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.

[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.

[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.