A 15-year-old girl has been charged with distributing child pornography because she took nude photos of herself and sent them over the Internet. Here is the link: Link
Should a 15-year-old be charged with distributing child pornography if the photos she took were of herself?
Comments (164)
And here I didn’t know underagers could be charged with underage porn.
What? No, that makes no sense, they are pictures of HER, not that she should be sending them, but they are her pictures, that doesn’t make sense.
i didn’t see them.
I’m leaning towards yes.
Kids these days…
Can they charge her with STUPIDITY?
If it was of other people then yes but because it is of herself then no.
Charges don’t make sense…especially since she took them herself. I can’t think right now of a more appropiate charge [long day].
I understand why the 27 year old guy would get charged…I don’t with her
someone needs to talk to her parents…
i think she should have some serious consequences for what she did, which was really inappropriate, but being charged with child pornography is pretty harsh. it could go on her record, and what parent would want that for their child?
No,I think that is crazy.
She should just get a slap across the face by the parents for being stupid. Other than that, why charge her for taking pics of herself?
@angi1972 - Ehh.
Haha.
I was going to say the same thing. How dare you beat me to it?!!
I think they should charge her for that.
What the…
I don’t think so. I think it may depend on “who” she is sending them to. I don’t think it’s right, however she should not have that hanging over her head all her life (being a sex offender)
You find the silliest things, Dan.
Only if she’s hot.
Idiocy. They should charge her with complete idiocy.
But if they don’t, it could start a slippery slope…maybe distributors will get other kids to say that they posted the pics of themselves.
Okay I wasn’t the brightest 15 year old but even I knew it wasn’t legal to take pictures of myself then, much less send them to people (and a guy who is 27 at that) I met on the Internet.
I’m pretty that the thought never crossed her mind that what she was doing was distributing child pornography.
Well, good question. In my country it wouldn’t be called child pornography if the shown person isn’t under 14.
Someone should take away her internet and every source of camera.
i don’t think kids should be doing that kind of stuff… but you certainly can’t charge them with a felony for distributing pictures of themself! that’s asinine!
yes. it does not matter WHO did it, only the act that was done. Not charging her would be discrimination.
Uh… obviously not… I do recall there being something in our Constitution about having the freedom to do what we want with our own person, lol…
Charged, no. Slapped silly, yes.
No I dont think she should be charged but I can understand why they are.
Some people’s kids…honestly.
Technically, isn’t child pornography related to any photo of a nude minor? No matter who it was taken by? Therefore, yes; she should be charged.
I didn’t distribute them.
No, she shouldn’t.
@angi1972 - Amen.
A girl i used to go to school with did that, and posted them all over myspace. Now she’s on porn sites, and doesn’t know how to get off of them.
HAHA. That’s what stupid people get.
This argument reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddle where the new sheriff hold himself captive.
“Oh My God! She’s abusing a Child!”
@angi1972 – I vote yes.
I guess it doesn’t bother her that fifty year old men will look at those pics and jack off to them.
/shrug
Given that she’s a minor, she can’t be held totally responsible. But she’s also old enough to be somewhat culpable. The incident might merit expulsion from school. Maybe. I dunno. I’m glad I don’t have to make these sort of decisions.
Yeah, no.
@SerenaDante - Have you ever read the Constitution/Bill of Rights? Stuff like this is NOT covered.
We have to teach 15 year olds how serious we are about things like this. This is a Christian country with Christian values.
Christian Family Values.
You don’t have to be Christian to understand how serious this is.
She will learn, and so will others through her example.
Then it will stop.
Maybe they should flip a coin.
Heads: They ruin her life.
Tails: She goes on with her life.
@sheflourishes - Okay, it’s not. So we should also charge all suicides with murder (and therefore kill these people again), and all self-mutilators with assault (and have them pay a fine), and so on. Makes sense to me.
