Teen Faces Porn Charges for Nude MySpace Pictures, Another one bites the dust! Options

[illriginal]

A 14 year old New Jersey girl has been accused of child pornography after posting over 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com, charges that could force her to register as a sex offender if convicted.

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.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

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.

You're so cool. I wish I was cool enough to report people for giving me something I have open in another tab anyway.

[karmakiller]

If I'm ever a parent you can bet that I'm going to be watching what my kid does on the internet. If a kid is willing to expose herself physically on Myspace I wouldn't put it past her to meet-up with some creep who wants to take advantage of her. (Plus, some creep could be "enjoying" himself looking at those photos and I can't imagine being a parent and knowing that some guy might be doing that to photos of your daughter.)

Reason for edit: I swear I'm not post-stalking you, CJ.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

^ Post-stalker.

[illriginal]

I'm definitely not putting a T.V. in my kid(s)room nor a computer. Both are staying within the family room... not in privacy.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

I'm going to put a computer in my kid's room. And I'll be sure to set the homepage to a porn site.
I want my kid(s) to be desensitized as soon as possible.

[shoryuken]

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.

wow...

[Tsukuyomi-No-Mok...]

it's kinda sad how kids these days are soo into sex and stuff like that
14 years old and posting pics like that up on myspace.
makes you wonder what the parents are doin
i mean if it was my kid one I'd set up their computer so that i can see whatever they are doin online so that way they can't do somethin stupid like that

[heyo-captain-jac...]

I'm going to introduce my kids to 4chan.

[none345678]

I am going to force my kid to post on /b/

[heyo-captain-jac...]

I'm going to make my kids lurk first. Don't want to contribute to the newfag problem.

[Simba]

Oh by the way, I'm gay

wat

[heyo-captain-jac...]

No edits now.

[Tramatize]

I am going to force my kid to post on /b/

/b/ ?

[none345678]

^ A forum on 4chan. It's a scary place sometimes.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

^ A forum on 4chan. It's an awesome place sometimes.

[illriginal]

wat

Arjuna... [enter lisp] u so silly.

wat

Arjuna... [enter lisp] u so silly.

EDIT: You guys should give everyone the capability to delete their own posts.

[Deospeon]

I wonder if She has posted any of her pictures somewhere else too.
Sounds like a sexy one.

My Daughter will be the future queen of /b/

[illriginal]

I hope she gets 17 years in prison. 30 nude images of her being a little whore online? Ya... give her the maximum and make it nation wide news.

[none345678]

Shes a minor. She wouldn't go to jail.

[DoubleJ]

^this

[illriginal]

Shes a minor. She wouldn't go to jail.

Oh ya? Keep thinking that. Study the laws. I've already posted them before along with the consequences. Not doing it again.

^this

You're brutally unaware. But then again, you'd disagree with anything I say just to disagree.

[shoryuken]

HAHAHHAHAHA btw im gay shiet.. HAHAHA

[Tung]

You guys are all f*cken idiots. This only further proves how stupid US laws are. Come on? So are you telling me if a 13 year old girl takes naked pictures of herself, she'll get charged for child pornography possesion? It's her f*cken body. It's like telling underage kids not to look at their own bodies. f*ck the US government, and it's hypocritical self. You have no idea how much child prostitution and trafficking happens behind close doors in higher government.

[dosomethin888]

I think her parents should ground her and take her cell phone, computer, and television away. But, if she had been disciplined like this for getting in trouble in the past or if her parent's gave her the right amount of attention, I doubt she would be in this mess right now.

No child porn charges, do something to the parents. Its their fault.

[creole]

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?

You guys are all f*cken idiots. This only further proves how stupid US laws are. Come on? So are you telling me if a 13 year old girl takes naked pictures of herself, she'll get charged for child pornography possesion? It's her f*cken body. It's like telling underage kids not to look at their own bodies. f*ck the US government, and it's hypocritical self. You have no idea how much child prostitution and trafficking happens behind close doors in higher government.

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.

[illriginal]

You guys are all f*cken idiots. This only further proves how stupid US laws are. Come on? So are you telling me if a 13 year old girl takes naked pictures of herself, she'll get charged for child pornography possesion? It's her f*cken body. It's like telling underage kids not to look at their own bodies. f*ck the US government, and it's hypocritical self. You have no idea how much child prostitution and trafficking happens behind close doors in higher government.

