15 year old girl charged with 'child porn'?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Kojikun.
Masturbaiting isn't what she was charged with, it was taking pictures of herself masterbating, and letting these picture get into the "wrong" hands. Taking the pictures was child abuse.
Leave the camera and website out of it, and diddling herself isn't a crime.
Without evidence in public, admitting you saw this is a crime itself.(Just how would you dspute her if she claimed she didn't do it? "I saw her do it" is confessing to a crime.
Did you catch the part about posting it on the net, and they are LOOKING FOR PEOPLE WHO DOWNLOADED IT. The beartraps she laid will be sprung, and lives will be ruined.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

I. Hate. People.

If she wants to take pics of herself getting off, so fucking what. Leave the kid be. She doesn't have any psychological disorder or anything. She's being human. She's going through puberty, she's clearly strutting her stuff in an early attempt to find a guy to fuck. Who the hell doesn't do that. Ugh.

And if this shit goes through, it effectively bans masturbation by minors because it's "child molestation". Ugh.

Great. Now the Guilt-tripper Fundies have legal precedent to ban masturbation...

[Keevan_Colton]

I hope they nail this cunt to the wall before they shoot her in the legal sence.
She is laying legal landmines that can destroy lives. Cops bust up her opperation, and sieze her computer. They check the web logs, and trace this to you.You downloaded load this picture, (under the impression it was legal)and BANG, you are a convicted sex offender. With all the wonderful stuff that follows. Even if you are not convicted, the stench will follow you forever.

Operation? Are you smoking the same shit as the DA?
You seem to be more concerned with what this could do to you? Got something you're a bit guilty about?

Keevan, you are the fucking dense one here, as you clearly don't understand the difference between stating case law and agreeing with it. I don't see where I even IMPLIED I aproved, much less stated it.
I don't believe there IS such a thing as a victimless crime. No victim, no crime, as far as I am concerned.
Drugs, prostitution, and suicide shouldn't be in and of themselves be crimes.
The very TERM "legal fiction" seems absurd to ME, yet it is a well established legal precedant.
The law is full of stupid, mind boggling acts of insanity, but that is a whole DIFFERENT subject, not addessed by me at all in this thread, except in your mind.
DON'T confuse describing the law as written, ajudicated, and the theory behind it, with defending it.

Funny with your sentiment expressed just above it seems rather like you support the idea of throwing that book of stupidity at her, doesnt it?

[kojikun]

Kojikun.
Masturbaiting isn't what she was charged with, it was taking pictures of herself masterbating, and letting these picture get into the "wrong" hands. Taking the pictures was child abuse.
Leave the camera and website out of it, and diddling herself isn't a crime.
Without evidence in public, admitting you saw this is a crime itself.(Just how would you dspute her if she claimed she didn't do it? "I saw her do it" is confessing to a crime.
Did you catch the part about posting it on the net, and they are LOOKING FOR PEOPLE WHO DOWNLOADED IT. The beartraps she laid will be sprung, and lives will be ruined.

Uh.. did you miss the part about her molesting a child [ie, herself]? And what the fuck.. so she took pictures of herself and showed people. THAT shouldn't be a crime. It's her own damn self. Get the adults look at them, but leave the child be.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

That's what you get for trying to read my mind, not my text Keevan.
I am a very blunt, direct person. I just hate people redefining my meaning with shades of grey and subtlies that just aren't there.
and No ASSHOLE I like WOMEN, not children, and that is a fowl charge to lay out even in jest, which you post ISN'T.
FUCH YOU, don't even IMPLY such a thing, you fucking scumbag. Not even a joke!
That part is infuriating.
Just how many children you molested have they caught you at? Are you trying to deflect attention away from your love of little boys ala Micheal Jackson?
OUCH, now the shoe is on the other foot does it fit? Such charges are like nuclear weaponry, and should be used sparingly, and NEVER in jest or sarcasm. I am retaliating, so FUCK YOU.

Just going to certain sites by accident can land you in a world of shit, even if you are the victim of a popup. Hey, you went there, it is in the log, and the cops show up.

[Keevan_Colton]

That's what you get for trying to read my mind, not my text Keevan.
I am a very blunt, direct person. I just hate people redefining my meaning with shades of grey and subtlies that just aren't there.
and No ASSHOLE I like WOMEN, not children, and that is a fowl charge to lay out even in jest, which you post ISN'T.
FUCH YOU, don't even IMPLY such a thing, you fucking scumbag. Not even a joke!
That part is infuriating.
Just how many children you molested have they caught you at? Are you trying to deflect attention away from your love of little boys ala Micheal Jackson?
OUCH, now the shoe is on the other foot does it fit? Such charges are like nuclear weaponry, and should be used sparingly, and NEVER in jest or sarcasm. I am retaliating, so FUCK YOU.

