14-Year-Old Girl Posts Nude Pictures on Myspace, is Charged with Child Porn

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 4:07pm

Oh, New Jersey law enforcement.

[WishingOnlyWounds2]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 4:48pm

Convicted sex offender?
Well, I didn't know masturbation was now deemed rape! (Sorry, I couldn't resist).


This is completely absurd though, just delete her account.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 4:52pm

But, Mooooooom! ALL the girls are posting pictures of their coochie! If I don't, I'll never be popular!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 5:05pm

That's like charging a man who tries to kill himself with "attempted murder".

[PiraguaGuy2]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 5:10pm

...Or a 13-year-old boy who jacks off with molestation.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/27/09 at 5:14pm

Yeah, but no. I'm not saying it's right, but if anyone else posted pictures of a naked fourteen year old girl on the internet, it would be cut and dry when it comes to child pornography. The problem isn't with the pictures themselves, I don't think. It's that they were posted on the internet, which legally I think is tantamount to publishing child pornography.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/29/09 at 1:54am

Both Myspace and Facebook both have a code of conduct as to what can or can't be in a photo on your profile on both sites. I know that anything sexual or involving nudity is something that is against the code of conduct on both sites. And, I believe that if your caught with nude/sexual photos of yourself on your profile they will delete your account.

It would make sense since she clearly violated the code of conduct on Myspace that they would delete her account. But, to charge her with child porn is a bit nuts. I mean, if someone else took the picture or if the account belonged to someone else then that would be a totally different story.

And, Phyllis, it is hard to say if it would be tantamount to child porn. Keep in mind that the internet is in many ways the land that law forgot. The only way I think that it would be considered to be child porn just because it is on the internet is if they tracked the IP address to a computer that wasn't the one that belonged to the girl in question.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 3/29/09 at 2:45am

Winston, not, it is not difficult to argue that she distributed child pornography.

If you post child porn, it is relatively easy to get a subpoena to force the Internet Service Provider to disclose your name and information.

The only distinction here is that it was a teenager who posted her own photos, so perhaps there will be some leniency. But, if it was an adult, they would be no argument of someone distributing child pornography.

It is not that difficult to trace user accounts via IP addresses and account info. Unless you are intentionally trying to avoid detection, the Internet is not as anonymous as you might believe.

And, those pesky credit cards, or bank accounts, which are usually used to pay your monthly service fees, are a nice easy way to trace if not the actual account holder, at least the residence.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/29/09 at 4:40pm

Yes, I know that. But, let's say for arguments sake that the person lived in England but was on a US server. It's MUCH easier to catch someone if they are in the same country that the server is located. It's a bit harder if the person is on a US Myspace or Facebook server and they live in another country.

Also, there is a difference between child porn and someone taking lewd pictures of themselves and putting it up there. Child porn is linked to sexual abuse while taking and posting lewd pictures of yourself regardless of the age is just stupid.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 3/29/09 at 8:47pm

That's a rash comment from someone who is planning to become an English teacher.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/29/09 at 9:16pm

Oh Winston, there are many social workers who would argue that a 14 year old girl who emails nudes of herself is probably acting out in response to sexual abuse.

And we need to remember with fondness that Janet Reno's Justice Department in the Clinton years (the ones who blew up that Waco, TX, cult compound because the leader was "slapping babies") brought us such far reaching new definitions of kiddie porn as including collages of children, such as those cut out of a catalogue, posed in "sexual positions." Because WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!

[Jilani]

Posted: 3/30/09 at 10:37am

Also, there is a difference between child porn and someone taking lewd pictures of themselves and putting it up there. Child porn is linked to sexual abuse while taking and posting lewd pictures of yourself regardless of the age is just stupid.

Perhaps you think there should be a difference, but legally, there is no distinction - in the eyes of the law, child porn is child porn, regardless of whether it's your own or someone else's picture. This reminds me of the phenomenon of "sexting," (teenagers taking nude pictures of themselves with their cellphone cameras and sending them to other teenagers), which has led to child pornography charges in 12 U.S. states:

http://www.bostoncriminallawyerblog.com/2009/03/sexting_in_massachusetts_could.html

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 3/30/09 at 10:45am

Told you so!

