Is it right to charge this boy with child pornography?

[thir]

Earlier this year in a 15-year-old girl and her 17-year-old boyfriend were doing what dating teenagers do. These days that means texting instead of talking on the phone. Teenagers are also apt to explore their sexuality. These days that often means sexting via the phones they use to not talk. The Manassas, Virginia teenagers were doing just that earlier this year, which started with the girl sending nude photos of herself to her boyfriend, which prompted him to send a video which included his erect penis.

After a complaint by the girl’s parents, the boy was arrested and charged with possession and manufacturing of child pornography. Sexting among minors is illegal in 20 states, including Virginia. Even though the activity is common among teens and done with seemingly few negative effects, states don’t differentiate by age. So whether the offender is 40 or 14, the same charges apply with penalties of up to forty years.

In this case, the possession charges stem from the photos that his girlfriend sent him, and the manufacturing charge is for his self-made video of him…or rather his penis. He could face up to twenty years in prison.


The police then wanted to photograph his erect penis for evidence, thus creating their own child pornography.

It looks like there are two ages of consent in Virginia? West Virginia age of consent is 16, rest 18. INfor from 2009. http://www.rsolvirginia.org/age-of-consent/

So, if they live in WV he is an adult, but otherwise he is also a minor. Can a minor be accused of child pornography from being sent pictures from another minor, or from selfies??

Comments?

[thir]

Forgot the link to the story: http://www.care2.com/causes/teen-faces-2-felonies-as-police-drop-plan-to-photograph-his-erect-penis.html

[js207]

It looks like there are two ages of consent in Virginia? West Virginia age of consent is 16, rest 18.

West Virginia and Virginia are two different states, each with their own laws, just like North Dakota and South Dakota.

If something is sent unsolicited that's usually a defense - a possession charge would normally require intent, depending on the jurisdiction - but that would be very difficult for the boyfriend in this case.

[thir]

West Virginia and Virginia are two different states, each with their own laws, just like North Dakota and South Dakota.


Thanks



If something is sent unsolicited that's usually a defense - a possession charge would normally require intent, depending on the jurisdiction - but that would be very difficult for the boyfriend in this case.

Do you mean intent to sell on?
I do not understand the last of it, what would be difficult for the boyfriend?

In general - what I do not understand is that to my mind laws against child pornography are meant to protect children, right? Against harm, exploitation and exposure. And so they should be, obviously.

But all we have here is a situation with two teenagers fooling around with each other, as they do - lots of them! Where is the harm, or threat, in that?? I do not understand.

[js207]

Do you mean intent to sell on?
I do not understand the last of it, what would be difficult for the boyfriend?

No, intent to possess the material in question. If Customs find a package of drugs in the post to me, for example, that isn't enough to prosecute me: they'd need to show that I was actually involved in some way, for example having paid the sender or communicated with them about it.


In general - what I do not understand is that to my mind laws against child pornography are meant to protect children, right? Against harm, exploitation and exposure. And so they should be, obviously.

But all we have here is a situation with two teenagers fooling around with each other, as they do - lots of them! Where is the harm, or threat, in that?? I do not understand.

You have a point there: this isn't really what the law was intended to catch, so with luck it might be changed in future. I wouldn't hold my breath for that though.

[Thorne]

Where is the harm, or threat, in that?
The harm is to the sensibilities of the girl's parents, who are trying to deny the obvious sexual explorations of their daughter. I wonder how eager they would be to prosecute the boy who sent the video of himself, if he were to have charges filed against the girl for distribution of child pornography. Would they be able to sit in a court room and have their daughter explain why she sent nude photos of herself to her boyfriend?

[thir]

No, intent to possess the material in question. If Customs find a package of drugs in the post to me, for example, that isn't enough to prosecute me: they'd need to show that I was actually involved in some way, for example having paid the sender or communicated with them about it.


Ah. Thanks.




You have a point there: this isn't really what the law was intended to catch, so with luck it might be changed in future. I wouldn't hold my breath for that though.

Or they could just let them go, maybe, for that reason?

[thir]

The harm is to the sensibilities of the girl's parents, who are trying to deny the obvious sexual explorations of their daughter. I wonder how eager they would be to prosecute the boy who sent the video of himself, if he were to have charges filed against the girl for distribution of child pornography. Would they be able to sit in a court room and have their daughter explain why she sent nude photos of herself to her boyfriend?

Good point. And why isn't she accused as well, seeing how mad this whole thing is??

[thir]

This madness has reached the UK. In this article youngsters are warned againts sending sexts to each other,

"In a letter sent to schools in Nottinghamshire, the county's sexual exploitation investigation unit said officers were receiving reports on a daily basis of naked images being sent between teenagers using mobile phones.

In one recent case cited in the letter, a teenage girl who sent a topless picture of herself to her boyfriend was investigated after being deemed to have distributed an indecent image of a child.

The girl's boyfriend, who forwarded the image to friends after they split up, is reported to have received a caution."

I wonder who can keep reporting on what people send to each other privately?

I can see not point in accusing anyone who is taking a picture of themselves! But to send them on without permission is surely asking for more than 'a caution.'

In the letter sent to school officials, Det Insp Martin Hillier warns that court action for such offences may even see a child forced to register as a sex offender.

In my opinion there is a big difference between what you send privately, and what you publish on the net.

To interfere in private communication is to me 'indecent'. To put on the net is careless, but not a crime unless done by others without permission.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/22/teenagers-share-sexts-face-prosecution-police?commentpage=2

[Thorne]

I tend to agree, thir. The girl who sexts her boyfriend, or the boy who sexts his girlfriend, are not committing a crime in my view, regardless of what the law might say. The boy, or girl, who receives that sext is also not committing a crime, in my view. However, the person who forwards those sexts, especially out of spite after a breakup, ARE committing a crime, even if the sexts are not from a child.

[js207]

I can see not point in accusing anyone who is taking a picture of themselves! But to send them on without permission is surely asking for more than 'a caution.'
...
To interfere in private communication is to me 'indecent'. To put on the net is careless, but not a crime unless done by others without permission.


Interesting. Legally, no: here at least, the acts of making and distributing the photos is the same crime; had the subject not been underage, there would be no crime involved at all. (It might be deemed a breach of copyright, for which you could theoretically sue, but that's all.)

Perhaps we need a sort of 'Romeo and Juliet' exemption, like some US states have so two 15 year olds having sex isn't a crime even if the 15 year old having sex with a 20 year old would be. In fact, I think we currently have - in the UK - the absurd anomaly where I could have sex with a 17 year old girl quite legally - but you taking a photo of that perfectly legal act would make you a sex offender. I can't imagine politicians putting any effort into any sort of rethink, though: too easy to be attacked for it.

[Brianwilliach]

This is not good, the girl herself sent the picture... He should not be treated as such :)

[AmandaBlair_CD]

Wrong is still wrong....no matter how you type it. Blame the parents. Both fucked up!

[slaveboy 6]

If anything, the girl should also be charged. But really, this is not a case of child pornography as I know it and I think it should be dropped.