Comments on: Teen Jailed For Nude MySpace Photo Of Ex

19-Year-Old Sentenced To 30 Days For Posting Photo Of 15-Year-Old Ex-Girlfriend After Breakup

[torocaca]

Torocaca, that actually happened to some poor mom in Ohio several years ago. But it wasn%u2019t the internet. She was showing some people her family photo album and one of them called the cops on her! It%u2019s absurd. ... Posted by eggy1620 at 11:26 AM : Aug 31, 2007
---------------------------

Yes, big brother is watching you. All photo processing centers are "obligated" to inform law enforcement when photos of children are questionable. They may also "turn you in" for any photos that contain questionable images, for instance, drugs.

[torocaca]

Or, How a Photo Can Ruin Your Life. Popular Photography, June 2007

www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4130/how-a-photo-can-ruin-your-life.html
------------------------

That obviously should be June 2007. That arthritic little finger doesn''t behave...

[torocaca]

You, too, can be charged with child endangerment for taking a naked photo of your own child.

www.naked-truths.com


Or, How a Photo Can Ruin Your Life. Popular Photography, June 1007

www.popphoto.com/popularphotographyfeatures/4130/how-a-photo-can-ruin-your-life.html

This is a very interesting story about not only photos of children, but for instance, a photo of Bush with a thumbtack through his head and a "thumbs down" sign next to it. The kid who made this photo got a visit from the Secret Service.

Or the guy who was arrested when he went to pick up photos of his marijuana crop.

Big brother is out there and is working at your local photo processing centers.

[goamerica]

I find it interesting that "child abuse" is considered a lesser crime than "*** offender."

Another case of law enforcement going crazy. Here''s an idea: You posT a nude picture of me on MySpace, just to be mean. I contact MySpace with proof that its a picture of me and demand they drop the picture. MySpace drops the picture.

END OF STORY.

[eggy1620]

Torocaca, that actually happened to some poor mom in Ohio several years ago. But it wasn%u2019t the internet. She was showing some people her family photo album and one of them called the cops on her! It%u2019s absurd. The laws can%u2019t keep up with all the innocent situations that can arise when pictures are taken of kids, especially when other kids are taking the pictures or they are taking pictures of themselves. No where in the article did it say that the boy took the picture. She could have taken it herself and given to him when they were sweeties.

[zootallures2]

Just another story and another day in the gypt and jewed cities of amerikkka. Brown nosers R us LLC. Amazing what hollywood drama does to the mind and you pay to get messed up with your cable bill. "Sure, go ahead Dr. Ashkenazi, give my kids shots so they get genetically altered. I always wanted a son who thinks he''s women. How much is that? Wow what a deal. Does that come with eye shadow?"

[torocaca]

How about this, if a 15 yr old girl takes a provocative picture of herself and posts it, is she a criminal or a victim?
Posted by eggy1620 at 09:31 AM : Aug 31, 2007
-------------------

Provocative isn''t necessarily porn.

How about this: You post some photos of your children playing in the bathtub. You could and probably would get busted for possessing and distributing child porn.

[torocaca]

Man, where do you get all this! Anything else you do!

Posted by gangesdak at 07:36 AM : Aug 31, 2007
------------------

LOL!!! You''ve been trolled, dude!!

Is there anything else YOU do?

OBTW: It''s all on the internet...

[ralan40]

How about this, if a 15 yr old girl takes a provocative picture of herself and posts it, is she a criminal or a victim?
Posted by eggy1620 at 09:31 AM : Aug 31, 2007

EXCELLENT questions...
I''ve always understood that the distribution of the image is the crime based on content of the image. If the girl took the picture, herself, being a minor, only adults involved in posession or distribution would be commiting a crime.
However, Adults have been convicted of distributing nude pic of THEMSELVES that THEY took when they were underage.
This kind of story deserves the questions you are asking, not idiots who have to demonize political rivals because they lack the comfort of believing they are right.

[torocaca]

The whole point of my previous post was to bring light to the fact that BOTH individuals in this case were legally children when the %u201Ccrime%u201D occurred. Does the fact that he was 2 yrs older than her make him any less of a minor in the law%u2019s eyes? She willingly participated in the production of child pornography. If the fact that she was the child makes her not culpable, then the same should be said for him.
Posted by eggy1620 at 08:58 AM : Aug 31, 2007
--------------------

Both "were" legally children then, but now he''s an adult and not only in possession of "child porn" but distributing it as well. So the crime is still occuring.

It doesn''t matter that he posted it when he was 17; he''s legally an adult now and is responsible for its distribution via the internet.

He should have removed it from the internet when he turned 18.

[sjw1253]

I am glad that someone is going to jail for using such a thing for revenge. Revenge should be against the law.

Sure... we all get hurt and feel "wronged" ... revenge is one of the top reasons for murder which is rampant. It is also the reason for a lot of our wars (along with the feeling of superiority and people wanting to snuff out different populations who believe differently than them)...

I think the message is loud and clear and who needs pictures as one commentor mentioned. The story does not need pictures to provide a preventative impact for "would-be" copycats out there...

[oleander8]

People who allow home pictures and videos of themselves in "compromising" positions or situatiuons are nuts! One should always assume that it could end up on the internet.

[hadenufff]

When are the people of this country going to get fed up with paying for every stinking ridiculas program that the dems can think up? This is going way beyond becoming a nanny state. Hillary is just a communist in disguise and won''t be happy until her and her man are back in control. If that happens watch your paycheck dwindle even more because our taxes will go through the roof!

[eggy1620]

mo005, are you suggesting that the picture is not technically child porn until it hits the internet? That photographing an underage girl in the nude is OK, as long as it stays off the web? This is my point. An exploitative photo was taken of an underage girl. Is that a crime or not? How about this, if a 15 yr old girl takes a provocative picture of herself and posts it, is she a criminal or a victim?

[cosmicfluke]

This story is useless without pictures.

[eggy1620]

Newster1, that is precisely my point. No crime occurred as far as I can see, but a kid is going to jail anyway.

[mo005]

eggy1620: She didn''t post it on myspace, he did. That makes him guilty of putting child porn on the internet. She had nothing to do with that. How do you see her guilty ??

[nothappyatall]

"She willingly participated in the production of child pornography."

A simple artistic NUDE photo is NOT "pornography." This is the insanity of the laws again, krap like this should have been handled as a CIVIL and copyrights case.

[eggy1620]

The whole point of my previous post was to bring light to the fact that BOTH individuals in this case were legally children when the %u201Ccrime%u201D occurred. Does the fact that he was 2 yrs older than her make him any less of a minor in the law%u2019s eyes? She willingly participated in the production of child pornography. If the fact that she was the child makes her not culpable, then the same should be said for him.

[hugbee]

OMG! I can''t believe many of you people are blaming a child for letting a nude picture of themselves be taken. That''s why we have the s.e.x. crime laws. To *protect* the child because children are easily manipulated, forced or sometimes do stupid things. Duh!