Girl Charged With Child Porn

[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'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;

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;

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.

[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.

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.

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