Just going to certain sites by accident can land you in a world of shit, even if you are the victim of a popup. Hey, you went there, it is in the log, and the cops show up.

Funny I was just reading your text.
Ever think that might be another problem with the system?
Ever think wanting the book to be thrown at a girl for "abusing" herself migh be a fucking problem?
Actually, ever fucking think?

[HemlockGrey]

Lance, you had sex 3500 times before you were out of high school? What the hell's your secret?

[Keevan_Colton]

Lance, you had sex 3500 times before you were out of high school? What the hell's your secret?

Masturbation Hemlock, dont feel like you were missing out

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

What part of "Describing the nature of a thing is not aproval" DON'T you get?
If I tell you about techniques used by the Spanish Inquistion, and why they used them, does that mean I aprove?
The law is clearly crazy in some cases, but that is understandable since crazy people have a hand in writing it, and voting other crazy people into office to write them.


I am very much ashamed of losing controle of my temper and and making the boy diddling charge.

I apologise to all concerned, and most especialy you keevan. Being mad is no excuse for what I just did, as there is NEVER any excuse. I will wear this with the scorn it deserves.

[Keevan_Colton]

Emp, dont worry, I dont tend to let any of this get under my skin. My assertion about you supporting this is not rooted in your description of the charges or the nature of the legal system, but this bit :-

I hope they nail this cunt to the wall before they shoot her in the legal sence.
She is laying legal landmines that can destroy lives. Cops bust up her opperation, and sieze her computer. They check the web logs, and trace this to you.You downloaded load this picture, (under the impression it was legal)and BANG, you are a convicted sex offender. With all the wonderful stuff that follows. Even if you are not convicted, the stench will follow you forever.

[RedImperator]

Emp, dont worry, I dont tend to let any of this get under my skin. My assertion about you supporting this is not rooted in your description of the charges or the nature of the legal system, but this bit :-

I hope they nail this cunt to the wall before they shoot her in the legal sence.
She is laying legal landmines that can destroy lives. Cops bust up her opperation, and sieze her computer. They check the web logs, and trace this to you.You downloaded load this picture, (under the impression it was legal)and BANG, you are a convicted sex offender. With all the wonderful stuff that follows. Even if you are not convicted, the stench will follow you forever.

You're missing his point. By her distributing these pictures, she's distributed child pornography. The cops are going to trace where the files ended up, and everyone who downloaded them is now a sex offender. Her stupid, venal act could potentially get dozens, maybe hundreds of people sent to jail.

[RedImperator]

I. Hate. People.

If she wants to take pics of herself getting off, so fucking what. Leave the kid be. She doesn't have any psychological disorder or anything. She's being human. She's going through puberty, she's clearly strutting her stuff in an early attempt to find a guy to fuck. Who the hell doesn't do that. Ugh.

And if this shit goes through, it effectively bans masturbation by minors because it's "child molestation". Ugh.

Great. Now the Guilt-tripper Fundies have legal precedent to ban masturbation...

Did you miss the part where it was carefully explained that she was being charged with molestation for taking the pictures, not masturbating?

[Plekhanov]

You guys don't get it eh?
It is like this. The state is prosecuting the case.
Just like a woman doesn't have to press charges on a wife beating case if it is witnessed by the police. She no longer has a say in wheather or not it is prosecuted, as the justice system itself is a victim if the law can be broken with impunity.
Laws are funny things, setting precedants, and logical extentions.
The state is picking up the case on behalf of the victim.
The fact that the victim and the perpitrator are one and the same is irrelavant from a legal point of view, since this type of case is not specificaly mentioned in the statute as an exception.(victim and perp being one and the same.)
The same holds true if you go out into your own front yard, and bash your own car, with you own sledgehammer, you will be charged with felony vandalism. Ask James Brown about that one!
The legal theory is the victim doesn't have to press charges for there to be crime, OR victim. The state can and will prosecute victimless crimes, which by definition can't get a victim to press charges!
Clear enough?.

This is a FACT in California, as I have seen it happen.
Arrested for attempted suicide. But I won't press charges!. So what?

You really can’t equate this to a case of wife beating, in the UK at least domestic violence is the single commonest cause of death for women between the ages of 16 and 44, I doubt that similar claims can be made about posting pictures of yourself on the net.

