before, I believe there ought to be a punitive aspect, but, as has been mentioned here by others, her record ought to be completely expunged when she becomes an adult, provided she successfully completes whatever probation/penalty/treatment is prescribed by the authorities.

In other words, she need not be permanently stained nor stigmatized by this juvenile offense, and I believe the operant mechanisms are already in place, or at least they were not too long ago.

Hopefully that has not changed. ;)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@21 April 2004 - 19:46


She just needs a clip around the ear by her parents and the PC taken off her.
I would tend to agree Rat Face.

If the length and breadth of this case is that she was "enjoying" others seeing her then it would seem more likely that if she has a kink then it is exhibitionism. This (I read somewhere :unsure: ) is a popular female fantasy. The fact that she was only 15 is, I suspect, coincidental. The attempt to somehow tar her otherwise says more about our moral panic on this topic than her sexuality.

It may be some of her "chums" on the net were heavily breathing 40 year old men and not "really cool" 16 year old boys. However, this is not her fault.

File under "Waste of time and resources" ......again :frusty:

[J'Pol]

If a 40 year old man said to her.

I will speak to you and treat you like an adult if you publish pictures of yourself on the internet.

You do not have to do this it is entirely up to you, there is no pressure your choice entirely. I will not post the photographs, it is you who will do it if you wish to and only then.

If she then went ahead and did it.

Which of them would be commiting an offence.

[J'Pol]

If a 14 year old b oy posts pictures of his 15 year old girlfriend, which one of them is committing an offence.

Or a 15 year old girl posting pictures of her friend.

[j2k4]

J&#39;Pol-

It pains me greatly to say:

It would be up to the court(s) to decide. :huh:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4@22 April 2004 - 22:44
J&#39;Pol-

It pains me greatly to say:

It would be up to the court(s) to decide. :huh:
That my friend is the point.

The Police find images of a 15 year old girl on the interweb. They identify this as an offence. I would be seriously angered if they did not.

They investigate the situation, to try to establish who posted these images.

When they identify who posted the images they take the appropriate action. It is not for them to make judgment. Only to investigate and report, to the relevant body. They do not have the authority to say "oh it&#39;s OK it was the girl herself, so we don&#39;t have to go any further". Thank feck Policemen don&#39;t make that kind of decision. So they report the facts to the prosecuting body ....

It is a matter for the prosecutor to decide what action to take with regard to any prosecution. If they decide to proceed, then ...

It is a matter for the jury to decide on guilt or innocence. If they return a guilty verdict then ....

It is a matter for the Judge to decide on sentencing. The Judge will take into account a variety of factors. Including but not limited to, the age of the offender, their socio-economic background, the likely result of incarceration, their danger to society .... etc.

The Judge will then decide the most appropriate action to take.

People here seem to have decided that for the Police to charge is wrong. Regardless of the fact that they may have had no option to do so. They seem also to have decided that The Police charging someone with an offence is the end of proceedings. Rather than the beginning.

For me - every time the Police find Lewd images of a child on the interweb they should investigate it. Vigilantes presuming innocence is no different from vigilantes presuming guilt.

[leftism]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>t is a matter for the Judge to decide on sentencing. The Judge will take into account a variety of factors. Including but not limited to, the age of the offender, their socio-economic background, the likely result of incarceration, their danger to society .... etc.[/b]

Due to minimum sentencing requirements the judge will not have a free hand. Considering the seriousness of the charges there is no way this girl will receive a fitting punishment for her crime.

<!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol
People here seem to have decided that for the Police to charge is wrong.[/quote]

No they have not. For the vast majority of people who have posted in this thread the issue isn&#39;t whether she should be charged, it&#39;s what she should be charged with.

Due to the fact that this girl is obviously not a paedophile or a child pornographer most people feel a lesser charge such as indecency or obscenity would be more appropriate.

I genuinely don&#39;t understand why anyone would find this viewpoint unreasonable.

[sArA]

Originally posted by leftism@22 April 2004 - 23:23
the issue isn&#39;t whether she should be charged, it&#39;s what she should be charged with.

Due to the fact that this girl is obviously not a paedophile or a child pornographer most people feel a lesser charge such as indecency or obscenity would be more appropriate.

I genuinely don&#39;t understand why anyone would find this viewpoint unreasonable.
With you here lefty,


Oh and just wanna mention that being unreasonable on this forum is, I feel, one method by which debate is stimulated. ;)

Don&#39;t you just love it?

It&#39;s why I come back...

again...and
again...and
again...and
again...and
again...



























and again&#33; :D :D :lol: :lol: :D :D

[Biggles]

J&#39;Pol

I agree with your view of due process.

I think in practice though the Police do exercise a little discretion, although in this instance they may have felt the stakes were too high.

I have no idea whether the decision to prosecute has been taken (come to think of it, I have no idea where this occured - in some countries she may already be facing dire consequences). Assuming it was the UK, a decision would be taken as to whether a prosecution is in the public interest. I think the gist of most peoples&#39; views is that a formal prosecution in this case is not the way ahead. However, it was right that the matter was investigated (she could have been in the clutches of some porn baron or subject to some ghastly abuse).

The idea that she will be charged with child abuse of herself is perhaps more the invention of the press that released the story than any intention a public prosecutor may have. That would be akin to being charged with stealing ones own car (when driving it dangerously was in fact the appropriate charge).

Blurring the lines of what is and is not child abuse serves no one other than those who would like to see such definitions blurred. As I noted, and I believe Leftism and Sara suggested, indecent behaviour and exhibitionism are her crimes not molestation of the young. To charge her with a crime one associates with Myra Hindley rather than the activities of say Jordan or a dozen other exhibitionist role models seems cruel and bizarre. The destruction of a life before it has begun. (This, as I said before, is on the basis that what we have seen is the full extent of the case as it stands)

However, in the interests of unanimity and justice - I raise Rat Face&#39;s original sentence to a clip round both ears, no pc till she&#39;s 18 and doing the dishes for 3 years.

[Chevy]

Noticed a few "ifs" in this thead so here&#39;s another report:


A 15 year-old American girl has been charged with child pornography offences after posting pictures of herself online.

The unnamed teenager is accused of sending photos of herself "in various states of undress and performing a variety of sexual acts" to people she met in online chat rooms, AP reports. Police found dozens of inappropriate photos when they seized the girl&#39;s PC.

The teenager has been charged with the possession and distribution of child pornography as well as the sexual abuse of children. ®

source (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/girl_charged_with_child_porn/)

I agree with what J&#39;Pol said in that any issue related to child pornography should go through the processes regardless. The worry is minimum sentancing and flexability for certain charges are made once it hits the courts (as morally I agree, it is indecency in actuality rather than abuse). As it&#39;s a US thing, anyone know how the system would deal with it over there?


..

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by leftism@23 April 2004 - 00:23

Due to the fact that this girl is obviously not a paedophile or a child pornographer
She is alleged to have posted images of a minor performing various sexual acts on the internet.

On what basis are you judging that she is not a child pornographer.

My point remains that it is for the judge and jury to decide on what she is. That should be based on the law and the evidence presented.

It should not be for individuals to decide, based on their reading of reports and their "common sense" perception of what is right and what is wrong.

[dwightfry]

On what basis are you judging that she is not a child pornographer

On the EXACT same basis that if she were to have sex with her boyfriend (of the same age), he wouldn&#39;t be charged with sexual misconduct with a minor.

[MagicNakor]

But if she were having sex with her 40 year-old "boyfriend," he&#39;d be charged with statuatory rape. amoung other things.

:ninja:

[dwightfry]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@23 April 2004 - 07:34
But if she were having sex with her 40 year-old "boyfriend," he&#39;d be charged with statuatory rape. amoung other things.

:ninja:
And he should. He&#39;s 40. If she sent picture of herself to adults then, they should be prosicuted.

Children &#39;experimenting&#39; with other children is completely natural. But children &#39;experimenting&#39; with adults is wrong, on the adults part. Children don&#39;t know any better. The fact that she did this over the internet is dangerous, but not surprising.

[Keikan]

Originally posted by vidcc+20 April 2004 - 23:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 20 April 2004 - 23:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Keikan@20 April 2004 - 20:05
Ya but what are you worried about him accessing? Porn? He&#39;s 16 come on.
Hmm...are you a parent?

So what exactly is this thread about?...a girl of 15 posting pornographic pictures of herself on the net.....do you think this would happen if her parents did as i do?
I have kept a check on him always, i like to think i am a good parent. I don&#39;t particularly want him to look at porn, but it&#39;s only natural for a young man to be curious, he knows all about sex and has a healthy like of girls...he also has a healthy respect of them because i tried to raise him to be a gentleman and respectful. When he is an adult and has his own place he can do whatever he wants..until then he abides by my rules. I am not a tyrant, i do negotiate on most things and treat him with the same respect i like him to give me, but sometimes being a good parent is not about being too easy going. [/b][/quote]
Well I&#39;m just saying, He&#39;s 16 so I assume he should already know about sex and stuff. So I don&#39;t see anything wrong with porn, aslong as he know it&#39;s only pure entertainment of course. But other than porn I can&#39;t think of anything else that bad on the internet. Or maybe your worried about who he is chatting with? Chatting with some bad people?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Keikan@24 April 2004 - 08:49
But other than porn I can&#39;t think of anything else that bad on the internet.
There are many things which are bad on the interweb, just as there are in real life. Indeed on the interweb it can be worse, as you cannot see the person you are chatting to, or who made the site you are looking at.

