• That really went down somewhere? That's sick. The prosecution, I mean. What idiots.
  • Misapplied at first glance. But if she was selling the pictures that might be different. Just read the article. Definitely misapplied. People going out their way to make an example of someone is too much. She's young and dumb, I doubt she understood the ramifications of her decision.
  • This sounds more serious than a 10 year old boy being placed on the sex offenders list for life for exposing his penus, because he was urinating in the yard! Bottom line, children do not think about consequences...they are children and their brains have not yet developed.
  • Prosecuted? No. Should the behavior be corrected? Absolutely.
  • WAY too harsh for a 14 year old. Ridiculous. My Q is, where were the parents while all this was going on? This isn't a horny, enterprising teenager story. It's a parent's MIA story. Where is their punishment? Why weren't they checking in more often with their daughter?
  • I just hope they don't find out she masturbates, she'll get major jail time for child molestation. * how about the little boy in first grade who was expelled for possession of a weapon... for taking the little plastic eating knife THEY GAVE HIM out of the lunch room.
  • For those that don't know, 14yo takes pictures of herself then she posted them on her facebook. For this these moron prosecutors would have this child register as a sex offener for the rest of her life. I most assuridly would be questioning the kind of thinking that's going on down at the District Attorneys office. If there is any thinking going on at all. This is another perfect example of the need for jury nullification.
  • Tricky area. As stated in the article, who is harmed here? If this were coerced behaviour then that would be different but it appears to have been completely voluntary. It is still worrying behaviour but I think it requires application of the Harm Factor and the legal golden rule. If no-one has been harmed and the law was created to prevent minors being harmed and exploited then the spirit not the letter of the law should be applied. It is a tricky issue as this is such an emotive area and there are good reasons for these laws but once again I think in this particular case there should be an application to the spirit of the law in question. It is worrying that it happened but that's another issue entirely. The legal course should be perhaps more addressed to the hosting site but again there are issues with vetting content etc that would raise a whole new set of issues.
  • thats fucked up every which way
  • First of all, she's not going to be convicted. They just want to make an example out of her. Is it harsh? Sure, but if she learns her lesson then it's worth it. And if other girls see her story and can learn from her mistakes, then that's just even better.
  • I think its a little messed up she would have to register as a sex offender. Seems like they would alter the punishment since she is underage.
  • I think the real issue is this girls self esteem.
  • The law is the law based on what you do and she should have known better anyway.
  • The indictment is technically correct. She is underage and it is illegal to post those pictures. However, forcing her to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life strikes me as excessive. Some punishment is called for and of course she should be forced to take down the pictures, because athere must be consequences to actions like that. But we also need to keep in mind that she's a 14-year-old who likely didn't know any better and keep the punishment in line with that knowledge. It's illegal to post nude pictures of a minor on the Internet, even if you're that minor.
  • There are overzealous prosecutators who have noting better to do than to further their careers at the expense of a 14 year old girl ..... I'd hope that she gets a very good attorney who can have the charges reduced so she does not have to register as a sex offender .... and ruin her life .
  • That's how the law currently reads, but I do not think the lawmakers meant to brand children doing stupid things with the lifelong record of child pornographer. Certainly we need some legal remedy to deal with such foolishness, but this isn't the right approach.
  • You know, this is SO fucked up. I do NOT condone the behavior of this teen AT ALL. Let's get this straight right f*ckin' now, before anybody out there even THINKS to travel down the wrong path with me. This girl IS below the age of consent in New Jersey (16). But the laws concerning child pornography are to prevent ADULTS from exploiting CHILDREN because children are not able to properly defend themselves or look out for their own best interests with respect to sexual activities. Would somebody please tell me who the adult is here? And who is being wronged? Hmmmmm....the girl is being charged for knowingly committing a crime against herself...but wait! She's not old enough to understand that crime... So, how is she BOTH the victim AND the perpetrator? Riddle me THAT Batman! Yeah, she needs to have her head screwed on, THAT'S obvious! That kind of activity is plainly dangerous to her, not to mention the moral issues. But does she deserve to be charged and treated as a sexual criminal and, if convicted, made to register as a sexual offender for the rest of her life? For posting nude pictures of HERSELF? Not even anyone else? Let's THINK about this a while BEFORE we totally destroy her entire remaining life, shall we? Granted, this country has some f*cked up laws about legal ages. I've talked about this before. But let's just consider the "age of consent" laws. In the U.S., the age of consent varies from state to state and can be as low as 14 in certain states and curcumstances. In New Jersey, the age of consent is 16, however, so that's what I'll talk about here. What does "age of consent" mean? It means that in the eyes of the law, any person who has attained the age of consent can legally engage in sexual activities with any other person who is at least also of the age of consent or older IF THEY FREELY CHOOSE TO. The legal system believes they are ENTIRELY ABLE TO UNDERSTAND AND HANDLE ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND CONSEQUENCES OF ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITIES! Think about what the means while I go on. So, in NJ a 16 year old girl can legally boink pretty much ANYBODY she wants, if her partner is legally old enough. He can be 16, or he can be 60. Doesn't matter in the eyes of the law. HOWEVER, this SAME girl, whom the law says is capable of fully understanding and coping with all the possible consequences of sexual intercourse, is NOT old enough to buy pornography, possess pornography, sell pornography, or distribute pornography. WTF? She's old enough to F*CK, but she's NOT old enough to possess or show other people naked pictures of herself? She's old enough to understand she could get STD's from illicit sexual behavior and presumably know enough to get treated for them, but she's NOT old enough to post a pic of her boobs? She's old enough to make her parents grand parents AGAINST THEIR WISHES and WITH THE BLESSINGS OF THE LAW, but having a picture of the cabbage patch is BAD? As I said before, DON'T confuse my ranting for condoning child pornography. But let's get our act together, folks! Either young children at the age of consent are RESPONSIBLE or they are NOT responsible. If they're NOT, then let's make the laws reflect that across the board! And QUIT sending mixed messages to our kids! LINK: Here's a guy even more p*ssed off on this subject than I am:
  • Maybe her parents should be sitting in for her..or did she learnt from their porn collections? (wink)
  • yes, she should be punished, not to the extend of having to register on the sex offenders list. yes it is child pornography, but the punishment should fit the crime
  • My question: where are the parents? How are they being held responsible?

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy