Video: http://webcastr.com/videos/underground/tee...e-pictures.html


You'd think that children would just learn their lessons by now.

Oh by the way, I'm one of those people on Myspace who actually does report people for nudity of any form.

Okay, I don't think she uploaded them directly to Myspace, because they have that nudity filter when you upload pictures.

Maybe she uploaded them from Photobucket or Tinypic and decided to paste the image code to her myspace?




Looking at your own body is personal stuff. The girl chose to take nude pics of herself and she decided to expose herself to the internet. She's considered as a minor, so of course she'll get into trouble.

Technically it's not her body... her body belongs to her parents. She has no right to take pictures of her childish private parts just to expose them to someone else. If she was 18 and her boyfriend was 18, there would be no issue at all and the law would be wrong, but this isn't the case.

You're ass backwards, my man.

OH SNAP.. illmorrtall call u outt tung..

git him mang..

GIT HIM

dunn b scurr.. GOGOGOGO



TUNG u puzzzi...

As much as its retarded to put a charge up as "child porn" i still think little whores like that need to get in some sort of trouble.

like a charge for punishing my eyes with Acups and scenester AIDS.


that shit doesnt work. its called weekend at my aunties house. Put a broom up her ass sweep all the slut of her.

LOL....Acups and scenester AIDS

I do think punishment is required, but to be charged with child pornography? I mean when shes forty people are going to her "child porn" and not care the circumstances. This proly just f*cked her life, and really it should be handled so it wont. I see where Tung is coming from.

Okay, Im afraid to know what that last sentence means.

^Sounds sexy though

Um, that's not really "of course." She chose to take pictures of herself. There's no exploitation there. Clearly the pictures should be taken down, she should punished in some way, but it shouldn't be a legal matter, and she certainly shouldn't regarded as a sex offender.



That's not true. Once again, the legal age of consent is not 18. Additionally, in no way shape or form does her body belong to her parents. That would give them the right to do as they please with her body, which they don't have.

It's pornography... when you go to the store, and you see a playboy magazine, what do you see? Sex? Or nude women? That's pornography... it doesn't have to include sex.




Technically it is the age of consent. Look up any porn industry.. you must be 18 or older to even show or fondle any private parts. Otherwise it's "child" pornography.

Oh you God damn right parents have the right to do whatever the f*ck they want as long as it's within the boundaries of the law and morality.

You have the wrong idea about parenthood and childhood, my dear. Get that progressive mentality out of your system.

Iono, at first I was somewhat against this law. Actually, I still am to a certain extent. I think she should face some kind of legal punishment (perhaps a fine), but to register as a sex offender is ridiculous. The only reason I'm agreeing with her being punished in some form or fashion is because she could cause others to be faced with possession of child pornography. What if some innocent dude in his 20s somehow accidentally ended up there. The images could end up on his computer through cache or some other method, and he could very well be charged with child porn unintentionally.

I also think they should start charging minors as sex offenders when they sleep with older men after reading this case about this minor lying about her age. She has three dudes behind bars because of it, and she gets no punishment despite lying about her age.

As if anything gets accomplished through regression. Or as if anyone's childhood is meant to be tainted by the stupid mistake of misusing her own body. Kids most definitely need to be discouraged from sharing nude pictures of themselves, but I do not believe that charging them as sex offenders could possibly be the right way to go about that.

Children's bodies are not the property of their parents. The parents are responsible for them, guardians, but that is not the same as ownership. Minors don't have full rights, but they damn well have more than you seem to think.

That's not the age of consent. She would not have to be 18 to expose herself to her boyfriend, because she would not have to be 18 to have sex with her boyfriend. I've already linked you to a page of age of consent laws before.

You white, ain't it? Us Hispanics, Italians, hell even Arabs and Persians would slap their child in the mouth if they ever said, "I'm not your property".


Yes and you're right, it's pretty damn sad that our children who couldn't even survive without their parents/guardians actually even have ANY rights to begin with.


It's the age of consent by law in regards to nudity, specifically used in a pornographic manner. This isn't about sex, this is about a no self respecting, low self esteem having, underage child who sluts around by posting her nude pictures on a community website just for her horny boyfriend.

You're going to have to accept the fact that if you're under the age of 18 years old, the age of an adult, and you take nude pictures just to pass them around or even get caught with those nude pictures, that will automatically be held against you in the court of law as evidence for child pornography.


Conservatism is strongly needed... America is becoming another country full of atheistic, hedonistic, progressives, who are killing this country.

I hope you don't have children.

Abusive? You crack me up.

I disagree that she should have to register as a sex offender because 1.) That follows her around for the rest of her life. Just because she did something that was dumb doesn't mean she should have to pay for it for the rest of her life. 2.) They were nude photos taken by her of her own body. It's not like someone else was telling her to take her clothes off and was taking pictures of her. She wasn't engaging in any sexual act. She isn't depicting sex.

I think she should be fined for her stupidity, because when she when she becomes an adult she will be given a second chance when her record clears. People get in trouble for running around naked in public, and she was naked in cyberspace. You don't have to register as a sex offender when you go streaking, but you will get a fine. Why should streaking on the internet be different?

Then hopefully the fine will bring what she's doing to the attention of her parents and they will discipline her.

Oh and saying that children are PROPERTY of their parents is just wrong. You can't OWN anyone... whether the person is related to you or not.

Nah... slap on the wrist doesn't work. It's better to give her the ultimate punishment, then exploit her all over the news to show children and parents exactly what happens when you do such a thing.


The best part is... is that these morons actually put their nudes on the internet. And even better, a lot of times people use wireless internet and their wireless connection isn't always 100% secure. So ANYONE who has the intelligence to strip info from people on a wireless network, can easily exploit them.

It is the idiot girls like this that make me so proud to live in New Jersey.

On a side note... how stupid can you be? A handful of kids in my highschool tried to make their own makeshift porno and when it started gravitating around the school they had a riot... I mean, really, how do you expect that kind of thing to not get out?!

LOL @ her body belongs to her parents. idiot. f*ck outta here with that shit. i never said she wasn't at fault. she was at fault for posting nude pictures online. but the fact that she was charged with POSSESSION of child pornography is another thing im arguing. it's dumb as f*ck. i would understand if she got punished for distributing child pornography, but for possession? you kidding me? are you telling me if i had take naked pictures of myself 3 years ago (i would been 17 years old), i would have gotten punished for posession of child pornography? think about how ridiculous that is dipshit.

What the f*ck.

x1000

Tama is a lunatic, moving on.

Bro... replace the nude pictures with marijuana... same outcome. If the material or object is illegal, for the love of God, it makes complete sense to be charged with possession for having nude pictures of a person under the age of 18. Even your own. Laws exist to prevent things from happening... if you can't see that, then that's your problem.

^ Her being nude doesn't make it child pornography. Depicting sex would. There is a difference between a nude photograph and pornography, regardless of age. That's why I said she shouldn't be fined for it.

Possessing illegal material is against the law.. -.-

Her being UNDER the AGE of 18 and POSSESSING NUDE images of HERSELF is against the law.

If you have a video or even a picture of your naked ass body and you're under the age, regardless of your gender, you're in possession of child pornography.


por⋅nog⋅ra⋅phy:

obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.


Do you understand? Is this a hard concept to understand?

You know what, I don't even care anymore, my lady's a damn Lawyer and she's already agreed 100% with what I believe in regards to this case and any other case that has to do with stupid horny children that deserve the ultimate punishment.

so are you saying she shouldn't be allow to look at herself naked when she's in the showers? >______>