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.

[shoryuken]

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...

[hypnotique]

I'm going to make my kids lurk first. Don't want to contribute to the newfag problem.

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.

I think her parents should ground her and take her cell phone, computer, and television away. But, if she had been disciplined like this for getting in trouble in the past or if her parent's gave her the right amount of attention, I doubt she would be in this mess right now.

No child porn charges, do something to the parents. Its their fault.

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

[none345678]

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.

[dosomethin888]

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.

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

[none345678]

^Sounds sexy though

[*paperplane*]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[illriginal]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

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.

[*paperplane*]

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.

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.

[illriginal]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

You're normal, correct? Us abusive parents would slap their child in the mouth if they ever said, "I'm not your property".

I hope you don't have children.

[illriginal]

I hope you don't have children.

Abusive? You crack me up.

[karmakiller]

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.

[illriginal]

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.

[lojay]

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?!

[Tung]

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.

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.

[none345678]

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.

What the f*ck.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

What the f*ck.

x1000

[*paperplane*]

Tama is a lunatic, moving on.

[illriginal]

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.

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.

[karmakiller]

^ 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.

[illriginal]

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.

[Tung]

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

[brooklyneast05]

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.

this is why no one understands your point of view. becuase you think CHILDREN deserve the ULTIMATE PUNISHMENT for doing stupid shit. no they don't, they're f*cking children.

if someone wants to have nude pictures of themselves they should have them, it's not harming anyone or even relevant to anything. i mean who the hell is gonna break into someones room and arrest them because they have a nude picture of themselves. if they aren't sharing it then it certainly does not matter AT ALL. if they are sharing it, that changes things somewhat but it's not the end of the f*cking world really.


i still just don't get why this is the worst thing ever to some people. they should just delete the shit, fine em or something, and move on with life. i can't wait till the day we're more concerned with real criminals that actually hurt people.

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

[heyo-captain-jac...]

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.

It's always good to cite your source on definitions when you have an uncountable number of people against your opinion.


It's not a hard concept to understand, what I don't get is why you don't understand it.

Also: your "lady" agrees with you because she's your "lady". If she was anyone else she would say that you're a f*cking nut.

Tama is a lunatic, moving on.

Good post. Short, simple, 100% accurate. Why can't Tampon make posts like this?

[shoryuken]

mang.. i waitt da c u fagg postt c wat u saii.. butt i gittaa sai..

lottaa u fukenn dum 4 reel..

[illriginal]

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

Wow... you're a f*ckin moron, Tung. No where, ever, in this thread did I say anything like that. If you're unsure about what people are talking about... just read.

i can't wait till the day we're more concerned with real criminals that actually hurt people.


loool.gif

I can't wait til Sharia Law comes... f*ck the change Obama's gonna bring, we'll show all of you what REAL change is.

[Tung]

Wow... you're a f*ckin moron, Tung. No where, ever, in this thread did I say anything like that. If you're unsure about what people are talking about... just read.

i know you didn't. but you brought up that she shouldn't be taking naked pictures of herself. who cares if these kids are taking naked photos of themselves. it's the same shit as looking at your self naked. maybe they want to take a naked picture of themselves for self adoration and look at themselves when they upload the photo on their computer. it's the same shit as you taking a photo of your damn "muscles" in your cb profile. for self adoration. what exactly is the harm of taking a naked photo of yourself? if it was to post it online to exploit and shit like jc said then it'll be different.

and the person who talked about nude photos and child pornography is correct. they are two different things. a photo of a nude 10 year old guy walking around in public isn't child pornography. it's a nudist photo, and doesn't show any sexual exploitation.

[illriginal]

i know you didn't. but you brought up that she shouldn't be taking naked pictures of herself. who cares if these kids are taking naked photos of themselves. it's the same shit as looking at your self naked. maybe they want to take a naked picture of themselves for self adoration and look at themselves when they upload the photo on their computer. it's the same shit as you taking a photo of your damn "muscles" in your cb profile. for self adoration. what exactly is the harm of taking a naked photo of yourself? if it was to post it online to exploit and shit like jc said then it'll be different.

and the person who talked about nude photos and child pornography is correct. they are two different things. a photo of a nude 10 year old guy walking around in public isn't child pornography. it's a nudist photo, and doesn't show any sexual exploitation.

If it aims to show their private parts... it's automatically labeled, "pornography". This has been known for ever.

And it's not the same as taking a picture of my "muscles". Because my damn arms aren't sexual organs. -.-

There's no harm in the action of taking a nude picture of yourself. It is the actions AFTERWARD that causes harm. What you will do with the picture is what weighs in the balance.

[Tung]

So pretend I was 16 years old. I took a naked photo of myself, and masturbated to it. What should happen to me?

[heyo-captain-jac...]

So pretend I was 16 years old. I took a naked photo of myself, and masturbated to it. What should happen to me?

You would be called an autophile.


And Tama, Sharia law isn't going to happen here anytime soon. If you think otherwise, you're a f*cking moron.

[illriginal]

So pretend I was 16 years old. I took a naked photo of myself, and masturbated to it. What should happen to me?

The question is... is that photo of yourself going anywhere outside of your home? Whether it be through the computer or physically right outside of your private property? If not... then you have nothing to worry about. If so... then 1 of 2 things will happen when you get caught.

1. charged with possession of child pornography

or

2. charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography.




Oh by the way, you can thank Obama for the new bill he's promoting. It gives the F.B.I., C.I.A., and Homeland Security the right to search your computer via IP without a warrant nor suspicion. And if you have nudes (or anything incriminating) and the nudes seem to be of what looks to be a child, prepare to have a file and be investigated.

You would be called an autophile.


And Tama, Sharia law isn't going to happen here anytime soon. If you think otherwise, you're a f*cking moron.

Oh please stfu... Americans actually believe that Socialism would never come to America... and guess what? You're a f*ckin moron.

You wouldn't know shit if it was right in your f*ckin face and under your ugly fat nose.

[karmakiller]

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.

I thought she was a paralegal. Either way, you both need to brush up on your knowledge of the law.

Let me help you.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18...56----000-.html
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/ocp.htm

"All states prohibit child pornography. “Child pornography” may encompass either: 1) the creation or reproduction of materials depicting minors engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity (“Sexual Exploitation of Minors”) or 2) the publication or distribution of obscene, indecent, or harmful materials to minors."
http://www.lorenavedon.com/laws.htm


You need to realize that there is a difference between nudity and pornography.


Honestly, people who enforce the law have better things to be concerned about. Had this kid been taking photos of herself masturbating or at the request of and adult that a COMPLETELY different situation. Tama doesn't seem to understand that. If he wants to have the same punishment for a children taking photos of themselves depicting sex and for taking nude pictures that is just ass backwards.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

Oh please stfu... Americans actually believe that Socialism would never come to America... and guess what? You're a f*ckin moron.

You wouldn't know shit if it was right in your f*ckin face and under your ugly fat nose.

If you can give me any proof from a reliable source that Sharia Law is going to be implemented in the United States, I will admit that I'm wrong, and you can stroke your e-cock.

[shoryuken]

illmortal acttulli gitt summ good stuff.. tung rambel bout pix diz n dat.. HAHAHAHAHAH

tung.. illmortal git u diz tyme.. )

u faill u targitt mang..

noww i gittaa finee dat kidd n git sumthang goinn.. ^^

[illriginal]

I thought she was a paralegal. Either way, you both need to brush up on your knowledge of the law.

Let me help you.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18...56----000-.html
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/ocp.htm

"All states prohibit child pornography. "Child pornography" may encompass either: 1) the creation or reproduction of materials depicting minors engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity ("Sexual Exploitation of Minors") or 2) the publication or distribution of obscene, indecent, or harmful materials to minors."
http://www.lorenavedon.com/laws.htm


You need to realize that there is a difference between nudity and pornography.


Honestly, people who enforce the law have better things to be concerned about. Had this kid been taking photos of herself masturbating or at the request of and adult that a COMPLETELY different situation. Tama doesn't seem to understand that. If he wants to have the same punishment for a children taking photos of themselves depicting sex and for taking nude pictures that is just ass backwards.

Child pornography: pornography using a child or children as the subject.

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

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.

I don't think so, hun. If a girl or a boy were to take a nude picture... let me ask you, would it be to ask their friends an opinion on the coloration of their dick? Or the bump on their tit? GTFO.

Little jits taking nude pictures of them selves is for sexual purposes, majority of the time.

If you honestly think that it's as simple as what you posted, you're out of your f*ckin mind.

Here, learn something: http://www.loundy.com/E-LAW_Links.html#obscenity_indecency

lol @ My lady needs to brush up on definitions of the laws. You're a joke.

[illriginal]

Actually let me help you with that... cuz I wanna make sure I make you look like a fool in front of everyone. :)

Federal Laws

18 U.S.C. § 1466A (2008)

§ 1466A. OBSCENE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

(a) In general. Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(1) [18 USCS § 2252A(b)(1)], including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

(b) Additional offenses. Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is obscene; or
(2) (A) depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; and
(B) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be subject to the penalties provided in section 2252A(b)(2) [18 USCS § 2252A(b)(2)], including the penalties provided for cases involving a prior conviction.

© Nonrequired element of offense. It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist.

(d) Circumstances. The circumstance referred to in subsections (a) and (b) is that--
(1) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense is communicated or transported by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce is otherwise used in committing or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
(2) any communication involved in or made in furtherance of the offense contemplates the transmission or transportation of a visual depiction by the mail, or in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer;
(3) any person travels or is transported in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of the commission or in furtherance of the commission of the offense;
(4) any visual depiction involved in the offense has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or was produced using materials that have been mailed, or that have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer; or
(5) the offense is committed in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in any territory or possession of the United States.

(e) Affirmative defense. It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (b) that the defendant--
(1) possessed less than 3 such visual depictions; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any such visual depiction--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.

(f) Definitions. For purposes of this section--
(1) the term "visual depiction" includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on a computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image, and also includes any photograph, film, video, picture, digital image or picture, computer image or picture, or computer generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means;
(2) the term "sexually explicit conduct" has the meaning given the term in section 2256(2)(A) or 2256(2)(B) [18 USCS § 2256(2)(A) or 2256(2)(B)]; and
(3) the term "graphic", when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.

18 U.S.C. § 2256 (2008)

§ 2256. DEFINITIONS FOR CHAPTER

For the purposes of this chapter [18 USCS §§ 2251 et seq.], the term--
(1) "minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), "sexually explicit conduct" means actual or simulated--
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

P.S. Just so you know... the organization I work for are one of the organizations that investigate sexual predators / sex offenders (technology is great). Including Middle school children and especially high school students. If you had a clue... there's a lot more teenagers out there getting caught and put into the system than the News/Media reports. Trust that.

[shoryuken]

Actually let me help you with that... cuz I wanna make sure I make you look like a fool in front of everyone. :)

OH SHIET....

KARMA... illmortall ownninn upp dizz thrad.. ahahaha

[brooklyneast05]

how does your bolded shit prove anything? dee's whole point is there is a difference between nudity and pornography. standing around nude is different than standing around nude jacking off. i don't see how your bolded examples prove her wrong in that.

(a) In general. Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

standing around nude isn't depicting sexual conduct, so this shouldn't matter to her

(B) is obscene; or

i guess this matters to people who think the human body is inherently an obscene thing

(3) the term "graphic", when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.

yeah once again standing around nude doesn't equal depicting sexual conduct. you made the text that says "means the viewer can observe any part of the genitals or public area of any depicted person" bigger but the rest of the sentence clearly goes on to read DURING ANY PART OF THE TIME THE SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT IS BEING DEPICTED.

so, if sexually depicted conduct isn't being depicted, then the first part means nothing. if it was just saying that viewing the genitals alone is graphic then i'd agree with you. but it doesn't, it says viewing them while a sexual act is being depicted is graphic.

(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

once again standing around nude doesn't fit with this because nudity in itself isn't "lascivious" and it clearly goes out of its' way to define it has having to be "lascivious" not just in plain view.

what did you prove? that depicting sexual acts and showing the genitals isn't allowed? dee never said it wasn't. she said being nude is not automatically pornography. i don't see the point. people are so scared of nakedness

nudity =/= porn. you didn't even really post anything different than dee. you're just reading them differently than her. hers say the same thing about it not being porn unless sexual acts are depicted. i don't see anything that says nakedness alone is classified as graphic and porn

[illriginal]

Wow... strong strawman. I give up. Go to college and get an education, preferably in English. I'm done with this sad thread.

[brooklyneast05]

i am in college and getting an education dipshit. if i was like you, i'd point out that "my lady" is an english major, but since i know that's completely irrelevant then i won't bother saying such stupid shit. i was looking forward to you explaining to me how your quotes relate to nudity alone. which you wouldn't be able to do, since they don't, they relate to sexual conduct being depicted.

i'm glad you're done with this thread now!

