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

(AP)  A 19-year-old man who posted a nude photo of his younger ex-girlfriend on her MySpace page was sentenced to 30 days in jail.

Anthony D. Rich pleaded no contest Tuesday to child abuse and attempted child abuse. He is expected to begin his sentence in October.

Prosecutors reduced the charges from sex crimes that could have branded Rich a sex offender for life. He was 17 when he posted the photo of his then-15-year-old girlfriend on the social-networking Web site that's owned by News Corp.

Rich had dated the girl for more than two years. He posted the photo after they broke up. The girl consented to having the photo taken, but Rich did not have permission to post it, authorities said.

[jshmks]

To get back at her? C''mon seriously. If you were gonna do something like that, there''s plenty of legal things you could do that are 10x better. But half the population on myspace has an IQ of a fruit gusher. So I found no surprise in this article.

[msnooy79]

I thought the legal age was 18? How come he is being registerd as a *** offender? What he did was mean, and all, but I don''t see the *** offender thing.

[nlm2383]

She''s just as much of a moron for letting him take pictures... She almost deserves it.

[sharncedar]

so in our culture its OK for sleazy little tramps to sleep with older boys and abuse themselves and disgrace our society with their wanton, disrespectful behavior, but if a sick pervert looks at a photo of it, then he goes to jail. I mean, unless he is a rich man/ congressman then it is business as usual.

All this means is that the sleazy little ho''s who are all we have left for young women belong to the rich, of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

It''s a property crime - abuse of minors is the reserved activity of rich men and congressmen. This is the plantation, and we are the black men.

[bobgee_1999]

msnooy79: First of all, he isn''t being registered as a *** offender---learn to read. It doesn''t say that, and pretty much says the opposite. It also says the girl was 15 then, which is underage and which makes this child porn, stupid, but that he had been dating her for two years, which is absolutely disgusting. Anybody (her parents in this case) who let''s a 13-year old date should be registered as a *** offender.

[msnooy79]

"Prosecutors reduced the charges from *** crimes that could have branded Rich a *** offender for life."
Calm down. It isn''t personal. I was just asking a question. She should''t have let him take the pics in the first place. I''m not taking sides.

[olebd]

I would think the girl should be charged with something too for willingly posing in the nude. Just because girls like this one are underage doesn''t mean they don''t know what they are choosing to do with themselves. I get tired of this "poor little victim" double standard in some of these cases.

[mo005]

msnooy79: She was a minor

[nlm2383]

"He was 17 when he posted the photo of his then-15-year-old girlfriend". He is now 19, which means she is 17. That seems like a completely normal thing to me bobgee_1999. Maybe you need to learn to read, stupid.

[nlm2383]

I think you are overreacting when you say that it is child porn and absolutely disgusting to let someone that young date. I''m assuming you don''t have children. I find it hard to believe that you are so in awe that a parent would let a 13 year old date.

[whatithink-2009]

Shouldn''t he be serving 10 years in jail?

[mo005]

"I would think the girl should be charged with something too for willingly posing in the nude" Says olebd: She was sentenced to the embarASSment of everyone in the world seeing her little naked butt on the internet. I think she will think twice before she poses for a boy friend again.

[whatithink-2009]

nlm2383,

There is a guy in Georgia now serving a 10-year sentence for getting a consensual BJ from a 15 year old when he was 17. Even when he leaves, he has to register as a *** offender. So much for completely normal.

[l8c6]

There is a guy in Georgia now serving a 10-year sentence for getting a consensual BJ from a 15 year old when he was 17. Even when he leaves, he has to register as a *** offender. So much for completely normal.
Posted by whatithink


I know the case you are talking about. If I were the president he would be at the very top of my list to get out of jail. That case is an absolute travesty and disgrace to our justice system. It''s beyond all hope for me to have any respect for any person that thinks it''s acceptable for that young man to spend his young adulthood in prison for that. I hope every adult who convicted him for that finds there is a hell and they will be spending eternity in it.

[michellem99-2009]

Girls be smart stay covered. Tell the guy to take a hike. I am 52.

[l8c6]

"I would think the girl should be charged with something too for willingly posing in the nude" Says olebd: She was sentenced to the embarASSment of everyone in the world seeing her little naked butt on the internet. I think she will think twice before she poses for a boy friend again.
Posted by mo005

Was it her willingness to pose that has your panties all bunched up. It was an understood private matter between the two of them. None of your concern but this little loser made it public. He should pay.

Someone could sneak a camera of you in the toilet and post it and same as the young woman consenting or not if the understanding is that it''s not for the public then it''s not for the public period.

[swwils]

Wow and all those celebrities only get one or two days for the stuff they are doing,must not be famous dude,sorry!

