Teenage Girl Facing Child Porn Charges
 

http://wearecentralpa.com/content/fu...ews/?cid=69372

A teenage girl in Clearfield County is arrested for child pornography.

A 15-year-old girl from Clearfield County is facing several charges including Possession of Child Pornography, Distributing Child Pornography, and Creating Child Pornography.

Police say the girl took naked pictures of herself and sent them to a 27-year-old man through the popular website “MySpace,” last June.

The Clearfield County District Attorney, Bill Shaw Jr., says even when a teenager takes naked pictures of themselves, it's still considered child pornography and could be a felony.

Shaw says this type of behavior is becoming an epidemic in our region, and that these kids have to be held responsible.
He says when nude and provocative photos are posted to the web, or sent through text messaging, that person could be in some serious danger.
He says they could be stalked, kidnapped, *****, or even killed.

The district attorney and the state police are encouraging parents to monitor their kids use on the internet, and on their cell phones.
The man involved in this case is also facing charges.

This is such a load of fucking bullshit.

This is pretty damn near insane. Don't get me wrong, yer man shouldn't have been keeping that sort of thing on his PC, but to arrest a teen and charge them as a pedo when they taken pictures of THEMSELVES seemsa bit daft.

Does this mean everyone in America under the age of 18 should be arrested for being a pedo when they look in the mirror naked? God forbid they change clothes for gym class! Just being in the room would get you life in prison!

But seriously, they are going to put this on a teens record, and force a teenage girl to sign up as a known sex offender on the sex offender registry because she took a naked picture of herself. Something seems extremely wrong with that.

I know I mentioned this in another thread, but thought it was worth mentioning again.

I have an uncle who is in prison in America. I sent a some pictures of my new son to him a few months ago. One was my two month old son in his nappie (diaper). The US Prison system sent my post back with a threatening letter telling me that the images I sent were illegal and they were looking into investigating me for sending 'possible child pornography' for sending 'pictures of naked children'.

It was my son, in my sitting room, in his feckin' nappie. But, according to the US government, that is now considered child pornography because they could see 'skin'.

This is like some kind of strange oxymoron. If showing their bodies to people is illegal because of their age... doesn't that automatically imply that we don't consider them responsible? I mean... seriously. If they aren't allowed to take provocative pictures of themselves, but are responsible for their bodies which they aren't responsible for... who's defining the provocation?
O rly, now? How does he not realize that this could happen with anybody who posts any photo?

'A bit'? God, it's fucking psycho. Teenagers have been horny little bastards ever since fucking creation. Technically, it's when people are supposed to mate (not that I think that's right. Nature's intent just doesn't click with modern society).

And I thought I had seen it all.

I don't see why she shouldn't receive punishment. She sent pics of a naked minor to an older man. Even if it's of herself, it's still dangerous, stupid, and illegal.

Because it's going to open the door to all the possible stupid charges discussed above. Shall we also say it's child abuse every time a minor masturbates?

I'm also sure it's probably true about plenty of people who haven't even posted a picture of themselves.

Yeah. I mean, really you're in less danger if you remain anonymous and do porn than if you have no picture at all and have real information about yourself.

If she isn't considered responsible enough to be legally sexual, yet she did it herself, by her own will, what is there to hold her responsible for? If a young girl wears tight jeans, and a guy decides to **** her (by statute or otherwise), is it HER fault? I think tight jeans send a very clear message.

Yeah, she should be punished, but not to that extent.

Yeah I know what you mean.
My point is you could be stalked r@ped and murdered just because you went shopping at the wrong time.

Agreed. whitetext

Ya know what's funny? A girl could take a naked photo of herself at 11:59 on the eve of her 18th birthday and then take an identical naked photo of herself a few minutes later and one would be child porn and the other wouldn't.

Haha. whitetext

No, not really. If you are under the age of 18 you DO not have many rights, you ARE still a child....and it is NOT appropriate (especially at that age) to be taking pictures like that and sending it to people. It is so incredibly dangerous, and these kids DO need to be held accountable.

Totally idiotic statement.

Evidently, someone's been arrested for taking a picture of their own tits. The point is whether that action's justifiable, and I think that it's ridiculous. There's a limit to 'saving people from themselves' (I think that the limit is for it not to happen in the first place, but whatever), arresting people for taking pictures of themselves is stepping over that limit.

No, because then she's not being sexual with someone above the age of consent. If the guy she had sent photos to had been a teen as well, I doubt anyone would have thought anything about it. But, since she's sending them to a 27-year-old, it's a bit different.

She's being charged for possession and distribution of CHILD PORN, dumbass.
That's not punishing her for irresponsibility. Plus, the expectation of her having said responsibility obviously wasn't invested in her. Otherwise, she'd have legally gotten away with this.
What's more, you can't charge someone for potentially harming themselves through stupidity.
Given the charges, it's a relevant statement.

Oh GOD FUCKING DAMNIT. Did you NOT READ THE FUCKING CHARGES?
She's being charged for POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION of "child porn". It doesn't have SHIT to do with how old the other man was, that's just a shitty excuse for charging her. Also, if she sent it to someone her age, she'd still be at risk of being hurt through it, and the pictures could potentially spread.

To clarify, I believe that the point of holding the teen responsible isn't simply that she was being sexual, but rather that she was, in a sense, being sexual with an older man. I watched the vid, and it seems that the local government there are greatly concerned for the sake of their children's safety, which they well should be.

Cpt. Sternn: I don't see why you would send such a pic, when you of all people should have been well-aware of what kind of pics are allowed in prison and which ones aren't, quite honestly.

Ooooooh my God. This is pathetic. All I have to do to derail that sack of shit is remind you that she's being charged with 'child pornography'. It doesn't fucking matter what the context is, if they're charging her with that, it means that the moment she took the pictures she was a criminal.
God. It's fucking simple.

Now it sounds like you're making shit up.
Sternn, did you know what was allowed?