Think of anything you will find in real life and it is on the net, it gives a voice to those who could be ignored. There are sites about Racial Hatred, Sectarianism, Terrorism, just about everything you could think of.

Bear in mind that some sites like this are easy to spot, because the owner wants it to be obvious what they are about. There are others which look perfectly reasonable. However when one looks at some of the individual parts, we see that they are anything but. Their filth is hidden amongst normal and reasonable material, which is in effect little more than camouflage.

The reader goes thro&#39; the stuff presented and is accepting it, when their little nuggets appear it is much easier just to accept those as well. Particularly if it is well done.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@24 April 2004 - 00:55
There are many things which are bad on the interweb, just as there are in real life. Indeed on the interweb it can be worse, as you cannot see the person you are chatting to, or who made the site you are looking at.

Think of anything you will find in real life and it is on the net, it gives a voice to those who could be ignored. There are sites about Racial Hatred, Sectarianism, Terrorism, just about everything you could think of.

Bear in mind that some sites like this are easy to spot, because the owner wants it to be obvious what they are about. There are others which look perfectly reasonable. However when one looks at some of the individual parts, we see that they are anything but. Their filth is hidden amongst normal and reasonable material, which is in effect little more than camouflage.

The reader goes thro&#39; the stuff presented and is accepting it, when their little nuggets appear it is much easier just to accept those as well. Particularly if it is well done.
on this we agree 100% (bet you never thought that would happen)

Keikan
Jpol pretty much made the point (darn that&#39;s annoying :lol: )
the rules i set were agreed on by us both as a condition that he could have his own computer in his room a few years ago....he has had 2 computers since then :huh: and i gave him acccess to the broadband which he uses to the full with online gaming and his X.box. I do cut a lot of slack, i know he looks at pictures of naked women, FHM type picture are his favourites, but he knows he would be in trouble for looking at hardcore porn.
He is a typical teenager, he seems to have lost the use of his arms and doesn&#39;t seem to know why he did things, however his grades are excelent and he knows he has to keep them up to enjoy certain priviledges.
i appreciate what you are saying, i believe you are about the same age ?. But my point is that as a parent we have to know that our children are not up to mischief such as the case of the girl in the original thread.

[Keikan]

ok.

[sArA]

Originally posted by vidcc+24 April 2004 - 16:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 24 April 2004 - 16:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@24 April 2004 - 00:55
There are many things which are bad on the interweb, just as there are in real life. Indeed on the interweb it can be worse, as you cannot see the person you are chatting to, or who made the site you are looking at.

Think of anything you will find in real life and it is on the net, it gives a voice to those who could be ignored. There are sites about Racial Hatred, Sectarianism, Terrorism, just about everything you could think of.

Bear in mind that some sites like this are easy to spot, because the owner wants it to be obvious what they are about. There are others which look perfectly reasonable. However when one looks at some of the individual parts, we see that they are anything but. Their filth is hidden amongst normal and reasonable material, which is in effect little more than camouflage.

The reader goes thro&#39; the stuff presented and is accepting it, when their little nuggets appear it is much easier just to accept those as well. Particularly if it is well done.
on this we agree 100% (bet you never thought that would happen)

Keikan
Jpol pretty much made the point (darn that&#39;s annoying :lol: )
the rules i set were agreed on by us both as a condition that he could have his own computer in his room a few years ago....he has had 2 computers since then :huh: and i gave him acccess to the broadband which he uses to the full with online gaming and his X.box. I do cut a lot of slack, i know he looks at pictures of naked women, FHM type picture are his favourites, but he knows he would be in trouble for looking at hardcore porn.
He is a typical teenager, he seems to have lost the use of his arms and doesn&#39;t seem to know why he did things, however his grades are excelent and he knows he has to keep them up to enjoy certain priviledges.
i appreciate what you are saying, i believe you are about the same age ?. But my point is that as a parent we have to know that our children are not up to mischief such as the case of the girl in the original thread. [/b][/quote]
I agree,

I also feel that it is the lack of parental guidance which created this situation, and they should be considered responsible.

Perhaps they could be charged with &#39;incitement to child pornography&#39;, &#39;neglect&#39; and &#39;child abuse&#39;. :angry: :angry:

[J'Pol]

Sara

Sorry, I am not totally aware of the whole story or background. Could you perhaps enlighten me as to why we are now blaming the parents for this.

There are plenty of people who are raised in a less than satisfactory environment, who become good, worthwhile members of society. On the other hand there are those who are raised in a loving, caring environment who turn out to be delinquents or criminals. There are a great many factors other than parental control.

I am not saying that the parents are not the cause in this case, just that I have not seen the evidence to support this contention. I would be particularly interested in the evidence to support the allegation of incitement,

[Biggles]

I would agree with J&#39;Pol on this. Part of allowing one&#39;s children to grow up is to give them responsibility. It simply is not possible to monitor their behaviour 100% of the time. In fact, I suspect a teenager who was monitored 100% of the time might feel a little "controlled" and not at all happy.

Whilst not all 15 year olds experiment with smoking, drinking and sex a fair few do. It is also true that some parents worry less than others (which might explain the gang of drunken teenagers I saw staggering around town the other night). However, to suggest that parents should be charged with incitement because a) they bought her a computer and B) were content that she was not roaming the streets drunk so allowed her private time in her own room, is a bit harsh I feel.

Like J&#39;Pol I don&#39;t know the background to this, so if there is evidence that she was encouraged to do this then the matter takes a different complexion. However, the idea that every parent should make regular 15 minute checks on their teenagers in their rooms is a novel one (and a contentious one too I suspect).

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Biggles@25 April 2004 - 12:21
I would agree with J&#39;Pol on this. Part of allowing one&#39;s children to grow up is to give them responsibility. It simply is not possible to monitor their behaviour 100% of the time. In fact, I suspect a teenager who was monitored 100% of the time might feel a little "controlled" and not at all happy.

Whilst not all 15 year olds experiment with smoking, drinking and sex a fair few do. It is also true that some parents worry less than others (which might explain the gang of drunken teenagers I saw staggering around town the other night). However, to suggest that parents should be charged with incitement because a) they bought her a computer and B) were content that she was not roaming the streets drunk so allowed her private time in her own room, is a bit harsh I feel.

Like J&#39;Pol I don&#39;t know the background to this, so if there is evidence that she was encouraged to do this then the matter takes a different complexion. However, the idea that every parent should make regular 15 minute checks on their teenagers in their rooms is a novel one (and a contentious one too I suspect).
I can only support the following by anecdotal evidence, however in my experience adolescents who are over-controlled often have serious problems. Particularly with regulating their own behaviour.

A friend of mine has a teenage daughter. She and her other 16 year old friends were having a sleep-over. Jim has no problem with her having a couple of drinks (in the house) of a Friday night. It is in a controlled environment and takes away the great mystique. He was happy for the other girls to do the same, however only with their parents approval (directly to him or his good lady obviously). One set of parents refused and thought the idea a bad one. Jim gave them his word that their daughter would not get alcohol in his house, he ensured this was complied with.

Said non-drinking daughter is the only one who has been seen under the influence (and quite badly) walking the local streets. Short of locking them indoors or following them everywhere children, or young adults will tend to experiment. If they have a knowledge of the effects of alcohol and in particular it&#39;s delayed action effects, then they are better equipped to deal with situations. One can see how, if they do not have the experience, they will drink too much, too quickly. This goes for other things as well.

The point is that parents are only one of many influences on their children. When they are younger then the parent is the main influence. However as they get older the influences and how important they are change. A 16 year old is likely to be more influenced by peer pressure than by their parents. The important thing is how they were influenced when younger and the basic values they have. If they have the ability to regulate their own behaviour, which they were given gradually as they grew up, then they are well equipped to cope with situations.

[j2k4]

Good posts, guys (and Sara, too); I feel I must reiterate and stress what J&#39;Pol mentioned in passing-the demystification of select experiences and/or
substances can be a powerful tool in the hands of a responsible adult.

It doesn&#39;t get the play it should in the unofficial and unprinted Handbook of Parenting. ;)

[sArA]

Ah the joys of incitement...

The point I so poorly stated was based on nothing more than previous posts, and was intended as an ironic parody providing a comparison with the clearly draconian approach evidenced by this.....


