Sexting Teen Charged With Sexually Exploiting Himself
from the and-simultaneously-being-an-adult-and-a-minor dept
Why the cops even had access to these photos remains a mystery, but the conclusion they came to is the pure, uncut stupid we've come to expect when laws are bent to "fit" the "problem" of consensual behavior. Reason's Robby Soave leads off with a straightforward and seemingly-damning recap of the situation.
A North Carolina 17-year-old caught in a sexting scandal faces charges of sexually exploiting a minor that could land him in jail for up to 10 years, since the law considers him an adult.Could be a problem. How young was the victim?
Fayetteville, North Carolina, cops have charged 17-year-old Cormega Copening with sexual exploitation of a minor—his girlfriend, who is the same age—because the couple sent each other nude photos of themselves during their relationship.They were both 16 when the alleged sexting took place. Both will be 18 in a year, which would make any sexting entirely legal. Because the state's consent laws consider anyone 16 and under a minor but allows minors 16 or over to be charged as adults in certain circumstances, Copening (and his girlfriend) could have ended up in a Kafka-esque legal nightmare.
North Carolina is one of two states in the country (the other is progressive New York) that considers 16 to be the age of adulthood for criminal purposes. This mean, of course, that Copening can be tried as an adult for exploiting a minor—himself.Indeed, these were the charges first brought against Copening and his girlfriend -- both of whom are the same age.
Copening faces two counts of second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor and three counts of third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor.In both cases, the teens were charged with exploiting each other… and themselves. Once again, the law becomes a drooling idiot when it butts up against something it was never written to address.
Denson had faced one count of second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor and one count of third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor -- said the victim being herself.
The charges have been modified and they're now only slightly less horrifically stupid.
An earlier story said Cormega Copening was charged with exploitation of a minor for texting photos of his genitals. He was charged making photos of himself and for possessing these photos, plus possessing a photo he received from Denson.Not much better. Copening is being charged with being his own child pornographer. Denson's charges seem to be a bit lighter.
An earlier version of this article said Brianna Denson still faces two felony charges of sexual exploitation of a minor. Those charges were dropped on July 21 when Denson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and started a year of probation. That misdemeanor charge will be dismissed next year if she complies with her punishment.The Fayetteville Observer doesn't state what the misdemeanor charge is, but it's apparently linked to the consensual behavior the state insists on prosecuting as the self-generation of minor-exploiting photography.
Copening, however, is still being charged with unlawfully possessing photos of himself. Apparently, Copening has no possessory interest in himself until the state cuts him loose as an "adult" at age 18.
The implication is clear: Copening does not own himself, from the standpoint of the law, and is not free to keep sexually-provocative pictures, even if they depict his own body.To add to the fucked-upness of it all, the Fayetteville Observer published the names of two minors who were accused of criminal activity, something most publications don't do. It pointed out (using the severely twisted logic of the situation) that it always publishes the names of adults charged with felonies. The underlying laws -- as badly mangled as they are -- back up the paper's editorial decision. Both teens are considered adults under these statutes. But the exploitation charges also consider the two teens to be "minors," because the alleged photos were taken when they were sixteen. Most publications have a policy of protecting the identity of minors who are victims of crimes. As Robby Soave points out, according to the charges, the two teens are also victims of sexual exploitation, which normally would be enough to keep their names out of the papers.
Beyond all of this, we have to ask how the officers found these photos in the first place. The agency involved has refused to comment, but the Fayetteville Observer notes Copening is facing a misdemeanor property damage charge from August 22nd. No warrant was issued for the search and the detective (the charging detective, mind you) wrote in his report that pics were only sent between Copening and his girlfriend and recommended releasing him to his parents. And yet, the charges weren't dropped and Copening's court date has twice been reset.
On top of all of this, if the charges against Copening stick, he'll be required to register as a sex offender -- (mostly) for possessing photos of his own body.
There is nothing about this case that isn't tragically stupid. At worst, the officers should have considered the context, the consensual nature and the lack of age discrepancy and did what the charging detective recommended -- sending the teens home to their parents. If any discipline was needed for these actions, it's well within the remand of their respective legal guardians, not the state that has decided people of a certain age aren't allowed to own any part of themselves until the government says its OK.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
First, regardless of the absurdity, why is the girl receiving a much less harsh treatment? I mean, technically both of them did the exact same thing so why aren't the charges equal? Somehow being male makes the guy more rape-y and pedophile-y?
Secondly, and I'm emphasizing what the article pointed out:
If any discipline was needed for these actions, it's well within the remand of their respective legal guardians, not the state that has decided people of a certain age aren't allowed to own any part of themselves until the government says its OK.
Why is the fcking government trying to force itself where there is no problem at all? This is just one more example of how much freedom people are losing. And it isn't exclusive to the US either which is why it deserves emphasis.
Along with it, none of the parents decided to pursue a case against one of the offending parties when the pictures were discovered. So why is the Govt so eager in moving ahead and destroying innocent lives in the process?
Finally and most importantly there's the fact that the cops went and scrutinized their phones. Where's the warrant for that? If there isn't a warrant for that then the 'evidence' (used very, very loosely here) should be tossed out. And ironically 2 innocents would be saved from the righteous police fury because law enforcement can't be bothered to respect basic rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I remember correctly, there was a statutory rape charge for somebody in the social circle of the boy, and the police had a warrant in connection with searching evidence for that. The boy handed his phone in and when they found the photographs of him and his girlfriend, they decided to rather focus on the low-hanging fruit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Government only takes rights away from people it does not give them rights... why do you expect it not to take away people's freedom? All governments have the same capacity for evil that they steadily move towards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These teens obviously are aware about the laws concerning sexting, child porn and whatnot. Who wouldn't know about these laws unless you're a moral defective. When something violates the law, it violates the law.
These teens should have exercised better judgement, but they did not. I have no sympathy for these teens because they DID violate the law and they should learn that there are repercussions from violating the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To a degree, but they would not have considered that sending messages to your partner of the same age would have fallen under those categories. In fact, no sensible person would consider that you should be charged with child porn offences for taking a photo of *yourself*.
"These teens should have exercised better judgement, but they did not."
Because they're teenagers. That's why the differentiation between juvenile and adult exists in the first place. Teenagers are not fully enough matured to make judgements accepted as an adult, which is why many things they can do are restricted until their 18th / 21st birthday. Why is it wrong to take this lack of maturity into account just because they committed a potentially immature action.
"I have no sympathy for these teens because they DID violate the law and they should learn that there are repercussions from violating the law."
Sure, and those repercussions should be proportional to the offence. What they're facing here is clearly not.
Then, of course, there's the reason the laws exist in the first place. They're there to protect minors. Here, they're being twisted to destroy the lives of 2 minors. Do you honestly not see the issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But don't you see, we have to protect the minors(from themselves), by doing everything we can to screw them over and ruin their lives! It's the only way to protect them(from themselves)! /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
That's all I have to say here. If you're still with me, you can now go back to beating your wife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think that's where the sarcasm mark resides. Clever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"It's the law" does not automatically translate to "It's right"
As for the 'well they shouldn't have broken the law', if the law said that jaywalking was punishable by 10-years in prison, and you got caught jaywalking, would that be okay? What if littering had a 20-year penalty, and you littered, accidentally or not, that'd be acceptable, right? Maybe make changing lanes without signaling a capital crime, that sounds like a reasonable punishment, doesn't it? Because after all, the law's the law.
The law as it stands is stupid, incredibly so, treating the two as both minors and adults, at the same time, with the worst of both categories. They're minors when it comes to the photos, and adults when it comes to the charges leveled against them. There's also the concussion-level facepalming stupidity regarding how someone, anyone, can be hit with felony level charges for possessing pictures of their own bodies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It's the law" does not automatically translate to "It's right"
Well, as I see it, they can use their phones to exchange pictures of themselves, or they can find a quiet place and show each other their bodies. The latter seems to me to be the more risky behaviour because thing can go too far all too easily.