[libsluvsuvs]

if we are to let our children run around thinking that they are adults and can think for themselves...time and time again we should remind them about "responsibility and accountability"

[sugarmice-2009]

She was all for the pictures - silly girl.
When will they all learn that MOST relationships during the teen years don''t work out. I said MOST not all .... and for her to "agree" to being photographed and the young man being punished... yes, there is something wrong here.
Kids will be kids and kids are curious but at that age - especially in this day and age - they should have known better. The way kids dress these days I''m not surprised that there aren''t more issues out there on *** offenders... we have 12, 13, 14 year olds dressing like they are Brittany Spears or Nichole Richie... *** - tons of make up along with the skimpy outfits and the PARENTS allow their your daughters to dress like that. There ARE other fashions to wear. Parents need to get involved here and start saying NO. Boys will be boys and when the hormones rage - it''s only nature rearing it''s ugly head. I don''t believe that either of them should be punished - it''s puberty kicking in (some are late some are early)... but it sure is a lesson learned for all.

[keithle1]

Girls are so naive. When will they wise up?

Don''t sleep in the nude. He may take a photo.

[michellem99-2009]

sugarmice,dear.I am 52. If when I was young dressed in a matter that these girls dress,foster mum would have ordered my asre to my room to change my clothes to dress properly for shcool..It was never an issue in the home. My blindless. I felt my person should be covered and still feel that way. The girls want to look like their favourite star. They look like trash. Sorry but true. The clothe makers are making a ton of money marketing that trash. The girls look awful dressed that way. Where are the parents and why do they allow it..Skin we all have it. Most should be covered. We had a dress code and abided by it..I had to wear pants and a blouse to lessions..I was free to wear a skirt but the him-line was a battle not with me but others. It was the mini skirt..Mine was at the knee or below. I told them no to the mini skirt and wore slacks. They wanted to violate my dress code and I put my foot down. This was in the 70s. I grad in 74.

[Krazcarl]

I had a polaroid when I was younger my girlfriends and me had some fun but thought never did what this man did wwwwwwwwwwwww glad I had more class. It''s no ones fault just poor judgement starting to sound a little perverted by the way adults are accusing ladies by the way there dressed I smell a pedofile.

[torocaca]

Woody Allen - had an affair with his 17-year-old step-daughter; later married her.

Sonny Bono - In 1963, 28-year-old Bono met, and married, 16-year-old Cherilyn La Pierre (Cher).

Chuck Berry - In 1961, was convicted in St. Louis of transporting a 14-year-old girl across a state line. ...jail for a year-and-a-half.

Sergei Federov - Red Wings star with 16-year-old sweetheart, tennis player Anna Kournikova.

Kelsey Grammer - star of "Frasier." In 1995, authorities in Arizona decided not to prosecute Grammer for statutory rape, and a New Jersey grand jury declined to indict him on the same charge. Both accusations were made by the same 17-year-old girl.

Don Johnson - At fourteen, Melanie Griffith left home to move in with the actor who was then twenty-two. Johnson has never voiced any concern about the wisdom of having an affair with such a young girl.

Jerry Lee Lewis - In 1958, married his 14-year-old cousin, Myra Brown.

Rob Lowe - Lowe taped himself in compromising positions with a 16-year-old girl and a young woman.

Elvis Presley - Priscilla was only a 14-year-old ninth grader when Elvis began dating her in 1959 during his army tour in Germany. In 1962, the 15-year-old Priscilla moved in with Elvis at his Graceland mansion in Memphis.

Jerry Seinfeld - 38, four-year relationship with Shoshanna Longstein, 17, began when she was still in high school. Jerry made no secret of the relationship and publicly paraded his jail bait on his arm.

[searcher911]

Seems that Dr. Laura posed for some nude pix for a boyfriend/professor and that judge said the pix were the photographer''s property not the "model''s". Justice means you "just" have to find a judge that agrees with your perspective, I guess.

[zootallures2]

"owned by News Corp" I think that says it all. Oh and the internet... DARPA... the US Ashke=NAZI military industrial perverted complex!

[slim1h2o]

AAAHHHH, Young love, aint it grand?:)

[zootallures2]

Responding to his jewish dramatic media stimuli? Good thing it wasn''t the vaccines... then he''d post his genetically altered emo boy friend.

You Saxxon freaks remember Elijah? How about the boy who cried Zeeeeeeeeb!

LOL... GFYS

[gangesdak]

Woody Allen - had an affair
Sonny Bono - In 1963, 28-year-
Chuck Berry - In 1961,

Sergei Federov - Red Wings
Kelsey Grammer - star of "Frasier."

Don Johnson - At fourteen,

Jerry Lee Lewis -
Rob Lowe - Lowe taped

Elvis Presley - Priscilla

Jerry Seinfeld - 38, four-year
31, 2007

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

[eggy1620]

If they were going to charge the boy with a s.e.x. crime, then to be fair, they should have considered charging the girl with participation in the production of child porn.

[abigail70]

"If they were going to charge the boy with a s.e.x. crime, then to be fair, they should have considered charging the girl with participation in the production of child porn."

That is completely ridiculous. Consenting to having a photo taken is wholly different from consenting to have said photo posted on the internet, for the whole word to see. Charging her with participation in the production of child porn? Good grief. Get a grip, and get a life.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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 ??

[eggy1620]

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

[cosmicfluke]

This story is useless without pictures.

[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?

[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!

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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]

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...

[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.

[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?"

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.