#1
NEWARK, Ohio - Police in Newark, Ohio, have arrested a 15-year-old girl on juvenile child pornography charges for allegedly sending nude cell phone photos of herself to classmates.

The girl was arrested Friday and held over the weekend. Her defense filed denials in court Monday.

Police did not identify the girl by name and prosecutors promised a statement with details later Wednesday. Authorities were also considering charges for students who received the photos.




The things I do understand here:

A) Teenagers are always whores.
B) Ohio is ****ing dumb.

I get those things. But, it's not like this is some 40-year-old scuzz taking and receiving pictures of little girls. They're kids. By this logic, it should be illegal to play "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" in the neighbor girl's bedroom when you're both seven. Which, undoubtedly, was the highlight of being seven. By this logic, it's illegal for minors to have sex with each other, which, admittedly, isn't that bad of an idea, but doesn't that start to infringe on the most basic of human rights?

Edit: I don't know if she's hot.
You're*
#3
Good thinking on the edit. And yeah, that happens all the time its extremely stupid that she's being prosecuted.
its 1:56 am and i just ate 6 chocolate chip cookies in not even near as many minutes
#4
This is basically a game of "I'll show you mine, you fap" with 15 year olds. Also, I disagree with the charges on those who receive the photos. They can't control what she sent, it's not their fault.
#6
something like that happened here. some 19 yr old got pics sent to him of this 14 yr old slut that liked him. he sent the pics around and BAM! he and anybody found with the pic were put up on child porn charges.

happy days are here again.
#7
it's dumb that it is illegal for minors to do it, should be able to make choices
#8
+1 on the Edit.
Amps
Mesa Dual Recto 3 Ch
Peavey 6505 Combo

Cab
ENGL E212VH Cab

Guitars
Epi Explorer
Schecter Damien 6
Squier Strat (signed by Rob Zombie!)

Pedals
ISP Decimator
Dunlop Crybaby Original
Boss CE-5 Chorus Ensenble
Boss GE-7 Equalizer
#9
this is retarded. i guess i know about 4 juvenile child pornographers then. YES THERE ALL GIRLS LOL!

Fractal Axe-Fx Ultra
EBMM JP7 Dargies Delight II
Manuel Rodriguez C Cedar Top
#10
Quote by Survivalism
By this logic, it should be illegal to play "you show me yours, I'll show you mine" in the neighbor girl's bedroom when you're both seven. Which, undoubtedly, was the highlight of being seven. By this logic, it's illegal for minors to have sex with each other, which, admittedly, isn't that bad of an idea, but doesn't that start to infringe on the most basic of human rights?

Edit: I don't know if she's hot.
No.

There is a difference between sex and pornography.
The laws of one do not apply to the other.

Distribution of child pornography is crime, regardless of the age of the distributor.
The fact that the distributor is also the model doesn't change that.
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#11
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
No.

There is a difference between sex and pornography.
The laws of one do not apply to the other.

Distribution of child pornography is crime, regardless of the age of the distributor.
The fact that the distributor is also the model doesn't change that.


OH SNAP!! DELETE PHONE! DELETE DAMN IT!

Fractal Axe-Fx Ultra
EBMM JP7 Dargies Delight II
Manuel Rodriguez C Cedar Top
#12
Quote by dio_dude
something like that happened here. some 19 yr old got pics sent to him of this 14 yr old slut that liked him. he sent the pics around and BAM! he and anybody found with the pic were put up on child porn charges.


But that's completely different, he's an adult with pictures of a minor.
You're*
#13
Would it be immoral to say pics or it didn't happen? Zing.

Point is, the government has deemed people that age incapable of making decisions based on their sexuality. Deal with it.
#14
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
No.

There is a difference between sex and pornography.
The laws of one do not apply to the other.

Distribution of child pornography is crime, regardless of the age of the distributor.
The fact that the distributor is also the model doesn't change that.


I get that, but you can't tell me that my logic is flawed. It's illegal to take a picture of yourself and show it to people, but it's perfectly fine to get naked IN FRONT of those people? WHY? How does that make one bit of sense? That's not even my own logic, that's the law.

Generally, the more fun something is, the more illegal it is. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Honestly, which one of those two situations has the worst potential outcomes?

Quote by TimboSlice
Would it be immoral to say pics or it didn't happen? Zing.

Point is, the government has deemed people that age incapable of making decisions based on their sexuality. Deal with it.


If this were true, wouldn't there be a few less little girls having kids? See above.

I realize that I sound like I'm fighting for the legalization of child porn here, but it's all indicative of a bigger problem: one hell of a flawed system in this country and law-enforcement agencies with nothing better to do.
You're*
Last edited by Survivalism at Oct 9, 2008,
#15
Quote by TimboSlice
Would it be immoral to say pics or it didn't happen? Zing.

Point is, the government has deemed people that age incapable of making decisions based on their sexuality. Deal with it.




I like girls, but I have willpower to some extent
A lot of girls do these things now a days
At a younger and younger age
(I'm not saying that I dislike that they do do this)
But I'm saying they shouldn't, and teenage girls ARE *****s
(Not all of them, but enough)
#16
If this were true, wouldn't there be a few less little girls having kids?


Let me rework my sentence, to draw an analogy, but still in keeping with the same basic rules, then we'll see if your point is still valid.

Me: Murder is illegal.

You: If that's true, wouldn't there be a few less people being killed?

Me: No, it still happens because every person in the world cannot be monitored/policed 100% of the time. Who do you think runs this world, the thought police?

Not attacking you, I just wanted to include an Orwell reference.