Charging Minors with Child Porn Options

[Comptine]

Back to the topic at hand:

I think the law is being taken too literally.

And if some of these teens have to be declared sex offenders, what happens if they have younger siblings? They wouldn't be able to live with their family.

[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.

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

^ Well, parents shouldn't get off completely free of anything. If their children do something that's against the law the parents are responsible too, because of negligence.

That's not right. Kids hide stuff from their parents all the time. Do you honestly think that a parent can monitor everything their kid does? That's impossible. You could try keeping your kids from having sex by having them not go out, but that wont work because they'll just find some place at school to do it. So should the parents be held responsible for teenage pregnancy too or all the other mischievous stuff teenagers do?

[*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.

[*paperplane*]

What are you talking about, the pictures or the sex? Because if you're referring to sex...okay, but it varies by state. And in most, I'd assume though I can still only speak for my own, teenagers of similar age are not going to be required to register as sex offenders for committing sodomy. Because frankly it's stupid and unjust. Just because something is law doesn't make it right. Don't you smoke a lot of weed? Do you think marijuana laws are just and correct? Were segregation laws right? No. I think it is completely untrue that the law is that concrete; laws should be questioned. They may have been broken, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every offense should be prosecuted. It's inaccurate to think of the law as that concrete either; laws can be changed retroactively, such as in the case of the Romeo and Juliet clause I mentioned previously. People may have broken a law five years ago, but technically speaking they haven't broken the same law now.

[illriginal]

-.-

Learn the laws. Anyone under the age of 18 cannot have any sexual affiliation. Even sex under age is against the law in majority if not all states of the U.S. Your parents can either punish you over it or take it to the extreme of pressing charges. Same thing with pictures and or videos... if you're under age and you're affiliated with sex in any pictures and or videos, you broke the law.

I'm done with this discussion.

[Tramatize]

I don't think this is a reasonable law, but i can see why they're doing it.
But if two minors have sex, i think they should both be charged with statutory[sp?] rape.

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.

The government watches everything you do, on the internet and over the phone.
Hell probably in your own house soon, Google is going to be putting cameras over every part of the world.

[brooklyneast05]

But if two minors have sex, i think they should both be charged with statutory[sp?] rape.

why? why should they be charged with anything? who cares? me and my gf had sex when we were both 16. why on earth should i be charged with raping her? i do not get the point in saying that two minors having sex should be charged with ANYTHING. i don't even get what the offense is in two minors having sex consensually is, other than the fact some people think it's "morally wrong".

[Tramatize]

why? why should they be charged with anything? who cares? me and my gf had sex when we were both 16. why on earth should i be charged with raping her? i do not get the point in saying that two minors having sex should be charged with ANYTHING. i don't even get what the offense is in two minors having sex consensually is, other than the fact some people think it's "morally wrong".

I know that's why i don't think the whole Child Porn thing is right because if your going to charge a minor with Child Porn, it would be equally the same to charge them with statutory rape.
I don't think any of it is right, if they're both under 18, and not like 12 and 17, but more like 15-16, they shouldn't be charged with anything. That's just accounting them as an adult, and they're not.

[brooklyneast05]

But if two minors have sex, i think they should both be charged with statutory[sp?] rape.

ok but you said this, which is why i asked. i didn't know why you thought that, but maybe you had a typo because now you're saying you don't think they should be charged.

[*paperplane*]

-.-

Learn the laws. Anyone under the age of 18 cannot have any sexual affiliation. Even sex under age is against the law in majority if not all states of the U.S. Your parents can either punish you over it or take it to the extreme of pressing charges. Same thing with pictures and or videos... if you're under age and you're affiliated with sex in any pictures and or videos, you broke the law.

I'm done with this discussion.

For f*ck's sake, I'm talking about the law. And under 18? That is so blatantly untrue. In most states the age of consent is under 18, usually 16. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

[Tramatize]

ok but you said this, which is why i asked. i didn't know why you thought that, but maybe you had a typo because now you're saying you don't think they should be charged.

Haha, I meant to say that being charged as a minor with child porn would be just as bad as being a minor charged with statutory rape, sorry for the confusion.

[sixfive]

For f*ck's sake, I'm talking about the law. And under 18? That is so blatantly untrue. In most states the age of consent is under 18, usually 16. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

17 in Texas cheaaaaaaaa.


Sixteen is the average age :( we're a bunch of prudes :(

[illriginal]

For f*ck's sake, I'm talking about the law. And under 18? That is so blatantly untrue. In most states the age of consent is under 18, usually 16. http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Now that's funny. Because from what I learned in Internet Law (college) and from my lady who's a Paralegal, this contradicts the legal system. In fact the reason why (from what I was taught) that the legal age to have sex or affiliate oneself with sex is 18+ because at that age you're able to get married without the consent of the guardians.

[sixfive]

paralegals are people who wanted to be lawyers but were too stupid to get their undergrad and go to law school

also, tamacracker, you don't have to be married to have sex. i know this might blow your mind, but they're not the same thing.



