you may call this a harmless act of expressing sexuality but she is gonna regret her decision later….i will tell her firmly not to do this again.

as for the arrest part….thats her life…what the fuck has police got to do with it when it can only harm her.

this is a personal matter.

i think parents should play an important part. there is an increasing pressure on teenage girls to strip and show themselves nude. they have bad role models.

the worst thing is when they take their pictures and blame some ‘cyber bully’ made them do it.

1. Her competence will be evaluated in a court of law during the trial. Ignorance of the law usually isn’t a valid excuse but considering how insane this case is the defense could probably work.

2. I agree with you on that point. The fact that you can’t preview picture messages could make anyone a recipient of illegal pictures. Expect the ACLU or EFF to come out in defense of the recipients.

3. Selling and sharing are not too different when it comes to prosecution. You wouldn’t be able to tell a judge that possession of weed isn’t a crime because you were giving it away instead of selling it. Distributing illegal contraband is the same either way.

This whole case is based on the overreaching definition of illegal pornography. It’s now defined as images of anyone under 18 regardless on context. The government will not amend this definition because they believe that it will open the door to other exceptions. This whole issue is muddied even further by the fact that the current administration uses this issue to invade the privacy of American citizens.

1. Do you honestly expect a 15-year-old to know child pornography laws? Because I don’t. So how about we stop blaming her as though she purposely broke them and put all other kinds of people into harm’s way. She didn’t.

2. The idea that you can be prosecuted for receiving pornographic images without your knowledge is ridiculous. That’s another part of the law that clearly needs to change.

3. Sending photographs of yourself may be a crime but it shouldn’t be, which is precisely what I said in this post. If she was selling them, that’d be a different argument. She wasn’t. She sent them the same way that you’d send any other snapshot and not for the purposes of sale or distribution. Again, child pornography laws are designed to protect the children who are being abused in child pornography. That is their purpose, it ought to be their purpose, and once we go outside of that purpose it’s a mere exercise in sexual shaming.

The key question that this prosecution brings up is that if you take pictures of yourself in the nude when you’re a minor and you still possess them when you’re an adult are you open to prosecution for possession of child pornography?

Killjoy — I think that she violated his sexual rights. What the boy did was in fact “high tech flashing.” What the girl did in distributing the video to other people was presumably a non-consensual use of his sexual image, and I believe that is not okay and ought to be illegal, regardless of the genders of the people involved.

Not to detract from the main point of the post, but what do you make of this one? Sounds like high-tech flashing to me.