@SerenaDante - Actually, suicide (and I believe attempted suicide, although I could be wrong) is against the law. As is assisted suicide. Self-mutilation is not. Whether or not you deem this is be fair does not really matter. It has been decided as constitutional by the people in power to do so. Don’t agree with it? Move.
Distributing nude photos of a minor is illegal. It should not matter if it was the child distributing them or not. Selling sex for money is illegal, whether you are the pimp or the ho. It was her stupid decision, it is her consequence.
Her parents should be responsible for not setting some kind of parental control on her internet use. I don’t think the kid should be fined, but seriously, someone should talk to her and let her know that those will forever be online for perverts to look at. It will come back to haunt her someday. Kids don’t look at those aspects on their own, they need to be told of the serious consequences that come with it!
Probably not. But she may live to regret that stupid decision.
No they should not! Its herself she’s taking out.
YES!!!!!!!!!!
@nattata – Where are you from? I’ve always assummed that you were from the US.
Uh what? Self distribution of yourself shouldn’t be illegal…
Hmmm. Photos of a minor are illegal regardless of who distributes them, so yes. It’s still illegal as far as I’m concerned.
@sheflourishes - Lol. Move? More like, petition to have dumb laws changed.
I guess I always thought it made sense that I’d have total control over what I do with my body. Guess not. Maybe I should ask the government next time I want to like, take a shower.
Btw… if this girl is getting charged with putting up child pornography, then why hasn’t Natalie Dylan been arrested and charged with attempted prostitution or something yet? She gets a talk with Howard Stearn, but this kid gets charged with putting up porn?
Personally, I believe that it is her body and she can do with it as is as long as it doesn’t physically harm her. I don’t think she should be charged.
yes, because the pictures are OF A MINOR. those pictures of a minor shouldn’t be out there.
does someone under 18 “own” their possessions, or does it belong to their parents?
Maybe counseling would be better.
Ah… no. Do you know how many 15-year-olds have done that?
@SerenaDante - The Constitution states that the government is obligated to protect us, and that includes from our own stupid actions. That’s why those laws are in place. And considering the difficulty it takes to amend the Constitution, I don’t think that will be changing anytime soon. Good luck with that petition. And as for Natalie, the auction was held in a legal brothel in Nevada.But, I’m not too sure on the total ins and outs of it, as I only recently heard about it.
This country gets more ridiculous as the years go by.
@writingsongsforBlair - So if it was the parents doing it it would be alright?
Regardless, it’s her body. Some things are learned the harsh ways.
I think that’s insane, but then again I won’t take pics of me naked in the first place – let alone putting them on the Internet…
Hardly. In fact I’m really unsure why she is being charged with anything at all.
~IM_R
@sheflourishes - Hmm. So I guess there are nuances to this whole “protecting people from their own stupid actions.” Maybe next time the child should put up her pics somewhere in Nevada, because it’s okay to go against the law there.
Yes. She could get a guy in a lot of trouble — ruin his life. There should be consequences.
yeah. actions have consequences.
@angi1972 - My thoughts exactly!
@SerenaDante - I have no idea why there are legal brothels in Nevada. And so I don’t believe that was my point. I think you are missing it for the sake of arguing.
No, but if I were her parent, I’d confiscate her cell phone!
Kathi
@ProfessorTom - I’m from Germany.
Sure. That ding-bat is just asking for trouble.
@angi1972 - I wish.
Yikes. Back in my day, if you were going to have sex with someone, you at least did it in person.
@sheflourishes - If we’re relying on the government to save us from ourselves, we’re in deep trouble. It takes the government controlled post office a week to send a letter to your next door neighbor and it takes Congress even longer to make the simplest decisions. I think we the people need to start saving ourselves.
if it was willing I guess not but the guy should get a punishment of some sort if he was the one in incouraging(something like that-feel free to correct me) it.
It doesn’t matter if she took them or someone else. It’s still a crime. She isn’t able to give sexual consent legally therefore she cannot legally poses or control pictures of her nude body. We wouldn’t let a teen off for shop lifting, stealing a car or murder. Some crimes are less serious than what she did but we could still prosecute the children. Yes she should be prosecuted. Otherwise we send a message that there are no consequences. I do believe that the punishment for junveniles is less than for an adult on non-violent crimes so this would serve as a good learning experience for her. It is very unfortunate and sad.
