Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Georgia, on the Florida line, right above Tallahassee
10,471 posts, read 15,833,234 times
Reputation: 6438
Advertisements
A Northwest Indiana high school student is facing a charge of possessing child pornography after a fellow student accused him of threatening to post a nude picture of her if she didn’t give him her saxophone, police said.
********************************
HA! HA! No sax for you! Not only that chrge, but probably be labled a sexual deviant for for the rest of his life. It's neat in America where you don't the legal rights of an adult, but you can be charged with adult crimes. Heh.
What do you expect from a coddled society where children are taught there are no legal consequences for bad behavior? When they finally do something substantial they indeed do have adult consequences.
We need to eliminate or seriously revise what we call "child pornography" in this country. Nudity of anyone of any age should not be considered pornographic by itself. It used to be considered art by most societies throughout history. Only if there are actual sex acts being performed by children should it be considered pornography. Or, if you want a broader definition you could include having children nude in the picture with an adult. If we limited the definition of "child pornography" to just those things it would eliminate silliness like this.
What the kid should have been charged with was attempted extortion, not child pornography. Of course, attempted extortion doesn't have the shock value and won't cripple his chances for a normal life forever like a child porn conviction will.
Is there anybody, anyone at all, that looks at a set of facts like this and goes, "Yep, that high schooler should be charged with possession of child porn!"
What do you expect from a coddled society where children are taught there are no legal consequences for bad behavior? When they finally do something substantial they indeed do have adult consequences.
Is there anybody, anyone at all, that looks at a set of facts like this and goes, "Yep, that high schooler should be charged with possession of child porn!"
without a doubt there are plenty of people who will do exactly that.
We need to eliminate or seriously revise what we call "child pornography" in this country. Nudity of anyone of any age should not be considered pornographic by itself. It used to be considered art by most societies throughout history. Only if there are actual sex acts being performed by children should it be considered pornography. Or, if you want a broader definition you could include having children nude in the picture with an adult. If we limited the definition of "child pornography" to just those things it would eliminate silliness like this.
What the kid should have been charged with was attempted extortion, not child pornography. Of course, attempted extortion doesn't have the shock value and won't cripple his chances for a normal life forever like a child porn conviction will.
If you start trying to make a more exact definition you're creating a slippery slope. I agree that extortion is more appropriate in this case, but what about child molestors who have been found with photos of naked, underaged children who aren't engaged in sexual acts or simulations of such acts.
If Chester the Molester has a naked picture of Tommy -- who isn't engaged in any act -- does that make it art?
We need to eliminate or seriously revise what we call "child pornography" in this country. Nudity of anyone of any age should not be considered pornographic by itself. It used to be considered art by most societies throughout history. Only if there are actual sex acts being performed by children should it be considered pornography. Or, if you want a broader definition you could include having children nude in the picture with an adult. If we limited the definition of "child pornography" to just those things it would eliminate silliness like this.
What the kid should have been charged with was attempted extortion, not child pornography. Of course, attempted extortion doesn't have the shock value and won't cripple his chances for a normal life forever like a child porn conviction will.
In this case, I tend to agree with you - extortion, not child porn. (Otherwise, why didn't the authorities charge the girl? She sent the pictures to dumb@ss dude's cell phone)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
