news.com — Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere. There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. That's what 16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy, her boyfriend, found out!
Oct 22, 2007 View in Crawl 4
asayOct 24, 2007
If the parents press charges when the girl doesn't want to they still have to prove that something took place. Pictures, movies, testimony ex.
thecatcantalkOct 24, 2007
If someone else robs a bank, should YOU be arrested for what he did? Should you be tried, convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison for what SOMEONE ELSE did? What if you're the shopkeeper who sold him the pen he wrote the note with? What if you're the guy who sold him the car he used to get to the bank? Are you culpable? No? Of course not? No s**t, brother. Yes, they were kids who took naughty pictures of one another. However, all these other crimes you mention NEVER HAPPENED. You may recall that American law forbids the courts from punishing persons for crimes that have not occurred. Speculation is inadmissible for a good reason. Only a pothead would fail to notice the logical inconsistencies in the majority opinion.
aduzikOct 24, 2007
Maybe *your* body is a beautiful, natural thing, but I'm going to keep my clothes on, thankyouverymuch. Also, you'rewelcomeverymuch.
coslenchipOct 26, 2007
Being a Christian myself, I don't have a real good handle on the answer to this, but as it has been explained to me:All people are equal. Therefore, it is in each person's best interest to not allow anyone to be murdered by anyone else. Why? It is best for all of us to live in a society where things are right or wrong regardless of whether you acknowledge a higher power. This must be true because otherwise the majority will eliminate those of the minority. E.g. just because everyone wants to kill Chris McDaniel (made up name) for no action on his part, just for being, that does not make it morally right. This is so because eventually each individual would end up on the losing side of this arrangement. Therefore, it is best to set up governmental laws that apply to everyone equally. Therefore, laws against murder, stealing, and the like are just and right from a secular standpoint. But, laws that benefit or harm a small specific group such as farmers (a specific occupation), the wealthy (specific economic status), or African Americans (specific race), etc are not right or just and should be eliminated.
coslenchipOct 26, 2007
I must say that I do not disagree with the Police officers for arresting the couple. It is their job to arrest those that they feel may be breaking a law. As stated above, per the letter of the law, these two were in violation. The police officers were justified, if instructed to do so by the prosecutor's office.The judges on the other hand, are morons. I don't see it as the Police officer's fault that the law was written in a way that made their actions illegal. It is the judge's fault for not looking at the spirit of the law and circumstances of the case and throwing it out.
tlakabmNov 8, 2007
YOU CHARGE THE CHILD PRONOGRAPHER, NOT THE CHILD.
olivejuiceyApr 2, 2009
Here is a blog I came across in psych. today about the case: <a class="user" href="http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-questions/200903/my-1st-bra-my-1st-sexual-offense">http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-big-ques ...</a>