Women fail to prosecute domestic violence for a range reasons some of them psychological others rather more practical. One of the more significant being that women are rarely more at risk when finally attempting to break from abusive partners who in many countries (and for all I know many US states) are rarely imprisoned on remand following an arrest for abuse. In fact the period immediately following a break form a partner is when women are most at risk of serous injury or murder. When you look into the problem you realise that in many cases a more proactive approach by the state is required and this includes pressing charges on occasion if the victim fails to give consent. Sometimes it is only with the abusive partner safely locked up that the victim can finally choose to walk away.

This isn’t just a case of legalistic fait accompli there is considerable leeway in every justice system I’m aware of, somebody has chosen to pursue this case it could surely have taken a different course at numerous stages but someone has chosen to take it all the way through the CJS to court. This victim/perp thing is by no means universally applied in any jurisdiction and is extremely selective. Was James Brown arrested solely for damaging his own car or was it part of a package of charges probably including swinging a sledgehammer in the vicinity of police officers? I seriously doubt that a private individual who goes out and wrecks their own car on their own property in California will be arrested for that alone.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Thank you Red, I thought that point had been lost in all the hullabaloo.
I hate it when these thing generate more heat than light.
Wanking ones self.
Wanking ones self, taking pictures, and posting them on the web.
See any difference anybody?
Like, the length of the scentance, and three verbs instead of one?
Only the last two verbs are crimes.

[kojikun]

Did you miss the part where it was carefully explained that she was being charged with molestation for taking the pictures, not masturbating?

Where? All I saw was that she was being charged with abusing a child. And that she was using toys. Where was this abuse because of the PHOTOS?

[RedImperator]

Did you miss the part where it was carefully explained that she was being charged with molestation for taking the pictures, not masturbating?

Where? All I saw was that she was being charged with abusing a child. And that she was using toys. Where was this abuse because of the PHOTOS?

(b) Photographing, videotaping, depicting on computer or filming sexual acts.--Any person who causes or knowingly permits a child under the age of 18 years to engage in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act is guilty of a felony of the second degree if such person knows, has reason to know or intends that such act may be photographed, videotaped, depicted on computer or filmed. Any person who knowingly photographs, videotapes, depicts on computer or films a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act is guilty of a felony of the second degree.

(c) Dissemination of photographs, videotapes, computer depictions and films.--Any person who knowingly sells, distributes, delivers, disseminates, transfers, displays or exhibits to others, or who possesses for the purpose of sale, distribution, delivery, dissemination, transfer, display or exhibition to others, any book, magazine, pamphlet, slide, photograph, film, videotape, computer depiction or other material depicting a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

(d) Possession of child pornography.--Any person who knowingly possesses or controls any book, magazine, pamphlet, slide, photograph, film, videotape, computer depiction or other material depicting a child under the age of 18 years engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such act is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

Source

I love FindLaw.org.

[Edi]

Red, sorry to rain on your parade, but the way the statute is worded, there is no crime, either on her part, or if we really start reading literally, even on the part of whoever downloaded the pics, because it says "prohibited sexual act", not just any sexual act. Last time I checked, masturbation was not prohibited unless they've got some of those asinine 19th century fundie laws still in place.

The language in law needs to be explicit, which it is in this statute, but it also needs to be accurate to the purposes of the law instead of leaving loopholes like this. Then there is also the fact that the pictures she took were of herself, and she did it quite willingly. Therefore she was not abusing a minor. Different story if she were taking pics of somebody else. And because she intended the pics to go to dissemination, it might even construe mitigating circmstances for anyone who downloaded those specific pics. That the type of people who download that kind of pics generally tend to be pedophiles is a different story altogether that has no relevance here if we want to stick to the essentials of this particular case. The cops and the DA will in all likelihood be able to nail the scumbags to the wall for all the other stuff they find on their computers.

Finally, what this case amounts to is basically the DA completely ignoring any kind of common sense and principles behind the law and prosecuting as far as the letter of the law allows with no regard for the spirit of the law, and if the charges are based on the statute quoted above, it seems they also rely on a misinterpretation or misrepresentation of the law as written.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

Good catch, Edi. Yes, it would appear that the girl is only in violation of the law if her own masturbation is a "prohibited sexual act".

Normally, a child pornographer is charged even for masturbation pictures because he instructed the child to do it, and adult/child relationships are generally assumed to be at least somewhat coercive. A coerced masturbation is clearly a prohibited sex act. But when a 15 year old girl does it of her own free will, with no evidence of coercion in sight, it's pretty hard to make a case that she should be charged.

