What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
My wife likes to take pictures of everything. Got any ideas? view!
bestbuy.com - With a Kodak(r) EasyShareTM 3X Zoom, she'll have impressive 10.2-megapixel performance, right at her fingertips
344 Comments
- ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+160The thing is, there is another story of a 16 year old girl in Nebraska that posted nude pictures of herself on myspace.com and SHE'S getting charged with child pornography. WTF, she has to be protected from being abused and exploited by herself?
I wish I had the link to the story, but I can't remember where I read it at. Makes me wonder if she'll be ordered to have no contact with herself until she's 18. - ScottJG, on 10/12/2007, -10/+134Better tell mom to remove the pictures of you in the bathtub when you were 1 from the ol' photo album
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -3/+106He's juvenile. If the judge is unnecessarily harsh, he'll pander the kid around a Juvey prison until the kid's 18 and then set him out to turn into a full-fledged criminal.
If the judge is smart, he'll set the kid up with 200 hours community service and be done with it. This is just a kid we're talking about. We put him through the system, and he'll come out worse than he went in. - newevilmind, on 10/12/2007, -6/+87I live in Michigan and have been hearing about this case quite a bit lately.
There are several issues involved that make it kind of interesting.
The school that they attend tried to cover it up even though they had been notified
that kids were viewing these pics. at lunchtime on school property.
the local police are now in a dispute with the school security guard
because the security guard was told by the school administrators NOT to tell the police about it.
Also, apparently the kid who posted the pics. is an immature ***** who can't get laid.
The girl depicted in the pics. has tried to commit suicide at least once since this whole thing started she is a little kid and very embarrassed.
I guess the moral of the story is: if you're a kid don't have sex at some ***** party.
LEAVE first - hugepedlar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+56I think perhaps the article was being sensationalist. Sure there may be a maximum 20yr sentence for that type of "crime", but "maximum", "mandatory" and "likely" are very different terms.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -2/+47Not to add kindle to the flames, but wouldn't it be normal for a minor to have pictures of naked minors? Isn't it abnormal, and potentially more destructive for them to fantasize about women perhaps multiple times their age?
- mofomojo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+52Heh..
I've always wondered if you could legitimately charge a minor, legitimately, with posession of child pornography, since in order to be legitimate paedophilia, the defendant would need to be over 18.
Confusing, eh? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -18/+60this story is useless without pics!
- carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36stupid of the kid, but what happened to "punishment fit the crime"? how can you use the guise of "protecting the children" when you're charging what the law conciders a child, someone not capable of being on the mental plane of an adult, as an adult. either stick to your guns and try him as a child, and don't send him away for longer than he's even been alive, let alone remove his ability to get many jobs, voting rights, and all manner of other things.
try him as a child taking pictures of children, or try him as an adult, and treat it as adult material. don't piss around picking and choosing to make for the harshest punishment you can slap someone with - yonbeastie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31Holy crap. I hope he gets out of it. I mean, definitely a poor decision to put the picture on his blog, but 20 years? Harsh.
- sembetu, on 10/12/2007, -11/+37ped·o·phil·i·a ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pd-fl-, pd-)
n.
The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.
!=
por·nog·ra·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pôr-ngr-f)
n.
Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
The presentation or production of this material.
Just because someone HAS child pornography does not make them a pedophile. And because someone is a Pedophile does not mean they HAVE child pornography.
You can be a minor in the possesion of child pornography. It is the nature of the pornography that defines it not the holder. However, you can not be a minor and be a podophile, because you too would be a victim while being a perp. - LoungeActx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26all of this would still qualify him as a sex offender and he'll have to spend the rest of his life telling his neighbors, that he's a sex offender, he'll also be searchable in the sex offender registry...i'd say that's almost as bad as going to prison
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+24"Totally different idea. This is two people having sex."
So pictures of totally naked 12 year olds are okay too, as long as they're not having sex? - diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23i'm going to have to say no and would expect this case to get tossed out with a good lawyer.
- Thorpe, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2620 years!? I'm not even that old yet so that would sure be a long time in prison (if he is charged, of course).
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -5/+23I guess no one has ever heard of sarcasm.
Jesus people...lighten up. - ThugEsquire, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Ridiculous that he's being charged. Ridiculous that those kids were getting photographed in the act.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18"If the judge is smart, he'll set the kid up with 200 hours community service and be done with it. This is just a kid we're talking about. We put him through the system, and he'll come out worse than he went in."