Yes. And….indecent exposure of a minor.
no. girls she be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want after the age of 13.
@B_Marclar - I was not remarking on the efficiency, merely the legality,
in this case, yes. she ought to be charged along with the perv looking at her pics.
gah, kids are f*cking stupid these days.
stupid girl.
she’s 15… in high school… those will get around in an INSTANT.
girls from my school know that from experience.
oi and probably yes
@nattata – That explains a lot. Still, I thought you worked in the States.
No. Now if the person looking at them was a legal adult, he should be charged. I do agree with everyone else saying that she’s stupid, too.
Haha no, that’s a little ridiculous. Now, should her parents punish her? Well, that’s not up to the government is it?
No. Itwillbe on her record forever, and she will have a hard time doing ANYTHING. All because of this. It could be charged as something else.
hi dan. i’m ambivalent.
A) What the hell? No.
B) Boo on the media for developing the term “sexting”. That’s retarded, and is a slight on the English language.
what a dumb ass.
@SerenaDante - Including child porn? She might’ve been the one taking the pictures, but in the United States, the picture she took still falls under the category of child pornography.
It’s a picture of herself, who’s the victim again? If nobody then why is she charged for making a fool of herself?
No.
HAH! And whaddaya know… she’s from central Pennyslvania. I would seriously laugh if I knew who it was.
No way. The judge and/or police should scare the crap out of her though!
Child pornography is against the law, so anyone who distributes it should be held accountable. Just because it is herself shouldn’t make a difference. Indecent exposure is against the law even though it is our own bodies we would be exposing.
I also think her parents should be accountable since she is a minor.
yup
damn she is horny
Hey, as long as she looks like she’s 18. Don’t ask, don’t tell.
Wait, by that logic, EVERY underage girl whose nude photos surface online where they are clearly the photo taker (ie: holding a camera phone in the picture) could be charged. Vanessa Hudgens comes to mind… although I don’t know if they can prove hers were self snapped…
she’s bringing it upon herself so it’s her problem.
I think it’s Absurd that she should be charged with distributing child pornography for taking pictures of Herself. Granted it was not a very Smart thing to do at all, it is ridiculous and tragic that she will be labeled a sex offender All her life for something stupid she did as a teenager…. Our legal system pisses me off a bit.
Yes, she should be punished for distribution of herself nuded.
What? No way. She’s a minor, she doesn’t know better.
Scratch that out actually. She probably does know better but still, she’s under 18 so she shouldn’t be charged.
I am leaning towards no; also, I think nude photos does not equal porn.
I’d have to see the photos before forming an opinion. Do you have copies of them that you can post, Dan?
in this world of “teck savy” people its hard to get around this…..was watching a news cast where they said that 87% of girls 14 and under have sent nude or semi nude photos of themselfs via cell phone pic messages or web cam on the puter…….is it a sex crime??? should u have to register to be a sex offender???? all depends on who u ask i guess…..but ever yr people involved in this get younger and younger….shooot……when i was 14 i was still in street on skateboard… not try’n to get my neighbor girl from across the street to send me naked pics…..its all in the today parent up bringing of kids and monitoring puter and cell usage……that being said…..girls please send your nude pics to me at 1-616-318-####………LOL
‘
Yeah, I think she needs it… she needs to shake that noggin’ of hers and a heavy punishment might do the trick.
@ProfessorTom - lol What does it explain? Bad grammar?
nA , Thats Crazyyy !
Haha! Busteeeeed! Finally someone’s done something to stop all those little kiddies thinking they’re cool when taking nude seminude pics of themselves and sending them to everyone they know!
Sure, throw her in the slammer.
i don’t know. i’d say yes if the pictures she sent were not of herself, but … they are of her; also, i don’t see sending nude pictures of yourself through a pix-message or over the internet ( underage or not ) as being too criminal. stupid and careless, most definitely. but i don’t think we should waste time criminalizing a teenager who has made a mistake. a big mistake, yes, but a mistake all the same. there are probably many, many more people out there that have sent / posted half-naked images of themselves [ underage ] over the internet or through a cellphone picture message. i think the price they pay for their own actions is punishment enough. but that’s just me.
@SerenaDante - where is that in the constitution?
Absolutely not.
@jaette - The first amendment to the Bill of Rights says that no law shall be made which will abridge the freedom of the press. The ninth amendment says that the enumeration of rights in the Constitution does not imply that other rights which people retain shall be denied – like, for example, the right to be able to do whatever the hell one wants with one’s own body?
@SerenaDante - so your saying that texting should count as press? i guess that makes sense in a way
@jaette - If it’s not considered press, then what could it be considered? A private message not meant for anyone’s eyes but the girl’s and the person she was sending it to? Hmm… never thought of that… Nor did I know that privacy could be completely violated in our country, especially when there isn’t a monetary transaction taking place…
Btw, I do have to mention that the post says it was sent over the internet. While I don’t know what that means, exactly, I’m going to assume that she didn’t mean to make it public or make money off of those pictures. If she did, I would say that’s a slightly different case (at least with the money).
Because she sent them to someone who isn’t a minor, absolutely yes. If she sent it to a boyfriend who was also a minor, then maybe a slap on the wrist is more appropriate. But sending it to a non-minor…yes.
Maybe that will make other kids think twice before sending these items if she receives a more severe punishment. I see in my classroom all the time that, if given a little “wiggle room,” kids will take advantage of it. If I give them three chances before sending them to the office, they’ll take all three chances to act out. But if I only give them one, they watch themselves more closely. And yes, I teach teenagers.
Well, what she did was illegal… so it kinda makes sense?
Really, the important thing is that the girl gets help – poor thing is having an identity crisis.
Well I suppose if she broke the law, which is distrubuting child pornography, then she should face the same charges. The idea I suppose is that a minor doesn’t have the ability to consent to have their nude photographs taken or sent, so even if it’s of herself, she doesn’t have the legal right to make that decision. They might be making an example of her, so that other young people will reconsider when they think about doing the same thing. Plus, sending her photo has an effort bigger than how it affects her personally, like how it affects other minors who are targets of pedophiles, I don’t know. They’re just trying to protect her and other young people.
No
@SerenaDante - @jaette – The term that SerenaDante is looking for is Freedom of Expression, also embodied in the First Ammendment.
@nattata – Some political comments you made…can’t recall right off, but I remembered thinking “That’s different.”
Right to privacy? That goes out the window once the photos are placed in a public forum, but I think the 27 year old should get charged with something.
NO! While it’s s stupid thing to do, she shouldn’t get charged for child pornography!
i think that’s asking the wrong question…
She should be charged with something. Maybe not that, but definitely something!
Yes. Child pornography is child pornography.
No
@angi1972 - I second that motion!
To answer the question, no. If she was of sound mind when she chose to do this, she shouldn’t be charged. It was her body. Her pictures. No compulsion other than her own caprice made her do it.
If I were her mother, however, I would lock her in her room without the advantage of any technology save a pen and piece of paper. Silly girl.
Actually, now that I think of it…if she made people pay for the pictures, she should face charges. Did she do that? I need to read the link.
She’s 15. If I got charged for all of things I did at that age I’d never leave jail.
Ahem….what you are all missing from this link is that the 27 year old in question was distributing porn and she supplied an image to a distributer. That makes her part of the porn chain even if she didn’t know how he was using it. Kind of like driving a person to a bank and then they go in and rob it…..you are still an accessory….
I’m not sure. In away it makes sense because nude photos of a minor are child porn, and child porn is illegal. She deserves some kind of punishment for it, but i don;t know if being charged is the right thing, especially since it was her own picture. I’m not sure.