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/gi...ith_child_porn/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/girl_charged_with_child_porn/)

The teenager has been charged with the possession and distribution of child pornography as well as the sexual abuse of children. ®



with this...


Perhaps they could be charged with &#39;incitement to child pornography&#39;, &#39;neglect&#39; and &#39;child abuse&#39;. :angry: :angry:

Ho Hum... ;)

[Marius24]

sorry i havn&#39;t read the other pages but i am 15. Surely it is up to the girl is it not? Its her body her choice :smilie4: What did the people who recieved the pictures get?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Marius24@28 April 2004 - 00:27
sorry i havn&#39;t read the other pages but i am 15. Surely it is up to the girl is it not? Its her body her choice :smilie4: What did the people who recieved the pictures get?
As this is the World News forum, I am just going to let this incredibly soft lob to my forehand go. So never say I can&#39;t exhibit a little restraint. Even if it is with a little external assistance.
http://gayety.net/images/avatars/straightjacket_worried.png

(Had this forum been comprised of Americans, I would have said, "I&#39;ll that that hanging breaking ball go".)

[Chevy]

As I posted before, she should definitely have been charged. Obscene material of a minor should always be taken to court and (as J&#39;Pol said) it&#39;s for the courts to decide on not the police in such an important issue.

I just wish there was a possible charge of "15 yr old girls flashing their t*ts on the internet" rather than the choice of child pornography charges. A charge of indecency seems more appropriate here I think.

I&#39;m not familiar enough with the legal system - if the police make charges when it isn&#39;t a civil matter can the prosecution then decide on alternative charges in court or are they the only ones debated?

[Alex H]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@28 April 2004 - 00:30
Is it not the case that Draco suggested that any offence, not matter how minor should be treated in the same way as the most heinous crime ? In effect all crimes should be punished with equal severity once guilt had been established. The point being that all crime would be eradicated.

Perhaps I missed either his point or yours.
So does that mean if I get a parking ticket I should go to the electric chair? And sisnce I&#39;m going to be executed, I may as well murder my next door neigbour who plays shitty 70s disoc hits at three o&#39;clock in the morning, the bastard.

:D

[sArA]

Clearly I am refering to the severity of the charges against the girl and using the word &#39;draconian&#39; to highlight this. It is I think legitimate to use such a word where its accepted meaning indicates a punitive and overly harsh reaction to a phenomena ...A little poetic licence but the point is still the same...


However, if we are to be so literal fugeley, then am I also refering to a dragon or a stellar constellation? Still, the dragon reference, as a mythical creature with a tendency towards extreme behaviour would still ring true for my original point.


The use of language is in my experience subjective to both personal interpretation and accepted usage, therefore my use of the word is completely appropriate. :lol:

I am sure that when one uses a colloquial word such as &#39;shit&#39;, usually defined as meaning excreta, it is generally understood that the meaning is intended to refer to something that is bad. We are not in the habit of correcting people&#39;s use of the word in context. This is because it is understood that there are several layers of meaning to language, which even my children can appreciate. :lol:

[sArA]

No problem Mr F....

You are very gracious in your retraction. :)

However, appologies not required, a challenge to my interpretation of word usage is not unwelcome, it prevents me from becoming obtuse&#33; :lol: :lol:

[j2k4]

The syrup passing between you two would go very nicely on pancakes. :rolleyes:

:lol:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@28 April 2004 - 01:04
So does that mean if I get a parking ticket I should go to the electric chair?
Not everyone, Alex.





Just you.

:D














Just kidding (Of course). :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[sArA]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+28 April 2004 - 13:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 28 April 2004 - 13:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sara5564@28 April 2004 - 12:31
No problem Mr F....

You are very gracious in your retraction.&nbsp; :)

However, appologies not required, a challenge to my interpretation of word usage is not unwelcome, it prevents me from becoming obtuse&#33;&nbsp; :lol:&nbsp; :lol:
or welcome even :P

i don&#39;t mind you interpreting the words, but torturing them is a bit much ;) [/b][/quote]
Awwww let me pleeeeeese&#33;&#33;&#33;

I sometimes think they deserve it for all the trouble they cause&#33; :lol:

[sArA]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+28 April 2004 - 14:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 28 April 2004 - 14:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 April 2004 - 13:11
The syrup passing between you two would go very nicely on pancakes. :rolleyes:

:lol:
http://www.clementhardware.com/products/baldwin/images/5015-knob-small.gif [/b][/quote]


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hobbes]

Get a room you 2&#33;

[sArA]

Originally posted by hobbes@28 April 2004 - 14:25
Get a room you 2&#33;
I seem to remember my dear Hobbes, that exactly the same was suggested to us the first time we had a little &#39;discussion&#39; lol.

Oh...what will people think? :ph34r:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+28 April 2004 - 08:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 28 April 2004 - 08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 April 2004 - 13:11
The syrup passing between you two would go very nicely on pancakes. :rolleyes:

:lol:
http://www.clementhardware.com/products/baldwin/images/5015-knob-small.gif [/b][/quote]
I resent that, but only a little; the implication is, um....let&#39;s see....funny?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+28 April 2004 - 10:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley @ 28 April 2004 - 10:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@28 April 2004 - 15:41

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@28 April 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 April 2004 - 13:11
The syrup passing between you two would go very nicely on pancakes. :rolleyes:

:lol:
http://www.clementhardware.com/products/baldwin/images/5015-knob-small.gif
I resent that, but only a little; the implication is, um....let&#39;s see....funny?
or perhaps not unfunny.

why is the rabbit suggesting we get a room ? me is confuzed now.

does she think wee need a knap [/b][/quote]
All of us?&#33;&#33;???&#33;&#33;

Would that be a threesome or a foursome? :huh:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+28 April 2004 - 18:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 April 2004 - 18:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@28 April 2004 - 10:36

Originally posted by j2k4@28 April 2004 - 15:41

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@28 April 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 April 2004 - 13:11
The syrup passing between you two would go very nicely on pancakes. :rolleyes:

:lol:
http://www.clementhardware.com/products/baldwin/images/5015-knob-small.gif
I resent that, but only a little; the implication is, um....let&#39;s see....funny?
or perhaps not unfunny.

why is the rabbit suggesting we get a room ? me is confuzed now.

does she think wee need a knap
All of us?&#33;&#33;???&#33;&#33;

Would that be a threesome or a foursome? :huh: [/b][/quote]
fecketif ino

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+28 April 2004 - 12:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 28 April 2004 - 12:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@28 April 2004 - 18:24

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@28 April 2004 - 10:36

Originally posted by j2k4@28 April 2004 - 15:41

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@28 April 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 April 2004 - 13:11
The syrup passing between you two would go very nicely on pancakes. :rolleyes:

:lol:
http://www.clementhardware.com/products/baldwin/images/5015-knob-small.gif
I resent that, but only a little; the implication is, um....let&#39;s see....funny?
or perhaps not unfunny.

why is the rabbit suggesting we get a room ? me is confuzed now.

does she think wee need a knap
All of us?&#33;&#33;???&#33;&#33;

Would that be a threesome or a foursome? :huh:
fecketif ino[/b][/quote]
J&#39;POL, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN???

We&#39;ve been worried sick you weren&#39;t around&#33;

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D :P :P :)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+28 April 2004 - 19:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 28 April 2004 - 19:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@28 April 2004 - 12:06

Originally posted by j2k4@28 April 2004 - 18:24

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@28 April 2004 - 10:36

Originally posted by j2k4@28 April 2004 - 15:41

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley@28 April 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@28 April 2004 - 13:11
The syrup passing between you two would go very nicely on pancakes. :rolleyes:

:lol:
http://www.clementhardware.com/products/baldwin/images/5015-knob-small.gif
I resent that, but only a little; the implication is, um....let&#39;s see....funny?
or perhaps not unfunny.

why is the rabbit suggesting we get a room ? me is confuzed now.

does she think wee need a knap
All of us?&#33;&#33;???&#33;&#33;

Would that be a threesome or a foursome? :huh:
fecketif ino
J&#39;POL, WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN???

We&#39;ve been worried sick you weren&#39;t around&#33;

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :D :P :P :) [/b][/quote]
Bit of business on Betelgeuse old bean.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by sara5564+28 April 2004 - 15:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sara5564 @ 28 April 2004 - 15:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@28 April 2004 - 14:25
Get a room you 2&#33;
I seem to remember my dear Hobbes, that exactly the same was suggested to us the first time we had a little &#39;discussion&#39; lol.

Oh...what will people think? :ph34r: [/b][/quote]
Yes it was, I am both a rabbit and an elephant. Elephants never forget.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by sara5564@28 April 2004 - 10:57
I am sure that when one uses a colloquial word such as &#39;shit&#39;, usually defined as meaning excreta, it is generally understood that the meaning is intended to refer to something that is bad.
Yes, although the term "shit" was originaly transport instructions.