BINGO. And that's what the lawyer needs to base his case on. He also needs to point out that the child porn law was not designed for this type of case. - Mesach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17I'm pretty sure that ranks up there with the worst of offenders as far as sentencing goes, and that is a bit harsh. That goes to saying that I don't think that this should go unpunished, but 20 YEARS? Murders get out in less time than that sometimes.
- DesertSquirrel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21@Scott
Yeah, but you're not having sex in bathtub when the photo was taken. I think that if he had kept the photos to himself,he wouldn't have been charged, but the fact that he made the pictures public for people of all ages to see is where he's screwed. 20 years is a bit harsh though. - QuikSilvr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Maybe a horny 16 year old would stoop that low, well, because, he is that low.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+22to snowbooch:
i wish i'm 16. i'm actually in my 40s and i'm always naked when i read digg.
i wish i have a 3rd hand :( - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -17/+31Why the bloody hell would you want to see the pics? Not only would that be illegal, but it would be incredibly poor taste. Surely no-one reasonable would stoop that low?
- Mitchl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Understand, he COULD face 20 years IF convicted of the most serious charge. However, first offense, and his age, even if he is convicted of that charge, he will not get 20 years. The prosecution has no interest in putting this guy away for 20 years for this, but they also are not going to let it slide completely.
My guess is that he will be pleading guilty to some misdemeanor, and probably get it bumped down to some community service. I do not know what the law in Michigan is, but it most likely does not require that he know the age of the girl, only that the girl be proven to be a child under the law (and in Michigan, appearantly that is 16).
Please everyone don't be a dumbass and go posting picture of high school kids having sex. It doesn't take half a brain to know that you just might get in some trouble for that.
In my little suburb of Memphis, this IT manager was found with child porn on his computer, and pretty much got off (hee hee), with probation and got the Mitnick "don't touch a computer" penalty. But then a few months later, since he couldn't touch a computer he was trying to touch little kids at the city park-- now he is facing serious time with some serious cellmates. - dunos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16theone3,
That very much depends on what country you are in. This isn't child porn in the UK as they were all over the age of 16. - darkstar949, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14@dclowd9901 - From the psychological stand point you generally tend to fantasize about people that are the same age as you - the range various as you age. However, what you said is more or less true of teenagers, a teenager is generally going to fantasize about another teenager or at most someone in their early twenties. (Baring of course, the usual exceptions)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18If our culture wasn't built on fascism and repression this sort of thing wouldn’t be such a problem. That girl probably wanted to die of embarrassment caused by an unhealthy culture view of sex. I blame society, humans (even 16 year old humans) are sexual beings. When are we going to except and work WITH that instead of against it?
- szelij, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Aye, they're on somewhat shaky legal ground me thinks over this...don't think they can successfully prosecute it if the bloke fights all the way to the supreme court-which he should because being sent away for more than you've lived for a simple thing like that is simple stupid.
The prosecutor and district attorney must be eyeing higher office or wants to impress his higher-ups. - neozeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Hard to belive you used to be considered an adult at 13, and dead at 30. ...
- Cine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11The Sex-Ed section of my Health textbook is full of naked, underage people. Including one where there's a naked girl sitting on the back of a naked boy, and the boy has a boner. Huh. I never really thought about that as child-porn, though I did wonder who the hell would volunteer to be naked in a book 100.000 people your age would see.
- fogster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"So pictures of totally naked 12 year olds are okay too, as long as they're not having sex?"
Possibly, actually. My understanding of child pornography laws is that it has to depict minors in a "sexual manner." If it was a tasteful, artistic photograph of a nude child, it might be legal. (Granted, I certainly wouldn't want my children involved, nor would I try this myself.) - Dinosaurus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Agreed. Just give the punk a ton of community service, picking up dog ***** or trash on the side of the road or something.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Nah, it's illegal to be in porn under 18, it's just legal to have sex at 16
It's a bit silly really
You can have sex at 16, but you can't watch a recording of others doing it - anenokoji, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10im with the other guy - if he is 17, and he took pictures of a 17/16 year old. If he is an adult, so are the people he took pictures of. If he isn't an adult, neither are the kids he took pictures of. You cant pick and choose based on some "feelings" you might or might not have towards the case./
- pcronin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12OK, here's the part that disturbed me:
"Authorities said the boy in the picture is 17, while the girl is 16. According to prosecutors, the age of the girl makes the sexually explicit picture child pornography under the law."
"THE AGE OF THE GIRL"
nothing about the guy in the pic, because obviously the guy is a MAN at 17.
WTF is that about?
It's always about the girls isn't it? wtf is wrong with our culture? how do we know she didn't beg him all night in a drunken haze?
the girl wanted to die? how many times a week does a 16 year old girl say that anyway? cmon....
I agree, if I was in high school at this time, I'd have probably had some stupid drug/booze induced thing like this happen too.
It just boggles my mind that if I would have been under 18 and taken pics of my gf at the time, I could have gone to jail, even though waiting a few months would have made it perfectly fine. - us3ecandme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Really--that's what high schoolers DO. If there were digital cameras back then you know this would have already happened. But you couldn't get that stuff processed at FotoMat and Polaroids were too expensive when you compared their necessity to a case of beer.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Yes teenagers have sex, but does that mean you need to take pictures of it? Duh.
- jemstar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10whoops, he should have been off in the corner using some ilicit drugs and minding his own business.
- bmson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Why the hell are they charging him with child abuse?
That would not have happend in any other western country.
I know of many occasions in Iceland, where nude pictures of kids under 18 years old went on some party blog (or image gallery).
They are just usually removed but no charge :/
"all do respect" But United States has gone the wrong way (they are way off).
Should you put this kid in the same category as a 40 year old pedophile that has thousands of pictures of 7 year old kids?
P.s.
There is an 22 year old Icelandic/American boy in Texas, that was charge for sexual assault 12 years ago.
He was playing "doctor patient game" as many kids do, when they are young (with 8 year old friend "girl")
10 year old, he was not even on puberty. Icelandic government has been trying to get him transferred to Iceland for years but the Texas government treat him as and hard criminal - obeseotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Child pornography laws are meant to protect kids from predators, not from their own stupidity. If you're 16 and have sex in public at a party with kids your own age, sorry I don't think you're entitled to a ton of protection. This is not an 11 year old being molested by an old man, this is totally normal behavior for 16 and 17 year olds.
- endymionls, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10He's not being charged with pedophilia, he's being charged for child pornography.
- fishindiesea, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14yea....good point
- anorris, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"She made a stupid decision. It's HER fault."
A - freakin - men.
Its her problem if she has to live it down.
She had sex (her choice) in a public place (her choice) while she was drunk (her choice).
Why should I care how she feels about it? - mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@skytimelapse: The girl attempting to commit suicide is completely irrelevent to this criminal case. That might come into play in a civil suit, but only the circumstances relating to the actual crime should determine a verdict and sentence.
- Furi0usBee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Duh, he used a digital camera! Hello? :)
- mulletbum, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ok here is something funny for you guys. I live in the town he lives, where this happened. I know the kid personnally. My Ex-girlfriends little sister used to date this kid. He was a complete deusch. Not only that i feel he deserves some harsh punishment. This kid has been trying to pull ***** like this for years. I say throw him in prison, but I also knwo the legal system, so he will be let off pretty easy. Any questions?
- rabiddogma, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ideally the kid would get a slap on the wrist but with the way that manditory sentencing for sex offences have gotten way out of hand that might not be posible.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12A lot of you people are pointing out that the kid COULD get 20 years. The emphasis is right, but your conclusion is exactly backwards. That this kid COULD get 20 years--but probably won't--is just what makes this case so disturbing.
Ask yourself what it means to live in a society where the difference between community service and 20 years in prison is a judge's whim. Ask yourself what would happen if this kid were poor, black, and ugly--or just a sarcastic jerk. I don't feel safe knowing that individual freedom depends upon those kinds of personal (by definition biased and irrational) judgements.
Now, I haven't read the law in question. I doubt most people here have. The point I'm making, though, is about what people believe. The article said "up to 20 years" and comments were made that it's not such a big deal because he'll probably get much less than that. I find that disturbing. - sardon1c, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11What world do you live in? Letting the punishment fit the crime was like 1000 years ago.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Wow...talk about blowing something WAY out of proportion.
You can go out and kill someone and get less time (if any) then if you posts pics of your drunk ass friends??
Jesus...nice criminal justice system you Americans have. -
Show 51 - 100 of 344 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is