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.
The Republican Congress passed this law. You remember, those guys that MAKE the laws? Clinton only signed it.
But I do seem to remember Clinton taking credit for the surpluses of the 90’s and for Welfare reform (even though it was a part of the Contract with America)?
As someone in another fourm said, if posting nude pictures of yourself is child pornography, then masturbation is rape.
What I’d like to know is, who’s the victim?
SN to be fair, you did read the article right the first time. Both were charged with child-pornography. It was my mistake in saying they weren’t, not yours.
Which brings it back around I guess. Both were charged, one was (technically) an adult while the other was a minor. It will be an interesting case to follow to see if they both are tried in the same way and even if the 16 year old will be tried as an adult.
#34 It will be an interesting case to follow to see if they both are tried in the same way and even if the 16 year old will be tried as an adult.
Especially if both are tried and convicted.
The 19-year-old would have an adult conviction – so she would be a convictd felon / registered sex offender for the rest of her life?
While the 16-year-old could be convicted as a minor, and have the record wiped/sealed when she reaches legal age?
#29 There are 50 states and a District. Each with their own versions of Child Protection laws
Reminds me of the streaking craze in the late 70’s & early 80’s. My Dad was in law enforcement, and was appalled by the idea that what was a misdemeanor in one jurisdiction could be a felony in another…
My Dad was concerned that too many of the people tempted to join the craze didn’t understand what their local laws were, or how the local DA might charge them.
Some places just filed “public nuisance” or “disturbing the peace” charges, but the places which brought “public indecency” or “lewd conduct” charges against streakers left some of the convicted ones with criminal records which required registration as “sex offenders”. 🙁
Mike,
it’s not like the courts aren’t full enough of other nonsensical bullshit, while real criminals are running free…..what are you thinking?
This is another example of our stupidity as a nation at work…the problem is not that a 16 year old put up naked pictures of herself (as child pornography) it’s WHY a 16 year old would do such a thing? Maybe it’s because the fashion industry is sexualizing girls as young as 10..with low cut necklines, etc? Maybe it’s pushing “pre bras” on 7 year olds? The marketing of Hillary Duff (i.e. the Nick kids choice awards!) or Gwen Stefani…have you seen how they dress? Just look at Zoey101 — the Nick product pushing the younger Spear’s sales model. She’s 14 and looking 35!!! http://gfx.dagbladet.no/pub/artikkel/4/42/422/422113/spears3Xcopy.jpg
What about the “fashion” magazines that are aimed at younger girls (and are being read by 10, 11, 12 and 13 year olds) like Cosmo Girl, and ELLEGirl!! ) Read this article by an cosmetics magazine:
http://tinyurl.com/fv9hc
Advertisers are pushing girls to be consumers of beauty and fashion products at younger and younger ages…..so, it’s causing girls to become “sexualized” much earlier. Personally, I don’t want to see 14 year olds wearing more makeup that a 40-something bar hooker…but it doesn’t seem to phase most parents who buy the Hillary Duff, Spears and other nonsense bullshit for their daughters. Don’t prosecute the girl for posting photos that emulate the big time marketers…..prosecute the ad agencies!
What are we doing to our kids?
Does it bother anyone that the person that found this is a cop assigned to the school to monitor the internet?
I have found that is a cop gets assigned to a “problem” they always seem to find one.
MR. Fusion.,
Cliton could have vetoed it. I’m also sure Dems voted for it too.
Sounds The Alarm,
Schools are damn if they do and damned if they don’t. What if this was a truely raped victim by one of the schools sports teams. The pictures are in public domain so don’t bitch about privacy. So if everyone can see them cops shouldn’t look. I also hope a cop assigned to a problem finds it and doesn’t miss it. This is why we have police patrols on the street.
SN,
“If a 15 year old girl takes a picture of herself, she’s a child pornographer? That’s the law?”
No this is not entirely true. The picture usually has to be of a sexually nature to be illegal. There usually is an exception for artist nudes and scientific ones.
#20 As with all laws, intent should be taken into account. A minor posting a photo of themselves for fun is completely different than …
From the article:
Two teenage girls face child pornography charges after posting sexually explicit photographs of themselves on the Internet
and
The photos of the two teenagers together were posted on each of their respective Web site accounts, …
Sounds like this definately was “for fun”, and the combination of “sexually explict” and ‘together” does make me wonder what the photo actually portrayed…
Of course, I can never legally examine the photo[s] – because then I would be guilty of obtaining and viewing child pornography! 🙂
Unfortunately, if they were Michigan residents, they’d both go on the Sex Offenders list for the next 20 years or so. Which can drastically affect any future prospects. Absolutely no way that’s fair, just or moral.