I guess she isn't allowed to look in a full length mirror when she's nude either? Let's see that one written in parole/probation rules.

Hoping this incident will change the entire law, not just get an exception for this case. Unfortunately, we live in a society that only cares if injustice happens to women/girls.
As the laws stand any unknowing person she sent the picture to, would therefore be in possession of child porn, and guilty under the law of a sex crime against a child.

This is one of those dumb kid moments that doesn't require police intervention. What it requires is a parent willing to admit that there's something going on with their kid. Whether that's a young girl with low self-esteem or parents that are too wrapped up in their lives and are missing the signs. Either way, this isn't a moment that the girl should be charged. Help the poor kid out, don't punish her!

Joe J has it right. The powers that be won't give anyone in possession of her images any benefit of any doubt.

They'll be charged.
They'll be tried.
They'll be convicted.
They'll have to register as a sex offender for the rest of their days.

I dont think this is good news. I think the girl should have to register as as ex offender. Until women get pounded by these asinine laws they wont change.

Lifetime alimony didnt disappear until women had to start paying it to men.

% yrs from now some guy whos kid once accessed this twitter feed might wind up labeled as a sex offender cause the picture is buried in some cashe on his hard drive, teenage boys who receive these nudie pics still get labeled sex offenders.

I say throw the book at her and every other girl as often as possible. Its the only way to generate enough outrage to get rid of these asinine laws entirely. Lord knows nearly two decades of boys having their lives ruined hanst made the public at large give a shit

I hate to say it, but lujlp is right. Until women suffer under the rules they would see continually imposed upon men, those rules will not change.

It is the natural desire of men to protect the women they care for, this usually meant, in a historical context, that other men, not women, were the danger.

Swap the physical hazard for the legal one, and men react the same, this is particularly true if they have daughters.

Once men realize en masse that these asanine laws are endangering their women, these laws will be changed to something less stupid.

Freely disagree with my assessment if you wish, but it is difficult to argue that these laws are reasonable, sensible, or equitably applied.

Now if only the boys they send them to would be treated the same way under the law.

There is an angle here I would like you to consider.

Minors are not permitted to engage in contracts with cell phone providers. This means an adult is the legal possessor of that phone.

How do you write a law such that an adult who is exploiting minors cannot claim that the minor is responsible for all their phone content?

> Minors are not permitted to engage in contracts
> with cell phone providers. This means an adult is
> the legal possessor of that phone.

I don't think that's accurate. The fact that they are minors just means that the contract is voidable - the minor can choose to end the contract or go ahead as agreed.

Rad, I researched this topic within the last 2 years - legal ownership of the cell phone or phone contract was not an issue in any of the cases I came across in the U.S. (Did not research elsewhere, but didn't find media or case law to suggest that these questions have been raised in any of the pertinent cases in any jurisdiction.)

> Minors are not permitted to engage in contracts
> with cell phone providers. This means an adult is
> the legal possessor of that phone.

I don't think that's accurate. The fact that they are minors just means that the contract is voidable - the minor can choose to end the contract or go ahead as agreed.

Posted by: Snoopy at February 9, 2014 6:00 PM

Most kids have cell phones that are on a family plan with their parents, in which case they are not the contract holder, but if it was a no contract, "pay as you go phone", you can purchase one of those at WalMart like a gallon of milk.

At any rate in a "distribution of child pornography" charge, the legal owner of the phone, or the contract, doesn't make a damn bit of difference. It is the intent, and the act, that makes the crime, not who technically owns the phone or the computer.

Isab That is true for distribution, but not for possession, which could be a completely passive crime. Intent and the act may not apply.
We have reached the point where conditions not just actions are crimes. Be it possession of pictures, or material from an endangered species, or say if say a certain illegal plant starts growing naturally on your property.

Isab That is true for distribution, but not for possession, which could be a completely passive crime. Intent and the act may not apply.
We have reached the point where conditions not just actions are crimes. Be it possession of pictures, or material from an endangered species, or say if say a certain illegal plant starts growing naturally on your property.

Posted by: Joe J at February 9, 2014 7:37 PM

While I agree that you are technically correct that the justice system is way out of control on this issue of possession.

There STILL has to be some intent. PASSIVE (especially unknown) possession is not enough.

There is such a thing as constructive possession, but that is a difficult legal issue, and would be tough to prove.

You cant buy a used computer, unwittingly, that has child porn on it, and be charged with possession of child porn discovered on the hard drive.

The police also can't mail you a package of child porn and then break down your door and arrest you for possession. There has to be some "intent" on your part to acquire the porn.

If you discover child porn, and don't either report it or destroy it and you are stupid enough to admit that you have it to the police, or they discover it in your glove box, after arresting you for DUI there may be a problem.

So in this case, IF the men were sent "unsolicited pictures" of the 16 year old girl, they are not culpable because there was no intent on their part to acquire child porn.

IF they resend those pictures, they are guilty of distribution, and IF they ASKED her for the pictures, they are also guilty of possession.

And yes, the police may attempt to strong arm you into a plea bargain, if they think they can roll you, but I would consult a really good attorney before I took a deal like that.

So Isab, I guess you missed all those posts over the years where guys were charged with porn possession they never asked for?

