The question on my mind is: Why isn't she being charged with that as well? Is it a gender issue? Or is it because he's older?spoonybard.hahs said:
I guess I'll go with the title "police want to photograph teen in sexually explicit manner". I'm sure if you've taken a class on Anatomy you've seen pictures of people's naughty bits. Calling those pictures "sexually explicit" would be a misuse of the term. Just because you take a picture of someone's penis doesn't mean that picture is sexually explicit. From the very start the article comes off as slanted. Why would you use that paraphrase of a quote as the title of your article? All I get from it is that they want to use inflammitory language to get hits.RA92 said:
Which is what everyone thinks is ridiculous, that you can be of an age where you can consent to sex, yet you can be charged with one of the most serious crimes out there for viewing part of a person on a peice of paper or digitally that the person in question would be quite happy to show you in person and in all likelyhood be happy for you to shove your penis in/wrap your vagina around, as well.spoonybard.hahs said:
Not sure. She wouldn't be the first female minor to be charged with child pornography in an instance like this. I can only speculate that since the mother filed a complaint against the boyfriend, the DA and police felt pressure to act.frobalt said:
It's ridiculous, yes. It's unfair, even. But this isn't the first time this very same scenario - or something similar - has happened. The fact is, until someone gets a spine and actually changes the law to protect children from being prosecuted for things like this, it's going to keep happening. Problem is, no one wants to touch this with a ten foot pole because of just how seedy the prospect is of adding, "It's okay for minors to make and distribute porn to one another."Zykon TheLich said:
mistahzig1 said:
*Sigh*youji itami said:
It is absurd, and it's a loophole in a lot of child pornography laws which let's police and prosecutors in many places victimize innocent kids and turn them into criminals at the behest of upset parents. They could get together and fuck like bunnies and it's fine, but because they took pictures and sent them to each other it's technically production and distribution of child pornography. Never mind that child pornography laws exist to prevent the exploitation of children in the creation and distribution of child porn, whereas neither of these kids were being exploited. It's a case of following the letter of the law rather than the actual intent, and is usually practiced by dick bags who aren't very intelligent or good at their jobs.Vendor-Lazarus said:
They forcefully stripped a minor to take pictures of his penis, and now planning to force him to have an erection so that they can take more pictures. That's fucking traumatizing and sexual abuse to me. Just because it's the cops doing it doesn't mean it's okay (see the last link of this post).Majinash said:
Yeah, that's a lot of water-muddying bullshit. That wasn't part of the original charge, and they are being intentionally vague about 'who' told him to stop repeatedly. They are also saying they didn't do any 'invasive' searches, yet they didn't tell the Washington Post to retract that part of the claim.mistahzig1 said:
Nah. When it comes to cops on a power trip, everybody gets diddled. <url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/roadside-body-cavity-search-texas-women-sue-state-troopers-for-humiliating-body-search_n_2333302.html>Like being molested by the roadside because the cops thought you acted weird.jpz719 said:
Wouldn't that fall under harrasment rather than child pornography if the not stopping is the part that pushes this into crime territory, though?mistahzig1 said: