Charging Minors with Child Porn Options

[Comptine]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/

There have been a lot of cases of police arresting and charging teenagers/minors with possession and distribution of child pornography because they've been sending racy pictures through their phones. Authorities argue these measures are done to send a message. They are protecting kids from further harming themselves by risking their pictures getting put on the internet. So a 14 year old girl who sends her boyfriend a naked picture of herself could get arrested and charged for distributing child porn.

However, once charged, these kids have to register as a sex offender, in some places for as long as ten years. Which means, that 14 year old girl will find it a lot harder to apply for jobs and college all because she sent a photo of herself to her boyfriend and got lumped into the same category as a child molester.

Thoughts?

[Stefanny]

How do they know about these things, anyways? Teens can keep quiet about this stuff from their own friends, let alone their parents. Invasion of privacy, if you ask me.

[illriginal]

How do they know about these things, anyways? Teens can keep quiet about this stuff from their own friends, let alone their parents. Invasion of privacy, if you ask me.

Technology. The F.B.I. has access to any information that's passed through the internet or simply the airways. You can thank the Patriot Act.

Back to the topic at hand:

I think the law is being taken too literally.

That's the beauty of "law" it's supposed to be taken literally. You break that law in any form... well you broke the law, no buts about it.

[*paperplane*]

That's the beauty of "law" it's supposed to be taken literally. You break that law in any form... well you broke the law, no buts about it.

That's not true, though. Sometimes it doesn't make sense and the law has to be revised. For example, when a seventeen year old engages in consensual acts with his fifteen year old girlfriend, he should not be in jail. The law has since been changed to reflect this, in GA, with the Romeo and Juliet clause. It's not really statutory rape if there's little age difference between the consensual partners, and it's not really child porn if they're taking pictures of themselves. Because there's consent and not exploitation, the latter being the main issue where child porn is concerned.

[illriginal]

That's not true, though. Sometimes it doesn't make sense and the law has to be revised. For example, when a seventeen year old engages in consensual acts with his fifteen year old girlfriend, he should not be in jail. The law has since been changed to reflect this, in GA, with the Romeo and Juliet clause. It's not really statutory rape if there's little age difference between the consensual partners, and it's not really child porn if they're taking pictures of themselves. Because there's consent and not exploitation, the latter being the main issue where child porn is concerned.

They're under age. If the parents catch them in the act, the parents have every right to press charges.