They seemed to be showing quite reasonable judgement skills, satisfy their curiosity in the safest manner available to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It's the law" does not automatically translate to "It's right"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It's the law" does not automatically translate to "It's right"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "It's the law" does not automatically translate to "It's right"
I was going to suggest that the pictures escaping their control would be less damaging to their futures than an accidental pregnancy, but the action of the legal system makes the pregnancy the less damaging outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It's the law" does not automatically translate to "It's right"
Child pornography laws have no problems treating Manga Comic Strips as minors, so why not treat statutory adults simultaneously as minors?
Just think of the possibilities: a mother catching her adolescent child masturbating can threaten to have him or her indicted for child abuse.
It's a prosecutor's wet dream (well, they probably are not allowed many others).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "It's the law" does not automatically translate to "It's right"
The laws in my area are worded such that fictional writing - no pictures or imagery of any kind - that depicts sexual activity of anyone under 18 can be prosecuted as CP. I cannot recall an actual prosecution, however.
There's also been a discussion about CGI imagery and if existing laws are adequate for this. Once again I cannot recall an actual prosecution involving this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "It's the law" does not automatically translate to "It's right"
You make everything and anything a crime say the felony level charges for possessing pictures of their own bodies. then you can justify sending "undesireables" to prison.
These teens are being used to set up a precedent for getting rid of people those in charge do not like, but cannot currently get rid of under the current laughable laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The old adage : The Law is an ass
As more and more of these stories come to the surface, it highlights that simple fact that western countries are becoming more and more a heteronomy society instead of the autonomy society that people think they have.
The general excuse that you have given is based on the assumption that ignorance of the law is no excuse and that no matter what laws have been written into existence we all should know all of the law. Yet how often do see "secret interpretations" of "secret laws" to prosecute people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And the newspaper? I want to punch that writer and his editor in the nose. Exceptionally irresponsible 'journalism'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I view it as a sycophant syndrome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The law is holy.
No laws are bad.
No laws are wrong.
There is no justice.
There is no objectivity.
There is only law.
Obey.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I have no sympathy for these teens because they DID violate the law"
Blind faith in law, in enforcement and authority all enable the corruption of same and encroachment onto human rights and liberties.
The price of something something eternal vigilance.
Don't complain when they come for you and there's no one left to say anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
sod off...
once more with feeling:
'illegal' \= 'immoral'
*ESPECIALLY* in these not-so-velvet-police-state times, when their is a two-tiered (in)justice system, where laws are for the little people...
glad to have outed another authoritarian who can't see beyond what Big Daddy tells them to see...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or is it now illegal for 2 underage people in love to share intimate moments with each other through the medium of photos?
I am quite curious what law you are referring to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously?
The laws against possession, creation, and distribution of "child porn" have never allowed exceptions for logic, empathy, or common sense. That isn't a new development.
What they did was clearly illegal. Which is a problem with the moral panic based laws, not the kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This post is pinging my sarcasm meter guys. No one says this in all seriousness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps pictures of minors in the hands of pedophiles less offensive to you if the pictures were taken by the minors themselves?
These laws exist to close a legal loophole whereby child pornography can be legally created.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Largely because, by definition, such pictures require the abuse of children by an adult to exist, and then are used to encourage further abuse.
I'm not sure how you believe that pictures taken voluntarily by the subject fits into that category.
"Perhaps pictures of minors in the hands of pedophiles less offensive to you if the pictures were taken by the minors themselves?"
If logic was applied, you'd find that not only would pedophiles would not be interested in these pictures at all (the term refers to those attracted to pre-pubescent children) but that in many civilised countries 16 is the legal age of consent.
So yes, I'd be far less concerned by self-taken pictures of people who are old enough to consent to intercourse in my home country than I would be of those of pre-pubescent children taken by adults.
Are these actually comparable in your head?
"These laws exist to close a legal loophole whereby child pornography can be legally created."
Laws created to protect children. Which are now being used to deliberately destroy the lives of children, where there's no evidence that any harm was done before the cops got hold of the photos.
Sorry, the lives of these kids aren't acceptable collateral damage in my eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And... (Romeo and Juliet)
So yeah, this is really a stretch.
Something tells me NC's corporate prisons are feeling a little light in the occupancy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Do you believe that the proliferation of child pornography is not a problem?
