While I would normally say throw the book at child pornographers, unless there is more to this story, this is just plain ridiculous.
And how soon will everyone who has ever posted on MySpace have a criminal record? Hasn’t the message gotten out that while kids are the primary ones who post to it, it seems only cops read it so don’t post things that will get yourself arrested?
Two teens face child pornography charges
PROVIDENCE, R.I. –Two teenage girls face child pornography charges after posting sexually explicit photographs of themselves on the Internet.
The pornographic pictures of Elizabeth Muller, 19, of North Smithfield, and an unidentified 16-year-old Lincoln girl were discovered on MySpace.com, a social networking Web site, said a spokesman for the attorney general’s office.
The photos of the two teenagers together were posted on each of their respective Web site accounts, spokesman Michael Healey said.
The 16-year-old was arraigned before a Family Court judge Monday on a charge of child pornography and violating a court-ordered curfew, Healey said. The girl is being held at the Rhode Island Training School pending a probable cause hearing Friday, he said.
Muller was also charged with child pornography and was arraigned in District Court in Providence.
A police officer assigned to Lincoln High School, where the girl was a student, discovered the photographs while monitoring the Web site.
Um… Is it me or does the ultra conservitive right not know when to pick its fights? Realy this is just a poor way to scare teens to stop posting sexy pic of them self up.
Um…so if you’re like 15 and post pictures of yourself naked, you could get charged with child pornography of…um…yourself? You have to be protected from being sexually exploited by….um…yourself I guess.
Will she be ordered now not to have any contact with herself until she turns 18? Ordered not to look into mirrors anymore?
Child pornography laws are bizarre laws because they are so incredibly strict. For example it’s even illegal to take pictures or videos of a sexual nature of your underage wife.
Yep, you can have sex with her in any number of ways, but if you take a a semi nude picture of her it’s breaking the law, even if you lock it in a safe and no one sees it.
Americans take their child pornography laws as seriously as Japan takes it child porn!
Once again the American need for no-tolerance laws proves the absurdity of law without judgement.
And if they go to trial, the jury is perfectly free to find them not-guilty.
That is why we have jury trials after all — they are the final check against the power of government.
Coming soon… masturbation while under 18 = child molestation.
Dan, It was Cliton that passed the Internet Child Proctection Act (or what every it’s called) so don’t just blame the right.
I’m accually glad the law is being inforced this way. The minor also being charged. I have big problem with Statutory Rape laws enforcement. An adult can’t have sex with a mnor(14-17 or what is defind by your state) but two minors can have sex with each other. That’s a double standard. I’m not going to debate about wether the laws a correct. I just don’t like double standards. I believe most stated have a cut off around 13 and under that it’s illegal for everyone but not sure.
But what if it was your 15 year old daughter…..
As someone who has been around high school classrooms and attempted to play mentor to 15 year old minds, they need discipline more then freedom at that age. That’s why they are Minors.
As a photographer myself, the minor photography release form is much more extensive and requires the signature of both a parent and a witness, if their picture (clothed) is to be used in any sort of publication or promotion. Puritains, Athiests, Islam, Catholic, Marxist, Bible-Belt, none of that matters to a father looking out for the best interest of his little girl.
I hate to play the devil’s advocate here, but only one of the teens were of legal concenting age, the other was 16. If both teens were 16, then the story may have come out differently, but since there was a 19 year old in the group, the 19 year old posting pictures of the 16 year old on her site is where the child pornography comes into play.
The law is a guideline to make judgement simple. There are many over-18 year-olds that look and think like 15 year-olds.
Actually, in Texas 14 is legal.
As one of the resident libertarians on this board, I say that pretty much ANYTHING between CONSENTING ADULTS is cool These rights do *not* automatically extend to non-adults. End of story.
Child pornography is bad, not because of some puritanical notions, but because it can screw up the kid. It can also represent exploiting someone that is not mature enough to make decisions.
Yes, there are probably kids and teens that are mature enough to make decisions like publishing naked pix of themselves on the net, but sometimes the line has to be drawn because there is no other practical way of making the determination.