Back when people moved manure around in ships (because good manure was worth paying for), they would often put it right down in the bottom of the hold. All the methane gas would collect, and when a sailor lit up for a smoke or carried a lantern downstairs it would ingite the methane and the ship would blow up (taking all the valuable manure with it).

Someone worked out that if you stored the manure up closer to the deck, the manure had better ventilation and wouldn&#39;t blow up. So it was labled Ship High In Transit shortened to SHIT.

[MagicNakor]

Actually, shit derives from the Old English scite and the Middle Low German schite, which mean "dung." The word has been around since at least the 1300s.

Much like the vaunted acronym-origin of fuck, you can&#39;t believe everything that comes across your inbox.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

The irony is striking:

S.H.I.T. technology for the conveyance of scite/schite/manure/shit.

Sounds like one of the precursors of political correctness, to me. ;)

I&#39;ll bet with a little more digging ( :D ), even more interesting facts will come to light. :huh:

[RPerry]

erm... I musta got lost :huh:

I thought we were talking about a 15 yr old girl taking indecent pics of herself and sending them out, and now it appears we are talking about fecies ?? :o

[Barbarossa]

Meanwhile, the real criminals and dangerous deviants are getting away with it... :(

[j2k4]

Originally posted by barbarossa@29 April 2004 - 07:23
Meanwhile, the real criminals and dangerous deviants are getting away with it... :(
Lots of stuff in the news last couple of days, big busts, etc.

Although the real bad guys make better targets, the girl's situation must be addressed, guys, one way or the other; just keep fingers crossed that the outcome is appropriate, yes? ;)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4+29 April 2004 - 13:33--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 29 April 2004 - 13:33)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-barbarossa@29 April 2004 - 07:23
Meanwhile, the real criminals and dangerous deviants are getting away with it...&nbsp; :(
Lots of stuff in the news last couple of days, big busts, etc.

Although the real bad guys make better targets, the girl's situation must be addressed, guys, one way or the other; just keep fingers crossed that the outcome is appropriate, yes? ;) [/b][/quote]
J2

In full agreement there (although I am still in favour of the double clip around the ear and no pc till an adult penalty.)

I appreciate the correctness of due process I just have a reservation regarding whether a juggernaut is the appropriate vehicle in this case when a moped might do better for all concerned.

[RPerry]

I have been going over this for 2 days myself. If I had a girlfriend under the age of 18, and took indecent pics of her, with her concent, and then sent them out, I would surely be guilty of child pornography. the point here is to me, its not different that the girl took the photos herself, she is doing the same thing with them.
one point that seems to get lost sometimes is this. Just because someone is charged with a certain crime, doesn&#39;t mean thats the charge they will face when they ultimately end up in court. although the child abuse charge seems rediculous, her actions met the criteria for the charge, even though its herself. I am almost sure that charge will be changed or dropped by the time she goes to trial, if she doesn&#39;t plead out first to something like indecent exposure or the like.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@29 April 2004 - 07:42
...although I am still in favour of the double clip around the ear and no pc till an adult penalty.

I appreciate the correctness of due process I just have a reservation regarding whether a juggernaut is the appropriate vehicle in this case when a moped might do better for all concerned.
The former in any case, agreed. ;)

One hopes the latter doesn&#39;t come to pass (I really don&#39;t think it will), but the possibility must be acknowledged, I suppose, given that we are, as regards the internet, still in the formative stages as to the user/legal interface.

Let&#39;s hope reality rears it&#39;s (in this case, at least) "beautiful" head, yes?

BTW-

To paraphrase Ian Anderson:

"Where was Biggles when I needed him last Saturday?" :lol:

Been waiting some time to get that one out there. :)

[RGX]

It&#39;s a difficult issue....does she have the right to give away photographs of her own body, of her own consent? She surely should not receive the same prison sentence as a child pornographer.....to lump her in with that class of people surely isnt morally right....so its a bit of a grey area TBH, up to the courts to decide.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by RPerry@29 April 2004 - 07:45
I have been going over this for 2 days myself. If I had a girlfriend under the age of 18, and took indecent pics of her, with her concent, and then sent them out, I would surely be guilty of child pornography. the point here is to me, its not different that the girl took the photos herself, she is doing the same thing with them.
one point that seems to get lost sometimes is this. Just because someone is charged with a certain crime, doesn&#39;t mean thats the charge they will face when they ultimately end up in court. although the child abuse charge seems rediculous, her actions met the criteria for the charge, even though its herself. I am almost sure that charge will be changed or dropped by the time she goes to trial, if she doesn&#39;t plead out first to something like indecent exposure or the like.