The *proliferation* is illegal only as an attempt to discourage the *creation*.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Do you believe that the proliferation of child pornography is not a problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want to "close the loophole", then close it by looking at who induced the conduct and whether a reasonable child believed they had a choice in the matter. That still lets you get the case that minor A threatens minor B into creating the image, while fixing the case that minor B voluntarily creates an image, possibly without minor A even knowing it will be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trial please
Laws need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the cell phone age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trial please
Children DO NOT HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS!!! (except when they get lucky)
Or have you not seen school and various federal and supreme court rulings that effectively state anyone not of legal age has no rights when they decide those rights are getting in the way to telling kids what to do.
CPS can come and take you child without a single warrant, they can literally just walk up kidnap a child and the police will shoot anyone that resists.
Society has corrupted itself!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trial please
Are you sure that's true? In most of Europe it would require a court order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trial please
In the case where the state has to take custody then an emergency hearing must be held before a judge of competent jurisdiction and an order issued. The child may be returned to the parents care once a "safety plan" to protect the child(ren) is in place.
This is just in the three states I am familiar with but similar processes no doubt exist in all states.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Trial please
I am talking about the cases including the one I linked in another post where it was clear they went batshit even when the child was in no eminent danger.
More often than you would think a child can make it into the system and stay in it for really stupid reason. Additionally, you can read some of the stories of people losing their children for some very stupid reasons. You would be wrong to think the system is not turning corrupt like everything else with authority. Some have even made the accusation of CPS becoming a shopping network where affluent people can almost just ask CPS to take another couples child away so they can have them.
Some of the stories are chilling... if they came took my child like that... I don't know what I would do, but I sure would not blame any parent that shoots first and asks questions later if someone came to steal their kids!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trial please
Technically CPS is supposed to have a warrant but they often do no get one and are frequently let off the hook after they cite 'circumstances'. The same typical crap that allows police to break into places, vehicles and other crap with the 'probable cause/suspicious behavior' bullshit.
It's like all of the rest of the crap... Authority abuses power and breaks the law itself... the only people going to jail are the ones not in authority.
Here is a good article on the shit that can go on and how things have changed recently!
http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/mom-in-court-for-refusing-to-drug-daughter-13-with-antipsychotic /
Where it not for the protesters this woman would have been crucified by the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fruit of the poison tree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fruit of the poison tree
So they had reason as well as consent to search the phone. And coming up with evidence for an unrelated crime in the context of a reasonable search allows you to proceed. That's not fruit from the poisoned tree.
Merely total nuttery.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is nuts.
He is being charged as an ADULT for crimes against himself a MINOR. They argument really should be, if he's old enough to be charged as an ADULT, then then any crimes against himself should be treated as if he was an ADULT at the time. Or - nothing to see here, please be dismissed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is nuts.
In other words: if you rely on "prosecutorial discretion" for sorting out braindead laws, I have the DOJ's heavily used copy of the U.S. Constitution to sell to you (everyone knows that they actually keep it in mint condition).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: This is nuts.
I mean, Mangas etc get prosecuted when not looking like 18. Logically it should then not be child pornography if your models are 13 but look 18.
Because apparently the child pornography laws are for the protection of the viewer's mind rather than of the childrens' bodies.
It all makes sense once you've been tied up and dragged behind a Puritan coach for a few centuries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punishment not proportional
For example, if I murder someone and the punishment is 50 years in prison, I serve my time, and I'm done. There's no "murder offender registry" and I don't have to tell my neighbors that I killed someone 50 years ago.
Yet if these kids take any kind of plea bargain (simply to reduce the jail time), they'll go on the sex offender registry which will follow them for the rest of their lives, over something dumb they did when they were 16.
From now on, whenever they move, BY LAW, they'll have to tell their neighbors that they're on the sex offender registry. The neighbors may not ask for an explanation and simply assume they're a child molester or worse.
So why should taking pictures of yourself at 16 for your girlfriend to enjoy have a far worse punishment than killing someone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Punishment not proportional
That's a trivial statement in this case. The only number that can in any situation with any justification ever be even considered "proportional" to zero is zero.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If your parents made pictures of you playing in the pool as kid and you take these pictures 30 years later and sell them to people who are into child pornography, you'll be prosecuted for material support of child porn even though you can be reasonably sure that the pictures were made with the consent of the depicted child (or not, but nobody could question your authority in that).
Now those pictures in the pool were, even assuming that they show some boy proudly parading his distinguishing prefix, comparatively harmless.
But the ones this case is about were likely taken with lewd intent.
See? It's comparatively easy to twist the logic around enough to have "prosecutorial discretion" make a sufficiently self-righteous prosecutor favor making a deterrent example of the boy for the sake of the community and his career.
Any law reaching too far will do exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#uc& ok, picture bad
They were both 16 so perfectly legal for them to have sexual relations.
Physical Sexual contact of Naked bodies = Good
Pictures of naked bodies = Bad
I always thought that for something to be a crime that it required criminal intent.
Jared intended to have sexual relations with minors and exploit their pictures, thats bad.
These teens only wanted to enjoy each others bodies, not exploit them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #uc& ok, picture bad
Ask your dad. I might get into trouble if someone sees me talking to a toddler who isn't family.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #uc& ok, picture bad
In my opinion anyways.
legally the police are in the wrong here as well as the prosecution. But the USA court system is a kangaroo court system. A banana republic when it comes to picking and choosing what laws to enforce and who they enforce them on. As well as ignoring any rights the ones being with whatever crimes might have.
They are being railroaded, they are probably having their human and constitutional rights violated in some way. Since it is the government in charge who is going to stop them from maliciously charging these teens illegaly and unlawfully
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Absurd
Or with voyeurism for looking their own naked body in the mirror.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Absurd
Then again the laws already treat underage sex trafficking victims as criminals. Putting aside the gross injustice at this the "logic" is just plain absurd. Statutory rape is because of minor being unable to provide meaningful consent. Meanwhile pre Safe Harbor Act the victims of would be charged for prostitution. Clearly their minds are impervious to logic and lack the intelligence to be murdered let alone victims of animal cruelty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quantum Theory of Law At Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quantum Theory of Law At Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Quantum Theory of Law At Work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember kids, you got to be over 16 to fap too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mamma was right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Federal law defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor.
These children were obviously minors and the fact that minors distributed child pornography, no matter if they were photos of themselves, they deserve to be prosecuted in a court of law. I simply haven't read a single comment here to absolve these teens of what they did.
It's against the law and it doesn't matter if they are underaged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we acted the same way you did on everything there would be no nation because EVERYONE WOULD BE IN JAIL.
You are a problem and a blight on humanity with your ignorance and petard. Be sure to jump on it when your time comes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How?
In what world is this sane? Kids will take naked selfies regardless of the laws. Kids will send photos to others (most commonly peers).
The law in this situation is simply incorrect and even at odds with itself, only by taking kids to court and forcing the appeals process will this ever get fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They deserve to be charged with disseminating child porn. It does not matter what context the photos were taken in. It's still a violation of Federal law to distribute child pornography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No mystery at all
Hey, no mystery at all, think "IMSI catcher." What did you think it meant when they listed "data" in, "The DRT1000 system may be used to: identify and collect audio, data and Signal Related Information (SRI)." (From Chicago, Los Angeles Police Departments Have Been Using 'Stingrays On Steroids' For Over A Decade.)
When his phone backed up the picture, they captured it off the data stream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Issue is Being Discussed at The Atlantic
Ten years too late for some unfortunately soles.
The powerful prey on the weak, and the kids and their families don't stand a chance against the legal machine. A machine that has proven to be as corrupt as those it seeks to administer justice to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe this is a sacrifice of young people to appease the dark gods and ensure a bountiful harvest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should I look at those pictures, am I a paedophile? Am I exploiting my 1 month old self?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having it both ways.
If they are legally adults then there no crime.
If they are legally minor's then it doesn't belongs in the adult courts, IF it belongs in a court at all!
This is example of an overly ambitious prosecutor twisting the law to further his own ambitions and its far to common!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no 'romeo and juliet' provision for minors taking nude photos or videos and then sending them to each other. Good luck trying to convince any court of that excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, makes perfect sense. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what Godwinism looks like.
Dude, you scare me more than could any terrorist or psychopath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child porn is against the law, and it doesn't matter if you're over the age of 18 or under the age of 18, the law is the law.
Everyone is taking the immoral stance that teens producing child porn is a good thing. Child porn is NOT a good thing and there is a reason why a lot of countries have laws that ban the distribution of child pornography.
Just because you're under the age of 18 doesn't mean that you have the right to produce child pornography and get away with it. These teenagers knew very well that child pornography is against the law and everyone here wants these teens to be let off with a slap of the wrist?
It's an insult. If you make child porn legal for teenagers then it follows that it must be legal for adults. It's a good thing that child pornography is a violation of the law and these teens are about to be taught a real world lesson in the fact that producing child pornography is against the law.
I hope the judge throws the book at them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If a photo of a naked child is considered pornography no matter the context in that which it was taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reasonable. .
Bringing the law down on them does not make anybody safer by getting a predator of the street who would be exploiting other children. As a matter of fact, it likely increase the possibility of these children being victimized, if the end up in jail.
Justice is not based solely on the letter of the law, it has to consider the circumstances and the intent of those involved, and in balance with the degree of harm or danger it presents to the rest of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And now for something completely different:
Totally wrong. Nothing about this case is tragically stupid. "tragical" means bad things arising in consequence of good intentions due to circumstances outside of the well-intentioned people's control.
There is nothing well-intentioned in the law officers' witch hunt here in spite of their preposterously absurd self-justifications for bolstering their crime-fighting statistics by sacrificing a few too trusting teens on the altar of sanctimoniousness while relying on the hypocritical backup of puritan pharisaic communities.
Ok, one thing is indeed properly called "tragically stupid": the decision of the teen to help the police in a statutory rape case by letting them search his phone for leads. Trying to help them with solving a crime, he instead let them create a crime involving himself.
So yes, that's an aspect one might call "tragically stupid". The police, however, have been acting obsessively and malignantly stupid, but not tragically so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And now for something completely different:
That is not what tragic means, that's how you shoehorn it into your argument , but that is not what it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He's not guilty of anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lemme guess...
Or was one of the cops banging the girl, and now that she found a boy her age, they are gonna 'get her'.
"So I say to you tonight, friends, the best defense against bullshit is vigilance. So, if you smell something, say something."
I'm calling out whoever allowed this whole thing to go this far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lemme guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
------------
This is inaccurate. In North Carolina, the age of consent is 16, not 17. However, the sexual exploitation of a minor law considers a minor to be anyone under 18. So these two could have had sex with each other (or with someone 20, 30, 50, any years older than they were) when they were 16 without running afoul of the law, but taking a nude photo of themselves qualifies as a crime according to an overzealous prosecutor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"qualifies as a crime"
I think that's the problem is that when it serves a prosecutor's whims to ruin anyone, he can.
If we think that's too much power for a police officer, why isn't it too much power for a prosecutor?
Ours is no longer a nation of laws, it's a nation of might.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
know totally deferent
know totally deferent http://apgovjob.com/sbi-recruitment-2017-special-management-executives-banking-554-posts-la st-date-18-may-2017/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://apgovjob.com/nin-recruitment-2017-notification-project-associate-venture-technician-05-opening/
http://apgovjob.com/nin-recruitment-2017-notification-project-associate-venture-technician-05-openin g/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://apgovjob.com/nin-recruitment-2017-notification-project-associate-venture-technician-05-opening/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://apgovjob.com/aiesl-recruitment-2017-94-posts-of-aircraft-technician-and-skilled-tradesmen-walk-in-interview-on-28-29-and-30th-june-2017/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://apgovjob.com/aiesl-recruitment-2017-94-posts-of-aircraft-technician-and-skilled-tradesmen-walk-in-interview-on-28-29-and-30th-june-2017/
http://apgovjob.com/aiesl-recruitment-2017-94-posts-of-aircraft-technician-and-skilled-tradesmen-wal k-in-interview-on-28-29-and-30th-june-2017/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sarkari Naukri
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]