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

[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!