Oh and, what type of law does your "lady" work in? Just curious.

[illriginal]

paralegals are people who wanted to be lawyers but were too stupid to get their undergrad and go to law school

also, tamacracker, you don't have to be married to have sex. i know this might blow your mind, but they're not the same thing.
Oh and, what type of law does your "lady" work in? Just curious.

wow the more I read your posts the more I know you're a complete stupid f*ck. She's a Paralegal because she's still in law school you dumb shit. And she does Litigation law, phaggot.

[sixfive]

Is she going to law school?

[Comptine]

Now that's funny. Because from what I learned in Internet Law (college) and from my lady who's a Paralegal, this contradicts the legal system. In fact the reason why (from what I was taught) that the legal age to have sex or affiliate oneself with sex is 18+ because at that age you're able to get married without the consent of the guardians.

What you learned is contradictory to reality. Like paperplane pointed out, most states have under 18 consent laws. However, most are not younger than 16. So in most places in America, if you're between the ages of 16-18, you can have sex.

Just because one law that somehow relates to one thing has a certain age, does not mean everything about that one thing follows through. For examples most states, a person can drive by him/herself by the age of 21, however, most rental companies don't allow someone below the age of 25 to rent a car.

[karmakiller]

That's not right. Kids hide stuff from their parents all the time. Do you honestly think that a parent can monitor everything their kid does? That's impossible. You could try keeping your kids from having sex by having them not go out, but that wont work because they'll just find some place at school to do it. So should the parents be held responsible for teenage pregnancy too or all the other mischievous stuff teenagers do?

I know what you're saying, but there isn't a law against teenagers having sex. I was referring to things that are against the law and end up with lawsuit that the parents have to pay. If they make it against the law for someone underage to post a nude photo of themselves on the internet (not just sending it to someone) then somehow they'd have to find a way to prove that the parents were being negligent... and doing that is going to waste a lot of time and a lot of money. I think they should focus more on the perverts who are into kiddy porn and are looking at leaked images of underage kids than kids sending photos to each other.

If someone who is underage is sending nudes to someone else who underage I think that's different than someone who's underage sending nudes to someone who is their 40's. That shouldn't be treated equally.

[SuckDickNSaveLiv...]

I know what you're saying, but there isn't a law against teenagers having sex. I was referring to things that are against the law and end up with lawsuit that the parents have to pay. If they make it against the law for someone underage to post a nude photo of themselves on the internet (not just sending it to someone) then somehow they'd have to find a way to prove that the parents were being negligent... and doing that is going to waste a lot of time and a lot of money. I think they should focus more on the perverts who are into kiddy porn and are looking at leaked images of underage kids than kids sending photos to each other.

If someone who is underage is sending nudes to someone else who underage I think that's different than someone who's underage sending nudes to someone who is their 40's. That shouldn't be treated equally.

You bring up a good point of how bogus this whole law is though. It's not illegal for two teenagers to engage in sex, however it's illegal for them to send pics to one another. With or without the pics they've already seen each other naked, so why is it a crime for a minor to have naked pics of another minor but not two minors having sex? Which one is potentially more dangerous? A minor with a nude picture of another minor or a minor having sex with another minor, potentially contracting a permanent std or conceiving a child. I think whoever came up with this law didn't really think things through or they probably have terrible logic.

I get what you're saying about the parents being punished for negligence if their kid commits a crime, but I still can't agree with that. You could place the blame on the parents for bad parenting perhaps, but charging them with a crime is beyond me.

[coconutter]

-.-

Learn the laws. Anyone under the age of 18 cannot have any sexual affiliation. Even sex under age is against the law in majority if not all states of the U.S. Your parents can either punish you over it or take it to the extreme of pressing charges. Same thing with pictures and or videos... if you're under age and you're affiliated with sex in any pictures and or videos, you broke the law.

I'm done with this discussion.

Actually, people under 18 can have sexual affiliation

and
This is very stupid. If a case like this were to happen, they shouldn't be forced to register as a sex offender. The title sex offender means you were "offending" someone. These people aren't offenders, they're just horny.

and by the way, marriage has NOTHING to do with sex

[illriginal]

What you learned is contradictory to reality. Like paperplane pointed out, most states have under 18 consent laws. However, most are not younger than 16. So in most places in America, if you're between the ages of 16-18, you can have sex.

Just because one law that somehow relates to one thing has a certain age, does not mean everything about that one thing follows through. For examples most states, a person can drive by him/herself by the age of 21, however, most rental companies don't allow someone below the age of 25 to rent a car.

lol that's for the sake of insurance and also because 25 is the adult age for maturity.

[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.

[funride]

Yes, I do not think she should send any nude picture of herself. But I would not put her under the same category as a sex offender, mostly because she isnt.
If the photos got some how leaked onto the internet, then onto a social networking site like Myspace, then I think she should be punished for not being careful.