Your appropriate concern is precisely why this case must play out.

Case law could/should be written here, and obviously, this is good and necessary; the known facts reveal extant law is not sufficient, and a "black hole" needs to be closed. ;)

[RPerry]

Originally posted by RGX@29 April 2004 - 08:04
It&#39;s a difficult issue....does she have the right to give away photographs of her own body, of her own consent?

according to the Law, no. She doesn&#39;t have that ability until she is 18 ;)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 April 2004 - 14:01


BTW-

To paraphrase Ian Anderson:

"Where was Biggles when I needed him last Saturday?" :lol:

Been waiting some time to get that one out there. :)
Ah a classic&#33; :lol:

I have the original vinyl, with St Cleves newspaper attached.

In this case Biggles had to take time off from saving the Empire from Johnny Foreigner last Saturday to taxi the kids hither and thither. :unsure:

[j2k4]

I have the original vinyl, however with a late cover, sans the interleafing; the original cover was lost in an extremely unfortunate divorce/flooded cellar event. ;)

Salvaging the vinyl from the thoroughly soggy sleeving was conducted with vision obscured by an actual veil of tears.

One of the great sadnesses of my life. :(

[Biggles]

Originally posted by j2k4@29 April 2004 - 14:54
I have the original vinyl, however with a late cover, sans the interleafing; the original cover was lost in an extremely unfortunate divorce/flooded cellar event. ;)

Salvaging the vinyl from the thoroughly soggy sleeving was conducted with vision obscured by an actual veil of tears.

One of the great sadnesses of my life. :(
I can sympathise - the treasures of ones youth have enormous sentimental value.

The circumstances sound painful too, a kind of aquatic version of rabbit boiling (close your ears Hobbes :blink: )

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles@29 April 2004 - 10:04
The circumstances sound painful too, a kind of aquatic version of rabbit boiling (close your ears Hobbes&nbsp; :blink: )
Painful like pins and needles; I was only able to recover about 250 albums out of about 3000; a friend who owned a record store and possessed of extraordinary ability helped me replace all of the missing sleeves, though many are 2nd or 3rd issue.

I wasn&#39;t about to complain in the face of such incredible grace. :)

The actual divorce, while troubling in all the common ways, was a blessing to me. ;)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@29 April 2004 - 08:27
Actually, shit derives from the Old English scite and the Middle Low German schite, which mean "dung." The word has been around since at least the 1300s.

Much like the vaunted acronym-origin of fuck, you can&#39;t believe everything that comes across your inbox.

:ninja:
My sources support your story:

Shit
Shit is a very old word, with an Old English root. *Scítan is the Old English word. It has cognates in most of the other Germanic languages and shares a common Germanic root with modern equivalents like the German scheissen.

*Scítan, however, doesn&#39;t appear in extant Old English texts and is only assumed to have existed in Old English. The verb to shit dates the Middle English period (c. 1308), and the noun form is from the 16th century. The interjection is of quite recent vintage, not found until the 1920s.

In 2002, an alleged acronymic origin for shit appeared on the Internet. According to this tale, the word is from an acronym for Ship High In Transit, referring to barges carrying manure. This is a complete fabrication and absurd on its face. All it takes to disprove it is to look up the word in any decent dictionary. Remember, anytime someone posits an acronymic word origin, chances are that it is utterly false.


I must admit to being fooled by the following one myself. I was kind of disappointed by the truth.

News
No, news is not an acronym for north, east, west, and south. In fact, there are no pre-20th century words that are derived as acronyms--acronyms are a distinctly 20th century phenomenon.

Rather, the word comes (quite obviously) from new--meaning something that has not existed before, something timely.

[J'Pol]

So where does the word etymology come from.

[sArA]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :D :D :lol: :lol: :lol:

Back to you Hobbes&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Neo 721]

ahh yes the oringn of SHIT somthing which has haunted for centuries.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Mr JP Fugley+29 April 2004 - 16:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Mr JP Fugley &#064; 29 April 2004 - 16:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by hobbes@29 April 2004 - 03:28

Originally posted by sara5564@28 April 2004 - 15:56
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@28 April 2004 - 14:25
Get a room you 2&#33;
I seem to remember my dear Hobbes, that exactly the same was suggested to us the first time we had a little &#39;discussion&#39; lol.

Oh...what will people think? :ph34r:
Yes it was, I am both a rabbit and an elephant. Elephants never forget.
hephalumps never forget what ? :blink:[/b][/quote]
The origin of words, obviously. The first Hephalump was the honorable King Etymology.