Well, I have to agree with Lou. Society and the law in the US assumes that kids lack maturity under certain situations. For example, a teenager cannot enter into a valid contract, because it is assumed they lack the maturity to enter into binding decisions. A kid 16 or under cannot chose to have sex, because if s/he does, no matter how old the partner is, he’d be violating the law. (But she can choose to have an abortion later, but let’s not open that can of worms. Oops!) And kids have to reach a certain age before they can choose to drop out of school.
If a kid lacks the maturity to buy a car, she lacks the maturity to choose to enter the porn business. Kids do lots of stupid things, its society’s job to make sure they don’t.
But you don’t charge a kid with child pornography for posting pics of herself. So are we then going to make them register as sex offenders because of this?
A sixteen year old can legaly drive a car, and potentially kill somebody in the process. Yet people scream when anybody proposes that they shouldn’t be allowed to drive because of a lack of maturity… but now you are going to use that same argument to criminalize them posting their own pics on the internet. This is completely absurd.
For the record, I think that 18 should be the minimum driving age too.
“A sixteen year old can legaly drive a car,….”
See my comment at 14. Society places many restrictions on kids, choosing to enter the porn business is just one such restriction.
Posting a pic of yourself on myspace is hardly the same thing as being a porn star.
And your argument about maturity falls flat once you allow people to perform dangerous acts, like driving, while disallowing non-dangerous ones.
I’m not disagreeing with the maturity argument, I’m just saying that the inconsistent application greatly diminishes its validity.
“Posting a pic of yourself on myspace is hardly the same thing as being a porn star.”
If I take a sexually explicit picture of a teen age girl, I’m a child-pornographer under the law. There is no difference under the law if the girl takes the picture herself. She too would be a child-pornographer. You may disagree with the law, but it is the law.
“And your argument about maturity falls flat once you allow people to perform dangerous acts, like driving, while disallowing non-dangerous ones.”
I agree that driving can be dangerous. That’s why we limit when and how kids can drive and require classes and training before they do it. Society weighed the risks and determined that with the limitations, training, and classes kids can do it. Society has not weighed the risk to allow teens to become child-pornographers. Maybe you can push for such legislation in your state.
“I’m not disagreeing with the maturity argument, I’m just saying that the inconsistent application greatly diminishes its validity.”
Once again, I agree that cars are dangerous, but you’re ignoring their huge utility value. For example, teens can use them to drive to work, after school activities, sports, and school. I don’t see any similar utility in allowing kids to become child-pornographers.
The utility or convenience (to the parents) of allowing your 16 year old to drive doesn’t mean anything to me while I’m reading story after story about somebody being killed in an accident caused by some stupid kid who I don’t think should have been driving in the first place.
If taking a class is enough to magically make somebody mature enough to drive a 3,000 lb vehicle down a busy freeway, then that standard should be applicable in most other situations as well. Maybe a 16 year old should be allowed to take a class and get a concealed weapons permit too.
I’m not sure how many 16 year olds have been killed or have caused other to be killed from signing a contract or posting pics of themselves online.
As with all laws, intent should be taken into account. A minor posting a photo of themselves for fun is completely different than a professional pornographer having a minor pose to create porn and should be treated differently. Obviously, the latter shouldn’t be arrested, jailed, labeled a sex offender, etc.
The problem for law enforement is determining who created what looks like a naked child having fun and for what purpose.
Looks like some of you haven’t seen how far kids are going on their MySpace accounts these days.
If a 15 year old girl takes a picture of herself, she’s a child pornographer? That’s the law?
Ok, SN, where is that law written then? I call BS on that statement. I’m sure you were just spouting off, but come on. A 15 year old that takes a picture of herself and no one else around is considered a child pornographer? WTF you been smoking son?
So I want cited cases, I want written law and I want links to back up your “that’s the law” statements about this. I’m so sick of people like you who have opinions and try to twist them as being facts. Opinions are fine and all, but please stop with the morality judgements of “allowing kids to become child-pornographers”. You just look silly. It’s a fricken 15 year old taking pictures of her boobs. Come on…what’s wrong with you?
Cited cases, written laws and links to both. Cited cases carry more weight btw.
No no Dave, according to SN the law makes no difference in such matters. They’re both child-pornographers! IT’S THE LAW!