Intent hanst meant jack shit in criminal law for almost a couple of decades now. And certainly not for mere boy what with their evil penis which magically transforms all of us into rapists sooner or later.

So Isab, I guess you missed all those posts over the years where guys were charged with porn possession they never asked for?

Intent hanst meant jack shit in criminal law for almost a couple of decades now. And certainly not for mere boy what with their evil penis which magically transforms all of us into rapists sooner or later.

Posted by: lujlp at February 9, 2014 10:24 PM

Please link to an example of a case and a jury conviction (not just a charge) that fits that fact pattern. Plea bargains don't count.

I didnt miss the classes in criminal law where they explained the extremely complicated issue of intent. Intent is not what you think it is. It is not "intent" to committ a crime.

Ignorance of the law, (meaning ignorance that something is a crime) means "jack shit" related to intent.

If these men KEPT the child porn with knowledge or suspicion of what it was, they can be charged with posession.

Therefore my tedious fact patterns in the last post.

Most reporters havent been to law school. I never rely on a newspaper version of events to determine if someone met a legal standard for being convicted of a crime.

And I would be the last to claim that the justice system is anywhere close to perfect. Lots of innocent people go to jail, while most of the guilty go free.

If you haven't figured out by now, that prosecutors will indict
a ham sandwich, and then try and force a plea bargain, you haven't been paying attention to the entire justice system, not just the porn laws.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Intent

I see an inherent contradiction in: "If you discover child porn, and don't either report it "
and "you are stupid enough to admit that you have it to the police"

Reporting it IS admitting you have it, a catch 22.
Destroying it would/could be used as destruction of evidence.

"the justice system is way out of control on this issue of possession. "

And the only way I see that ever being changed is with women/girls being prosecuted for it.

Isab, Amy posted a link to a federal case where a persecutor was trying some guy in Puerto Rico for possession of child porn.

Depite the fact that the actress in question was of age, well known, and the prosecutor had all of this evidence presented to her,she still proceeded to trial, with a pediatrician who claimed the girl in the video had to be underage.

The guys lawyer had to subepona her and get her to testify in court in order to beat the charges.

And then there is the case of Fitzroy Barnaby, tried and convicted of false imprisonment and kidnapping for not running over a girl, and holding her arm as he walked her off the busy street and onto the side walk.

When it comes to 'sex crimes' mens rights and the rule of law go out the window.

As to this girl. I havent seen her, but I've seen 16yr old girls who look 25 and 23 yr old women who look 15.

My aunt was foster sister thru a local orphanages out reach program. The first time I met her little sister I assumed based on her apparence (5'10", 135lb, 36DD 30 34) and her conversation (about her being on the varsity team at her high school) that she was 17 or 18 and a junior or senior.

Turns out she was just a very well developed 14yr old INCOMING freshman.

Which I was informed of after she tried to hit on me at a family dinner, I was 22 or 23 at the time.

Child porn is obvious child porn becuase it have children.

Physically mature teenagers. How the hell are you supposed to know?

By the way, Do you own a copy of Blue Lagoon? Should anyone who owns a copy if that be arrested and tried?

And what of the fallout of the actions of Traci Lords?

How many people wound up in jail and losing money becuase of her actions and their ignorance?

Reporting it IS admitting you have it, a catch 22.
Destroying it would/could be used as destruction of evidence.

You should destroy anything found in an area that you control like your home or your auto.

You should report anything you discover in an area not under your control, like on a coworkers computer, or on a computer at the public library.

No contradiction at all.

And Jim, you are correct. Many times the law is an ass, and it isn't just child porn prosecution that is way out of control. You have to do the best you can to protect yourself from getting caught in these traps.

My attention was drawn to this in August 2009—and since surveying the scene in the last year I wonder if a qualification for being a good American has to be the total lack of common sense and related qualities.
From a UK perspective I can assure you that even here we get it wrong. Example: since 1992 it has been a crime to possess or send any indecent image of anyone who is either under 16 OR WHO APPEARS TO BE UNDER 16. That last bit is the trick part; how can you guess a girl's age just by the size of her breasts? In 2004 the age factor was raised to 18. It would be more than interesting to see what an objective survey of female bust sizes was from (say)11 to 18—and see what the statistical scatter factor was!
Can girls be guilty? Yes, they can! A columnist for the London Daily Express mentioned how a friend's "otherwise sensible" 12-year-old daughter was found by her mother to be sending topless pictures of herself to a 15-year-old boy. In a more sensible age—not totally extinct—the bench would have noted in no uncertain terms that "the girl was not innocent" or else called her "a silly girl".
Here's a lesson from UK history that's well worth applying to this situation. Some 200 years ago the UK government decided that the best way to combat crime was to get tough on it—by making more and more crimes capital offences. It reached the stage where there were no less than 223 crimes punishable in theory(and often in practice!)by hanging. Then juries started getting uneasy and began returning legally perverse acquittals—in short, declaring the defendant innocent when he/she was as guilty as hell. Before long Parliament got the message; The number of crimes attracting the supreme penalty was drastically reduced - high treason, murder, arson in a naval dockyard, forging a Bank of England note, and(until 1861) rape. If US jurors were to learn to be independent, even to the point of returning legally perverse acquittals if the case was like that of Fitzroy Barnaby's, then maybe the lawmakers would learn to use their common sense.