Generally, I think some laws are being taken too far though. I live in Canada and took Canadian law in 12th grade and learned that it’s even illegal to take nude pictures of your own baby! If you take them to a photo lab to be developed, the employees there have a right to call the cops on you, even if they are just innocent pictures of your own children in the tub. That’s scary!
The possession of child pornography is illegal; there is no legal distinction between willing and unwilling when it comes to explicit images of individuals under the age of consent. She’s putting images on the Internet that could land the downloaders in jail. So, yes, she should be charged.
I would say yes. The point of making it illegal is to protect the young and if she’s charged, she certainly won’t be distributing it anymore.
although i think she should just get a fine, not jail time or anything.
Yes, she should be charged.
@sheflourishes - Think of all the money we could make if we sued the families of people who killed themselves.
I mean it IS against the law.
@ScarletMoth - A/S/L?
Haha, how silly. It’s child pornography, regardless to if it’s of her or someone she doesn’t even know. So, point-in-case, it’s still child pornography, and she’s distributing it, no? So, Yeah. She’s guilty to the offense, regardless to what we may feel may be right or wrong. It doesn’t matter if the porn you distribute is of yourself or someone else.. It’s still what? Porn. My case exactly.
It’s so silly the stuff we get involved in at such early ages by choice these days. *sigh*
<3, ~*Akarui Mitsukai*~
@TheBenjitect - Consider this, though.. Did the families kill the suicidal person? No. If the suicidal person lives, there is typically legal action involved against the fact that they tried to take their own life. So, no, we shouldn’t charge families with murder for suicide. How silly.
This is a child, still living, who decided to do this, knowing it’s wrong. Sure, she may not have known the exacts, but she still knew she shouldn’t. Due to her age, I’d have to agree with the blogger who earlier said some kind of charge involving something besides jailtime would be a good idea. Instead of a fine, which she couldn’t really pay, being 15 and jobless, I would suggest community hours or something like that. That usually does good. Anywho.
<3, ~*Akarui Mitsukai*~
well yes….and no. I mean, it would certainly make people take notice! but the charges are so horrific. so….
she should be threatened with the possibility. This family stuff is tough for governments to deal with. Maybe some faith based group, she could do some community service with sex related crimes to try to “get it” re violence and sex and guys>? she is very young.
Well, they need to teach this kid some kind of lesson. Maybe she should go under psychiatric evaluation. Apparently there’s some serious issues going on in her head to make her think that it’s okay to just take nude pictures of yourself for the world to see, at least at that young vulnerable age..
nope wtf
Huh? That makes no sense at all…
@angi1972 - LOL Agreed.
Sounds weird to me but she does need to be protected from older men who may take advantage of pictures like that. At least she is being charged as a juvenile so the punishment won’t be as harsh. I think more than anything she should just be educated on internet safety and the other dangers of a girl her age doing something like this.
Yes, because she’s underage. Kids don’t learn sh*t if they’re not disciplined. And her sending nude pictures of herself over the internet can cause more trouble than her geeting arrested for “distributing pornography.” It can attract pedophiles even get her featured on any these sick kiddie porn sites.
I think since its a picture of herself she shouldnt be charged it was her idea to take it and send it she wasnt really indangering anyone else
if it scares her silly, stopping her there may stop teen sex, teen pregnacy, and/or teen mothers, of course, if you become permisicous, nude text isn’t going to stop it.
Ask Vanessa Hudgens, lul.
Even though I’m fairly liberal on topics such as these, I think she should be. She is underage, a minor, considered a “child.” The definition of what child pornography is not that loose.
Yes. Self-exploitation is still exploitation.
Um… wait, what?
They are pictures of her… and she’s being charged with child porn for sending them…
What? Are… are the people that brought the charges braindead?
@TheBenjitect - oh pedobear, stop making my heart flutter.
@TheGreatOrange - just because you do it yourself doesn’t make it any more legal. What if someone else took the picture with the child’s permission? Would that be legal too? Because that would give a great defense for anyone caught with it- “But I had their permission!”
Yes, she should. Whether she took them of herself or of another, she still distributed sexualized images of a minor over the internet where they could be seen by anyone. In doing so, she not only promoted irresponsible conduct among her peers, but likewise endangered them by providing visual fodder to the predators who search the internet for just this sort of thing. For example; what Vanessa Hudgens did in what she thought was a private message was merely stupid and indicative of bad parenting. What this kid did was criminal under law. I’d grant her some slack because of her age, but the crime has to be acknowledged and some penance paid.
Yes send her to a federal prison for 30 years then she might understand and others will think twice…….
*sigh* that’s kinda by where i live.. i think lol.. all i know is that it was from a school next to Abington Heights.
Sounds ridiculous…but that’s what happens when you want to be a…..
If she sent them to an adult then the adult should be held accountable. If she sent it to her “boyfriend” or something of the likes – her parents should be the ones responsible for dealing with the incident.
I would like to see her spend x number of hours community service in a rape center, teen pregnancy clinic or some other place that would drive home the severity of what could have happened to her. I also think her parents should have consequences should this happen again.
@ScarletMoth - That’s not the same. She took the pictures herself.
Now, she did give them to someone who should be charged with possession of child porn, but how did he come by these? Did he say he was younger or use some other ploy to get her to give him the pictures? It’s quite possible she just made a stupid mistake, but she’s a minor. Does she deserve to have a child porn charge on her until her juvenile record expires? I don’t know if those carry over, but it would be ridiculous for her life to be ruined because of this.
Also, do you think that two minors who engage in consensual sex should be charged as well? When I was fifteen I had plenty of friends who were sexually active. Should they be charged as pedophiles?
I think she shouldn’t have been charged because she took those pics herself, but she deserves to be in trouble. What a stupid girl.
@TheGreatOrange - you can’t be charged as a pedophile if you’re 15? a pedophile by definition is an ADULT having sex with a child. In which case the child is the victim and would not get charged.
If she’s a juvenile it probably wouldn’t stay in any record anyways. I guess it comes down to a question of who you want to protect. If you let her get away with it, then many other kids will still be sending photos of themselves over the internet because they know there is no consequence, and their pictures are going heaven knows where. I doubt a porno picture of you at 14 looks much better to a future employer than a record, and those things have a habit of turning up again.
If she is prosecuted (which would probably end up being little more than a slap on the wrist, given her circumstances), it would set a warning example for all potential victims of cyber abuse.
If we as a society think the law is wrong, then we should work to change it – but you can’t change the law in order to fit your circumstance. The law as it is says what she did is illegal, and that’s what we need to go by. If we don’t like this, we change the law.
@ScarletMoth - And I’m saying she may be a victim here. She might not have known the age of the man she was chatting over the internet with. He could have tricked her into sending those pictures. I don’t have those details, and don’t know if it’s been revealed. If she knew his age, then yes, she should be charged, because at fifteen, she knew what she was doing was wrong.
I don’t think she should be charged otherwise. This should be an issue that should be taken care of by her parents.
@TheGreatOrange - but child pornography distribution isn’t the same as pedophilia. it’s illegal to distribute it to anyone, no matter what their age. Child porn isn’t “right” just because you’re giving it to a 17 year old instead of a 40 year old. If anything being tricked into the situation I think would make her less liable.
And unfortunately parents can’t be relied upon to take care of issues. If they did, there probably wouldn’t be so much willful child porn in the first place
Plus in general that doesn’t happen with the law- if your kid steals from a store you don’t let the parents handle it, you bust them and they go to juvie or whatever.
wow. thats retarded.
No she shouldn’t…they should have a different charge forthat
@awokenfatality - no, pornography of a minor isn’t okay at all.
what I meant was, a child cannot be in a commercial or an ad if her parents don’t want her to be. a business can’t use a child’s image without her guardian’s consent.
if the parents distributed porno of their underage daughter, they’d be the one’s in trouble.