As for the "landmine" argument, that's nonsense. A person cannot be charged for stumbling across a child-porn website, even if it's a real one. He must "knowingly" possess the child porn.

I'm not sure why Red and Emp are defending this bullshit. The rationale behind charging this girl for violating herself is asinine.

[Edi]

Thanks Mike. It actually helped quite a bit that I tried (and failed, three times) to get into the university to study law. The entrance exams are pretty brutal, and you have to be very careful and very exact about how you read the relevant statutes. I learned to think like a lawyer during that period, you had to if you wanted to have any kind of shot at all. Can't read less to the statutes than is written, nor more, unless there are some clear design documents to point the way in unclear cases (bill proposals with extensive commentary on the designed purpose of the law are a valid source of information for judicial decision making in the courts here if the law itself is unclear).

Edi

[RedImperator]

Part A of the same statute:

(a) Definition.--As used in this section, "prohibited sexual act" means sexual intercourse as defined in section 3101 (relating to definitions), masturbation, sadism, masochism, bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who might view such depiction.

The statute is sufficiently vague that charges could be brought. I honestly couldn't tell you, from this law alone, if it's prohibited for a minor to masturbate, though I doubt that's the law's intent. It's definitely meant to criminalize pictures of minors masturbating, and the whole statute together defines taking such pictures as child abuse. Don't get me wrong--I think it's asinine she's being charged with absuing herself, but under a strict reading of the entire statute, it might be possible.

[Keevan_Colton]

It does still leave the "knowingly" part of the possession charge untouched with regards to people who thought what they were doing was ok.

[Sharp-kun]

Assuming this goes all the way and they find her quilty ( more moronic things have happened), would she be added to some sort of sex offenders register thats going to seriously fuck her over whenever she tries to get a job? Having "child abuse" on your record doesn't exactly help you.

[Edi]

Part A of the same statute:

(a) Definition.--As used in this section, "prohibited sexual act" means sexual intercourse as defined in section 3101 (relating to definitions), masturbation, sadism, masochism, bestiality, fellatio, cunnilingus, lewd exhibition of the genitals or nudity if such nudity is depicted for the purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification of any person who might view such depiction.

The statute is sufficiently vague that charges could be brought. I honestly couldn't tell you, from this law alone, if it's prohibited for a minor to masturbate, though I doubt that's the law's intent. It's definitely meant to criminalize pictures of minors masturbating, and the whole statute together defines taking such pictures as child abuse. Don't get me wrong--I think it's asinine she's being charged with absuing herself, but under a strict reading of the entire statute, it might be possible.

Statute A defines what is prohibited sexual act, that's fine. It clears a lot of things up. However, the wording of Statute B clearly refers to actions in which the minor is not the instigating party, but the language is sufficiently vague that a very narrow interpretation would allow prosecution. Again, there is another snag here, which happens to be one of the foundational legal principles in western criminal justice systems: When the law is unclear, it is to be interpreted in the manner most advantageous to the accused.

Statute C is rather clearer, but when you look at the law as a whole, it is clearly intended to prevent distribution of materials obtained through the actions covered in B, where there is no specific provision for the case where the minor in question is the instigator and perpetrator of otherwise illegal actions, and where the wording strongly implies active parts on people other than the depicted minor. Therefore applying C to her is on the same very shaky ground and the unclarity principle comes into play.

Statute D does not apply to her at all, because the law cannot reasonably prohibit people from having pictures or videos or other depictions of themselves unless the production of such would violate other applicable laws (which is why bestiality and incest etc are still actionable under this law). This is not the case with this girl, so reasonably the DA has a very shaky case at best.

About the only reasonable charge that they could level at her would be incitement to commit a criminal act (if the law categorically criminalizes online display of materials of sexual nature that depict a minor). That would actually be a reasonable thing to charge her with, because she cannot bona fide claim that she didn't know downloading sexually explicit material depicting minors is illegal. As it now stands, the DA is coming across as an imbecilic asshole who apparently has no understanding of the intent of the law, nor of foundation principles that he is required to know ex officio, and is bent on ruining the girl's life for no possible gain whatsoever, when a stern talking to and maybe a small fine would suffice and everyone would benefit more all around.

Edi

[Edi]

Forgot to add that I'd really like to see what Stravo has to say on this subject, we could definitely use a professional opinion.

Edi

[The Yosemite Bear]

remember's one of my friend's whose daughter has a spoof link that says "click here to see me playing with my pussy": FBI calm down, the girl is taunting a cat with a catnip rodent on a string, the girl is fully clothed, the cat is not, but has lots of fur.