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?

[Robbiscool]

I'm somewhat undecided on this topic.
In the sense that I can understand both sides of the argument.



For one, it's distribution. It's a crime. But then again, what if the person charged is a minor? Since being a minor, doesn't that charge come back to the parents? As defined by many sources on the internet, including The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, one can be charged with such a crime, in the case that they "knowingly distribute" said material. So, therefore, if the parents are unaware such behaviour is taking place, can charges be pressed on them by the local/state/federal government?
However, if it's a picture of yourself, and you freely give it away, I don't think that should be considered as such a harsh crime. After all, it only hurts you in the long run. It's not like your disgracing anyone else.

I recall reading somewhere, that somewhere in Europe it's not child pornography if the "child" is of legal age to take part in sexual intercourse.
In some places, that may even be 13 years old.

In Kentucky, recent legislature said that as long as a person was at least 16, and gave consent to their partner it wasn't considered sex with a minor. It's like that several places with varying ages.
Some think that this law/rule should be tied in with child pornography. If the person is of age to participate in sexual activity, then such photos/videos of minors cannot be considered as child pornography.

Anyone in agreement with the "rule" given above?

Thx.