• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US teen prosecuted for having naked photos of himself

clownboy said:
Because every intent but the most unlikely one is illegal.
Click to expand...

Ok? So what could he do with his naked pictures that is so terrible?
 
jmotivator said:
Occasionally someone needs to call them on it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree, that is why I liked your post. Most people just don't want to waste their time getting into a nonsense conversation.
 
Henrin said:
Ok? So what could he do with his naked pictures that is so terrible?
Click to expand...

NOT the question (but an entirely silly attempt to reframe). The question is: what could he do with his naked pictures that is illegal? Or in this case: what could he do with his naked pictures that is not illegal?
 
VanceMack said:
I dont know though...technology advancements and this stuff is bound to happen. I can honestly say I am extraordinarily grateful we did not have cell phones in the 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...
Yea but many had Polaroid cameras....
 
PeteEU said:
No it is not intellectually dishonest to use the word Taliban.. because they are not far off if the American Taliban got their way. The only dishonesty here, is your defense of
the Christian radical right who on many if not most issues believe in the exact same things as the Taliban.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



How many people has the Christian radical right in the USA decapitated?

Fill us in.
 
He'll no! If kids are too young to consent legally, they are too young to prosecute.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Here's what I don't understand...how can he be tried as an adult while they claim he is a child? That sort of logic is beyond stupid. Ignore for a moment the utter absurdity of prosecuting someone for having a naked picture of themselves, how can you claim a child is a minor in need of protecting if you are charging him as an adult?

These type of things are nothing more than age discrimination against youth. The whole "charged as an adult" concept needs to be eliminated. Either a person is a minor or they are an adult. If they are an adult for the purposes of standing trial for a crime, then they need to be an adult for the purposes of voting, smoking cigarettes and...watching/making porn.

Things like this infuriate me like very things in life.
Click to expand...
Very good point.
 
OrphanSlug said:
...All that matters was possession of a picture where age of the person in it is determined to be underage. ..
Click to expand...


One can be prosecuted without even a determination if the photo is sexually explicit and publicly distributed. In that case you have to provide an address where the proof of legal age is kept for government inspection along with the content. (In the USA) Not only are you presumed guilty, you have to make it easier for the prosecution to determine your guilt or innocence.
 
Someone mentioned getting the law changed to more rationally accommodate stuff like this. Problem is, it would be political suicide for any politician to even introduce such a bill. They be forever accused of not caring for the children and coddling vicious predators. Never mind that that's not what such a bill would be about at all, but that's how political debate is framed in this country anymore.

Hence, it's not going to get any better any time soon.
 
radcen said:
Someone mentioned getting the law changed to more rationally accommodate stuff like this. Problem is, it would be political suicide for any politician to even introduce such a bill. They be forever accused of not caring for the children and coddling vicious predators. Never mind that that's not what such a bill would be about at all, but that's how political debate is framed in this country anymore.

Hence, it's not going to get any better any time soon.
Click to expand...
Yes, because as we all know, refusing to talk about kids having sex means kids never have sex. And, of course, it's only TODAY'S kids which have premarital sex, that NEVER happened before the last 5-20 years.

Just to be clear, I'm completely agreeing with you and am mocking the ridiculous attitudes people in this country have about putting the words "sex" and "children" together.
 
prometeus said:
I really do not know if I was at one of them...
My comment was more of a general remark.
Click to expand...
I know. Im just sayin.

Im very grateful there isnt a record of my adolescent and early adult years. HS yearbooks were bad enough.
 
tres borrachos said:
It's a stupid charge, but the headline is misleading.

He was prosecuted for having his own and his girlfriend’s image, despite them not having been shared further

So he didn't just have pictures of himself, he also had at least one picture of his girlfriend.

Is 16 too young to be posing nude? I remember the whole situation with Traci Lords being underage and her videos being yanked off shelves. Some sort of law was broken here. Not sure what.

I'm showing this article to my kids. Maybe they'll learn something from it.
Click to expand...

Pictures of nude people under 18 are not illegal unless they are lewd or depict sexual conduct. I suspect many of the nude pictures taken by kids would be found legal if they took the high risk of going to trial.

Traci Lords used fake ID to work in porn as a performer and ended up costing the industry millions in losses. She was not prosecuted. I don't think anyone was, but the incident led to the guilty until proven innocent labeling and record keeping law described in my previous post.
 
Apocalypse said:
This thread is not about the Taliban Pete. It has nothing to do with religion, as well.
It's an obvious case of a legal system blindly following a law without applying any human logic, which resulted with two teenagers being abused by the system for doing nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

I doubt a non-religious prosecute would have pressed the charges. It takes religion to have that special type of stupidity.
 
shrubnose said:
How many people has the Christian radical right in the USA decapitated?

Fill us in.
Click to expand...

No stonings, no decapitations, just thousands of lives ruined by religiously motivated prosecutors abusing the intent of the law, which was to stop child pornography, not bust kids for exchanging nude pictures, which are not necessarily illegal. (If not lewd or depicting sexual conduct)
 
I read this... if you read further, he had a picture of his then 16 year old girlfriend on the phone.


Stupid laws here, but not as the headline suggests.
 
Hard Truth said:
No stonings, no decapitations, just thousands of lives ruined by religiously motivated prosecutors abusing the intent of the law, which was to stop child pornography, not bust kids for exchanging nude pictures, which are not necessarily illegal. (If not lewd or depicting sexual conduct)
Click to expand...

To clarify, when I referred to "thousands of lives ruined by religiously motivated prosecutors," I was referring to all prosecution of victimless crimes, especially sex crimes, not only prosecution of teens for child porn,, which has not harmed thousands of people (yet) in the USA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom