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.

I thought you were done with this

You aren't reading everything that I posted (or that you also posted for that matter). You are picking and choosing parts. This isn't THAT complicated... it's a debate. CB even lets kids who are 13 register here.

If an adult is viewing the image and getting off isn't what we are talking about. Of course something would be done about that. But we are talking about what happens to the underage kid who takes the nude photo. SHE TOOK A NUDE PHOTO, SHE WASN'T DEPICTING SEX AND THE PHOTO WAS NOT TAKEN BY AN ADULT WHO WAS ABUSING HER.

But she had POSSESSION of that NUDE picture. Holy f*ck.

And how can I be done with something when you guys think you know wtf you're saying. You're making a point... but you're neglecting another aspect. You guys are thinking in terms of, "this law is stupid, it should be this way". -.-

lolwut... someone can't look at themselves naked?

OMFG... no way you're actually doing this again.

Do you even know what this story is about? It's a 14 year old girl who took nude pictures of herself. THEN went on the internet with the photo (this now leaves her privacy) and uploaded it to Myspace for her boyfriend (this now becomes distribution)

She should be charged for possession and distribution. Eh.. my head hurts.


IF she took the stupid nude pictures of herself.. and LEFT it in privacy (which by the way, leaving it on the HDD is no longer considered "private" if the computer is connected to the internet at all times and the HDD doesn't have an encrypted password) then by golly.. she wouldn't be in this stupid ass predicament. Now would she?

u gott diz illmortal...

dey bakkin downn yo ^^


+1

She should be charged for possessing her own body?

I'm saying that you make no f*cking sense as to why she would be charged with possessing her own naked photos. If I were to take a naked photo of myself why should I be charged with possession? That's like saying that I can't look at myself naked in the mirror.

She didn't take the photos with the intentions of posting them all over the internet. And she didn't take the photos with intentions of dirty men jacking off to them. As you said...

Under your theory the boyfriend should be charged with looking at his own girlfriend naked and the girl should be charged with looking at herself, lol. Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Don't look at me, I didn't create the law. Speak to your congress or senator about it. I'm tryin to tell you how it is on the law side of things.

She can possess the picture but in privacy, in her own home, legally. But as soon as she walks outside with that naked photo, whether it's literally a picture in her hand or on her digital cam, or on her cell phone... or even her lap top she's now in possession of illegal material.

This works the same exact way with the internet. Once you connect to the internet and you upload what you possess which is illegal material, you're now in possession. If you distribute that illegal material via download link or link that directly sends the viewer to your pictures then you can be charged with not only possession but also distribution.

Again.. in regards to possession (illegal material) it is only called that term when the illegal material is outside the boundaries of privacy.

As for the boyfriend, yes he should be charged as well, IF he requested those pictures. If she makes a statement saying that she took the pictures because her boyfriend asked her too, then yes lol.... he's f*cked. And if that in fact is the case, then she would face a less severe punishment while the boyfriend gets hit even harder. But in order for that case to be proven she would need to show proof. Instant Messages, Email, Myspace Messages, voice mail, text message.. you get the point. Otherwise it's her word against his.


What I'm laughing at right now is the fact you claim:

You're right... her mouse took control of her computer, logged her computer into Myspace, navigated to the "upload" link, and uploaded 30 images. All of this happened after she took 30 pictures of her naked body.


And it's 30 pictures? I'm sure it's 30 different poses... sexual poses. Sexually explicit poses. Your argument is f*ckin trash... I can't believe you're even debating this.. or even tryin to defend this girl.

*borat* GOODD JOBB buddii.. yahh yahh..

karmmaa n brocolii givv upp 2 eazzly.. ^^

i don't even care about that becasue my whole post was in regards to your quoted laws not matching up with what you were saying. i haven't even bothered to argue about this specific incident because i don't honestly care. i think she should be punished for putting them on myspace. although i don't think it's the end of the world nor do i think she should be charged as a sex offender for posting her own damn picture. charged for abusing herself? i don't get it. anyway to clarify why i posted what i posted, you said this




then you came and quotes laws, bolding these parts, which contradicts both you're previous posts.






so we went over the fact that nude images are not pornography if they are just a nude person, they have to depict sexual conduct, according to your own post. simple nude pictures don't fall under graphic images or pornography according to your own post. no, showing private parts is not automatically labeled pornography according to your own post.

no one knew what you were talking about because none of your posts make that much sense together since you insisted all this crap and then you turned around and quoted laws that don't apply to what you said before anyway. you referred to flat out nude images, which without depicting sexual conduct, don't really fall under the laws you quoted. they're very specific. plus, now, you're clarifying to people that having a nude picture of yourself isn't against the law without distributing, but before you were insisting to tung and others that just having the picture regardless was against the law. so i don't think it's that amazing that people are following what you're saying.

OH SHIET.. look lyke da gamee styll on..

ROUND 3



i b chek upp enn dizz thradd illmortall... makk me prroudd ANAKIN SKYWALKER..

there's not anything to argue really, his posts i quoted don't make sense together to me. not much to say to that i don't think.

OH juzz waitt.. i c illmortal log in... HAHAHA

Ugh... because I didn't make it clear wtf I meant by possession. You can possess something. If the law states that you're caught with whatever illegal material you possess, you can be charged with possession.


Possession doesn't simply mean you just possess something. In terms of law.. possession automatically falls into "ownership of illegal material(s). If a cop throws that word around, it means you were caught with something on your person.

Nude images do fall into pornography unless if it's artistic... literally an author of some sort is attached to that artistic object.

This girl falls directly into the "child pornography" bracket and more than likely is going to be charged as a sex offender since she committed a sex crime, (possession of sexually explicit images of an under age child) when she has 30 sexually explicit images of herself that went OUTside the boundaries of privacy and was distributed via the internet. And what makes internet cases like his even more harsh on the offender, is the fact that it's the internet.. it spreads like a wild fire. ESPECIALLY, on a social networking site where not only adults socialize but also children.


Each case is different. The law is vague... that's why there's statutes, different definitions, degrees, chapters, sections etc... so that it can pinpoint how the law was broken and how it should be handled in the court of law.

Like I said before... you can take a nude picture. But what happens with that nude picture is a different story. You can take a nude picture of sittin on a chair with your legs and arms crossed covering your private parts... that's not illegal unless you're underage.

Eh.. this is why law takes 10+ years to major in... it is very difficult to understand and to explain unless you observe each and every case in regards to that specific law. There's normal terms/definitions and there's law terms and definitions.

i didn't have an issue with the word possession that i know of, so i duno what the point of that is. our disagreement was more over what falls under legal and illegal to possess, not what constitutes possession really. you insisted having the images was porn and against the law (as i quoted you saying), and then you quoted laws that stated it wasn't since sexual conduct wasn't depicted.

the rest of your post is whatever to me. it doesn't address what i just posted anyway so there isn't much to say to it. what i just posted was quoting your numerous posts that didn't make sense together and you didn't address any of those. you don't need to bother becuase i think half of your contradicting posts are because you're being broad in some and more specific in others and it's confusing people, which just happens.

we don't even disagree that there should be consequences to what she did.

OH GOD NUDITY, IT'S PORN!

That's one small penis, Adam.

Ya I've read the posts and it's going from this specific case to just in general then back to this specific case again... which makes things really difficult in regards to understanding the law.

^ The debate doesn't have to be about this specific case, but cases like this in general. Which is why we've all been quoting general laws and talking about kids taking photos of themselves... in general. So generally this is a general debate. :)

We must charge taint the reputation of Michelangelo with possession of pornography.

See... you're still misunderstanding me by making that statement. =\