Amen.

I mean as much as little kids shouldnt be taking boobie pics. I dont see how you can put a charge as severe as child porn on it.

^ agreed. i'd just take the cell phone away. no more super cool phones with the texting & camera features. they'd get the most basic cell phone & plan i could find.

Yeah, its really dumb. I know its going to ruin the rest of my teenage life.

why would it ruin your life? your parents giving you crap about it?

lol No but now i cant get nudez yo! haha

lol. you don't need nudes.

But i would be nice.

nudes are nice sometimes. but not on the phone your parents are paying for.

Yeah go get a prepaid phone like the drug dealers do or use a library computer to get your nudes on =]

i'll second that one cause I really don't see what the imporatnce of that is to my life if i'm trying to watch the news and find out things that are going to impact my life.
things like that have no effect on my life jus makes me wanna tell the parents that if they have a problem with it handle it don't have the news put it on blast and interrupt people from their news

Child porn should be taken extremely seriously. Doesn't matter who is viewing the material. By consciously taking pleasure in child pornography they are encouraging it's production. That ten years is insignificant to the ruined lives of the children being viewed in those movies or photos.

That said, there are cases where stupid 15 year old boys show those photos that their girlfriends sent them to the wrong people, get prosecuted, and end up in a shit storm. I say, this is why we have a justice system. Let the jury decide.



Doughnut, don't be an idiot. It's called freedom, not agreedom...

I'm not a sex offender. I'm not a child... I trust my boyfried.
If I got arrested for this, I would flip a shit and fight for my rights.

This is a prime example of the government getting WAY too involved in our personal lives. I certainly don't support child porn - however, I think they need to draw a line, here.

You wouldn't be fighting for your rights. Most likely your parents would be trying to put your boyfriend in jail.

This forum is quite chaotic, I must say.

I don't think that pressing charges against a minor, who most likely doesn't even know exactly what childpornography is, will solve any problems. That is why there is a juvenile system because minors are not and should not be expected to govern themselves as adults nor be treated like them. WHy? Because they are children. Now I agree that the kids should be informed on why it is wrong and possibly have some priveledges revoked or something like that, but pressing charges is way too extreme. If they are charged then I guess we would have to arrest all the gerber/pampers babies who show their asses in commercials on t.v. right?

Also, the law is not at all concrete. That is why the Supreme Court exists so that they can declare laws unconstitutional and make them void. The judiciary system has the job of interpreting the law so that the letter of the law is not confused with the intent.

For example, a sign may say no vehicles are allowed in a park or you will risk being severely punished. If a mother decides to take a walk with her beautiful baby girl and put her in a stroller, she would be violating the law because a stroller is a vehicle. According to letter of laaw she should be punished, but the court will interpret the actual intent of the law and determine that it was not designed to keep mothers with strollers out of a park.

Get it?

who would honestly consider a baby stroller to be a vehicle? lol

Again, it's for a jury to decide. They should still be prosecuted.

lol I was wondering the same thing but the deifinition of vehicle is: a means of carrying or transporting something - Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So technically, the woman would be breaking the law. But who would find her guilty? No logical thinking person would.



ummm... you're joking right?

Are you or your boy friend under the age of 18? If so, please stfu. You have no rights pertaining to this law.

Just sayin.

If no-one cares then they won't be prosecuted. If someone obnoxious cares then the jury will decide their fate. If no logically thinking person would find them guilty then the jury sure as hell wouldn't find her guilty unless by some chance they found themselves face to face with the jury from hell. Again, it's for a jury to decide, and law breakers should be prosecuted. This is why our justice system exists. You and your rhetorical questions... *sigh* You could really answer these for yourself.

ummm... it seems as though you're agreeing with me, but at the same time you're insulting me. Maybe it's just that you don't speak english well?

My whole point about the stroller is that the law is not in concrete. The judicial branch is there to interpret the law to figure out its intent. That's basically what you were saying, so I have no idea why your ideas seem to clash with mine.

I didn't understand what point you were trying to make when you referred to the mom and her stroller. Now that I do, we are in complete agreement.

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php...220117&st=0

WTF? You're so mature it's not even funny.

LOL WUT.

No but in all seriousness in latino neighborhoods the stroller is honestly a great mode of transportation until you are about 13.

Wow. Bad me for not keeping up with the debate.

Apparently, this is a hot topic. I agree with a lot of people that modesty and some sort of self control has to be taught to teenagers. However, I honestly think following the law to the letter is more damaging to society as a whole.

If the 15-year-old is successfully charged and register as a sex offender... wouldn't he/she not be allowed to attend school? Aren't schools filled with minors? I just realized that.

I would like to think our justice system would have enough sense to apply the child pornography law within reason.

Again, that's why the justice system exists. Every case is unique, and not all cases fit into the context in which the law was created.