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 3/30/09 at 10:51am

Can't wait to hear Hasselbeck yammer on about this on The View.

But truthfully, I wish that more attention was given the sexualization of the tweens and teens nowadays. I'm sure this was a scare tactic more than anything else to set an example, and I'm sure the case will quietly be dropped, but anyone who knows a teen or tween (because apparently parents are ignorant nowadays) shows this article to them and scare a little sense into them.

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 3/30/09 at 11:18am

Excuse me, but were you serious when you said Winston wants to be an English teacher?

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/30/09 at 4:31pm

So...when Sybil masturbates, she should be charged with sexual assault.

Thank God! I never liked that kooky bitch.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/30/09 at 11:26pm

It just amazes me that parents are pretty inept to what their children are watching. I myself just never got into any of the fads that were going around when I was younger. But, there are a lot of kids that do. And, what is worse is that the parents are totally blind to what it is their kids are watching or listening to etc. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that this girl assumed that because other people were doing it she herself thought that it wouldn't be that big a deal.


I mean, as far as the parents are concerned I feel that there is a need for a middle ground. I can understand that the kids don't want their parents in their face all the time and that is understandable. But, there needs to be some sort of middle ground somewhere. I mean, I feel that there are parents who are totally blind to these sorts of things and have the power to prevent it. I wouldn't be shocked one bit if the mother of the girl said that she had no idea that the girl was taking or posting the kinds of pictures that she was.

[TimeSquare3]

Posted: 3/30/09 at 11:36pm

It completely blows my mind how my classmates can get sh*t faced every weekend with their parents none the wiser.

[winston89]

Posted: 3/30/09 at 11:46pm

That's the point that I am trying to make. That kids do stuff that they shouldn't be doing and their parents assume that all is going well with them and that their kids aren't doing anything wrong. And, of course, when they are doing something wrong and the parents are asked about it, the parents would say that there is no way that their kids would do anything wrong at all.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/31/09 at 3:40pm

And that has been going on since the beginning of time. The only unique aspect of this case that is truly relevant to our current era is the use of Myspace.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/1/09 at 1:59am

But, the difference is is that when it comes to computers parents assume more often then not that their kids are on sties that are okay and that aren't going to cause anyone any trouble.


I remember when I was in high school and the headmaster was looking on student's myspace and facebook accounts just to alert their parents of what they were doing online. The reactions were mixed. Some parents were totally unaware of what their kids were doing until it was brought to their attention and were thankful of the information. Others also didn't know until it was brought to their attention but told the headmaster that it wasn't his job to go online just to see what their kids were doing when they logged onto those two sites after they got home from school. And, there were others who told him to go screw himself because it didn't matter if they knew or not, that just him going on to the computer and actively looking at kids profiles to alert their parents was wrong, considering that he wasn't their mom or dad and if the parents of the kid wanted to talk to their son or daughter about what they were posting on their myspace or facebook then they would do it and that it wasn't his job to do so.

The point that I am trying to make with that story is that you really can't force parents to be as involved as they should be. All the parents who were contacted regardless of how they felt about what the headmaster was doing, knew that their son or daughters profile was not private info. However, they still felt that what he was doing was wrong.

There are also tons of kids out there who don't realize that myspace and facebook are not private. They think that because they posted something on their profile, that they can't get in trouble for it because it was on a profile that they are thinking belongs to them.

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/1/09 at 5:44am

This goes along with yelling at a (male) teacher for telling a female student that she is dressed inappropriately for school. Parents will say that the teacher had "no right to even NOTICE what the girl was wearing."

Not that the girls boobs are hanging out, not that her underwear is visiable to the point you know what kind she is wearing -- but that he shouldn't have been "looking".

Many parents will not take any responsibility but will back up their kid in order to get them out of any trouble: drinking, cheating, failing, speeding. And, obviously, they are not teaching thier kids to be responsible for their actions.

[winston89]

Posted: 4/1/09 at 10:24am

That's why I like the law they passed in Nassau County a few years back. Basically the law says that if there is a house party full of kids who are underage, and it gets rowdy to the point of having the police to be called in, then the parents get into trouble with them. The logic being that the parents should know what the hell is going on in their house even when they aren't there.