Court Slaps Prosecutor Who Threatens Child-Porn Charges Over

This is kind of cool. Apparently, there are teenage girls who take pictures of themselves almost naked! gasp and shock. Obviously, I’ve written about this because of those teenagers in Florida who became registered sex offenders for creating and possessing child pornography (naked pictures of the girl on the boy’s phone).

The problem with the zero tolerance view of child porn is that teenagers do this type of thing. I had pictures of me naked in a little white box in my closet for years. I finally threw it out in college, since I realized that possessing pictures of myself naked was illegal because I wasn’t over 18 when I took them. I also had pictures of girlfriends and boyfriends in the same state. In today ZT view of child porn, that would have gotten me 20-life for… living.

We give teenagers cameras on their phones. We give them the ability to text and send those pictures pretty much anywhere in the country. And, we don’t watch them 24/7. Well, this is what happens. It is just like the Polaroids out there, but easier and faster.

I don’t think teenagers should be given felonies for having those pictures. I don’t think there should be a magic age where suddenly you are acceptable (well, if you have large boobs). While I’d rather just let people take naked pictures whenever and wherever they want, I’d also be willing to see a relaxing not unlike the sex rules here. 16 is less of a magic age in Iowa, as long as it is with someone within 4 years of you. So, 13 + 17 is fine, but 13 + 18 is not. That might be a more reasonable rule than just (<16 = felony!).

Of course, then you have the problem of parents with baby pictures. My mother have a huge box of felonies in her picture closet. There are hundred more felonies in the photo albums. Because… I wasn’t naked (or topless) and under-aged.

I’m glad that the court smacked the prosecutor for this. I’m also very thankful that the parents and the girls fought against it. It is a terrifying experience and the risks are so high, but I’m truly thankful that they fought.

NEXT POST

I root for the ACLU, because I know they fight for liberties. The people they defend aren’t always the best, but the same thing that protects them also protects me.

NEXT POST

[quote author=luiscypher link=topic=1363.msg6825#msg6825 date=1316024016] They were specifically excluded from rights under the Geneva Convention, but they like to give them the rights of uniformed soldiers. [/quote]

You kind of lost me there.

NEXT POST

Regardless of laws, treaties, or anything else, I think everyone should get a fair trial, no matter how terrible the crime or their intent. It doesn’t matter if they succeeded, failed, or anywhere in between.

Now, since that will be inflammatory, I’ll explain why.

Definitions change. The word “terrorist” has been bandied around a lot, and for things that really aren’t terrorism. I seem to recall someone in saying that fighting a copyright bill was tantamount to being a terrorist. Or fighting against the government because you don’t agree. And, those definitions will change over time. If you give an opening (terrorist get no rights), then it would be in the best interest of the Powers That Be (PTB) to make people terrorists because it strips off their rights.

I also believe that there is a difference between making a statement, protesting, and yelling verses killing people, blowing up buildings, etc. Regardless, if you are guilty of blowing up a building, chances are a fair trial is going to find you guilty of blowing up a building. Yeah, there are technical details about chains of evidence, laws, properly handling. But, if you really want to make a terrorist/criminal/Bob pay for their crimes, then you follow the rules because then there is no doubt.

I believe the same thing for “child molesters”, rapists, and people who occasionally write stories of underaged girls getting fucks cough. I’d rather have a fair trial for everyone.