“As with all laws, intent should be taken into account. “
All laws do not take intent into account. Statutory rape is one that doesn’t. Child porn is another. Driving while intoxicated is yet another.
“I’m not sure how many 16 year olds have been killed or have caused other to be killed from signing a contract or posting pics of themselves online.”
Mike, you’re right. It’s a matter of degrees and maybe kids should not be allowed to drive. And if you think kids should be allowed to do what adults can’t, i.e., create child-porn, then you should move to change the laws in your state.
“If a 15 year old girl takes a picture of herself, she’s a child pornographer? That’s the law?”
Yes. That’s the law.
What you’re asking is sort of difficult. You seem to think that there is an exception in our anti-child-pornography laws that pertains to kids taking pictures of themselves. There are no such exceptions. Thus, you’re asking me to prove something does not exist. That’s an impossibly.
The law in Michigan is M.C.L.A. 750.145c. There is no exception under that law which excludes kids punishment when taking pornographic pictures of themselves. I’m not going to post the entire statute here, but you can read it on my blog.
Not the statute, I want a cited case that found that a minor taking pictures of his or herself was considered child-pornography and if they were sentenced and labeled accordingly. There has to be something somewhere right? If it’s the law there had to have been some minor somewhere convicted of violating that law.
Even the Traci Lords case didn’t charge her with anything, even though she DID take pictures of herself too (the original photos she used to get into the business etc). Perhaps they just overlooked that fact when they were going after everyone else. She was a willing participant just like the 16 year old was with the 19 year old in the story this blog entry is written about.
But here’s where we both are kind of wrong on all of this. Read this story again. Only the 19 year old is being charged with the child-pornography. Not the 16 year old. Even though BOTH posted the pictures on their respective myspace.com accounts. Interesting. Shouldn’t both be charged under the law?
nevermind my statement above, they were both charged. I mis-read the article after I re-read it a third time.
D’OH!
Opinions are fine and all, but please stop with the morality judgements of “allowing kids to become child-pornographers”. You just look silly. It’s a fricken 15 year old taking pictures of her boobs. Come on…what’s wrong with you?
SN has not posted any “opinions” as you call them. He is re-iterating the LAW. There are 50 states and a District. Each with their own versions of Child Protection laws. Although SN hasn’t mentioned it, there are several other statutes regulating child behavior. Drinking alcohol, curfews, school attendance, employment type and age allowed, and entertainment. Most of these protections for the child MAY also result in the child being found delinquent (or whatever term is used now) and in need of the protection of the state. Good or bad, like it or not, the laws are fairly similar around the country in this regard.
I hope you are not advocating juvenile delinquency. Would you shout as loud if it was just a couple of kids getting drunk in public? Or being chronic truants? Or out on the street at three in the morning?
Jetfire,
The Republican Congress passed this law. You remember, those guys that MAKE the laws? Clinton only signed it.
“Not the statute, I want a cited case that found that a minor taking pictures of his or herself was considered child-pornography…”
Exactly how often do you think this sort of stuff happens. I gave you the law. If you can find an exception in there excluding kids from taking pornographic pictures of themselves, please do.
“Even the Traci Lords case didn’t charge her with anything, even though she DID take pictures of herself too ”
You have no constitutional right to be arrested. It’s the discretion of the police and prosecutor to arrest you. Plenty of people commit crimes and are not charged. That does not invalidate the law.
“She was a willing participant just like the 16 year old”
Once again, intent does not matter. Can you have sex with an 8 year old girl even if she’s willing? No? Can I take a nude picture of an 8 year old girl, even if she’s willing? No? Then why should the girl be able to do the same thing? What’s so hard to understand about this: Child porn is illegal!
“Only the 19 year old is being charged with the child-pornography. Shouldn’t both be charged under the law?””
That’s what I get for not reading the article!
As I stated above, the police and the prosecutor have discretion to charge who they want. They’ve decided to charge the adult in this situation, which makes sense to me. Why piss off the parents by charging the alleged victim?!
I’ll conclude with this. If you think there is an exception under the law, it’s your job to find it. As I’ve already explained, it’s impossible for me to prove that something does not exist. The ball is in your court. Have fun.