I don’t disagree, but Preach on, Officer Krupke!
1 Like
Presumably this teenager needs to figure out how to deal with the intolerable anger they feel about being arrested as a child pornographer.
5 Likes
“The Law in its’ majesty prohibits both the rich & poor from pissing in the streets & stealing bread.”
Or, just accept the very real possibility that they are hemmed in by the law, and ruled in a way the law dictates rather than whatever they might feel “should be.”
If they “ruled in a way that the law dictates” then they would all have ruled exactly the same.
The fact that at least one ruled differently means either they are ruling according to their interpretation of the law, which is what happens every time any judge makes a decision based on any law: they interpret the law to the best of their abilities (often with the addition of varying degrees of bias, because we’re all human).
3 Likes
Supposedly the most commmon age of sex offenders in USA is 14. It’s a strange country
2 Likes
Any this is exactly why the orange menace and Moscow Mitch are packing the courts with ultra conservative judges.
1 Like
Ok, so six sadists.
1 Like
It’s a well known saying that the law is meant to be a shield, not a sword. In this case the law is a bludgeon.
4 Likes
Totally agree with this, akin to sending unsolicited dick pics. In addition, once the video is sent out, it will inevitably wind up on porn sites and viewed as porn. Since the people in the video are minors, it is de facto child pornography, and anyone caught viewing or downloading this video could legally by charged with possessing child pornography. I think this case sets an important precedent and will hopefully give teens some pause before doing this kind of thing.
The male partner was the one who held the phone. Did he consent to having it sent? Dunno. But I want to know why he wasn’t charged for doing the filming.
Because the law in this case is about distribution. He didn’t send it out. As far as I know, it’s not illegal for teens to film themselves having sex and keeping it private. Once it’s distributed, however, it becomes child pornography by default, since anyone viewing or possessing video of minors having sex can be charged with possession of child pornography.
I think it’s in the Ars article I linked- she was originally charged with both making and distributing child pornography. The making was dropped from her case. So as the person filming, the Male could have been charged with creating child porn. It doesn’t appear he was, though the Ars article mentions he might have been an adult.
2 Likes
This type of thing has absolutely occurred with underage males who send dick pics or whatnot.
1 Like
I agree if the charge included the creation of the video, than the guy should be charged as well. From that article, only reason it got to the police is because one of the people it was sent to had a falling out with the girl, so he brought it to the authorities. What a dick.
2 Likes
That person is probably significantly more dangerous to society than the person who was actually charged.
13 Likes
One of the standards upheld in most appellate jurisdictions, including other cases before the Maryland Supreme Court is that a ruling can be overturned if it would result in a manifest injustice. If we’re going to insist on pretending courts are simple grammar processing black boxes for law codes then we need to parse some of the existing case law. This strikes me as pretty manifestly unjust.
2 Likes
Nice flippant response. How would you feel knowing millions of Epsteins are trading your photo, never to be deleted?
It’s not the best solution, but charging one child may stop many others from feeling it’s safe to do.
1 Like
Using the criminal system to dissuade teens from sexuality won’t work for the very reasons we disallow adult sexual contact with minors. Their lack of maturity and underdeveloped frontal cortexes prevent them from thinking through those consequences. So you aren’t making a trade for all of those other future innocent children for this one, you’re just punishing the one for no gain. If honor killings for culturally unacceptable sexual activities doesn’t prevent it among teens, then no amount of criminal punishment will.
6 Likes
I think the logic is if the penalty is severe the level of coercion nessecary will make most folks think twice we have good protections against physical coercion so if they make it such you need to force them , it drastically reduces skeevy folks ability to exploit
I’m not saying it’s optimal just that it’s a line of thinking
That I was wondering too.
This means that this girl’s “friends” are on the sex offenders registry for the minimum required duration of sex offender registration for tier I sex offenders of 15 years, for possession and distribution of child pornography?
Sex offenders aren’t allowed to hang out at schools, are they? Potato.
Some laws were never meant to aid justice.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