[illriginal]

Apparently you're too stupid to read and comprehend the definitions. That or you're purposely manipulating them. This isn't my problem. There's nothing else to discuss... unless you want me to redefine them.

[brooklyneast05]

i don't expect you to do anything

I give up.

I'm done with this sad thread.

[creole]

I'm done with this sad thread.

By the request of the user, the thread is now imaginatively closed.

[karmakiller]

Damn a comes in and owns the shit outta Tampon. He's proven a long time ago that Debate is not his forum.

[shoryuken]

diz suppozz da bii KARMA vs illmortal..

wtf RASHAD EVANS hoppin in 4...

DEE u sux..

By the request of the user, the thread is now imaginatively closed.

STFU..

[illriginal]

Damn a comes in and owns the shit outta Tampon. He's proven a long time ago that Debate is not his forum.

He's using a scenario where someone is standing around naked while neglecting the fact that if it's distributed it now becomes a different story. It's no longer just a personal image of your naked body, now it has become material that is being distributed.

He's also ignoring another fact, if you have a nude picture of yourself and you're underage, as soon as you step outside of your privacy (home) with that image on your person, you are now in possession of illegal material that will be held against you in the court of law.

He's also ignoring the fact that if a picture of naked child exists this is automatically falling into a form of child abuse, depending how the picture is being handled. Of course if it's a picture taken by the parent/guardian or by the request of a parent/guardian and it is not for anything other than memories of a child then it's simply.. nothing.

He actually believes that an underage kid would just randomly decide to take an innocent picture of their naked body for shits and giggles or for their memory... no. This is quite laughable. There's intentions behind it... it is the intentions that are put on the scale. The action taken AFTER the image was created.


So it's simple to understand. It's not illegal to take a simple nude picture of yourself. It is the intentions behind taking that nude picture.

You guys are f*ckin silly with it.

[shoryuken]

dat rite ILLMORTAL GIT'R DONE YO... GIT DEM


ROUND 2




COME ON KARMAKILLA N brocoli...

[karmakiller]

He's using a scenario where someone is standing around naked while neglecting the fact that if it's distributed it now becomes a different story. It's no longer just a personal image of your naked body, now it has become material that is being distributed.

He's also ignoring the fact that if a picture of naked child exists this is automatically falling into a form of child abuse, depending how the picture is being handled. Of course if it's a picture taken by the parent/guardian or by the request of a parent/guardian and it is not for anything other than memories of a child then it's simply.. nothing.

He actually believes that an underage kid would just randomly decide to take an innocent picture of their naked body for shits and giggles or for their memory... no. This is quite laughable. There's intentions behind it... it is the intentions that put on the scale. The action taken AFTER the image was created.

You guys are f*ckin silly with it.

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.

[illriginal]

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". -.-

[karmakiller]

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

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

[illriginal]

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?

[shoryuken]

u gott diz illmortal...

dey bakkin downn yo ^^

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 (this now leaves your privacy) with the photo and uploaded it to Myspace for her boyfriend (this now becomes distribution)

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

+1

[karmakiller]

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...

There's intentions behind it... it is the intentions that put on the scale.

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?

[illriginal]

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:

She didn't take the photos with the intentions of posting them all over the internet.

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.

[shoryuken]

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

karmmaa n brocolii givv upp 2 eazzly.. ^^

[brooklyneast05]

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

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.

If it aims to show their private parts... it's automatically labeled, "pornography". This has been known for ever.

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

(a) In general. Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly produces, distributes, receives, or possesses with intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that--
(1) (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and

(B) is obscene; or

(3) the term "graphic", when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted.

(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

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.

karmmaa n brocolii givv upp 2 eazzly.. ^^

I give up. I'm done with this sad thread.

[shoryuken]

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

ROUND 3



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

[brooklyneast05]

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.

[shoryuken]

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

[illriginal]

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.

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.

[brooklyneast05]

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.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

click to enlarge

OH GOD NUDITY, IT'S PORN!

[creole]

That's one small penis, Adam.

[illriginal]

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.

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.

[karmakiller]

^ 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. :)

http://www.adliterate.com/archives/CreationofAdam.jpg

OH GOD NUDITY, IT'S PORN!

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

[illriginal]

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