Calm down. If you'd stop yelling about how dumb we all are, you could understand our side of the argument.


I agree that what she did TECHNICALLY violates the law. TECHNICALLY she is in the wrong and TECHNICALLY she should be arrested.

HOWEVER.


The law CLEARLY is intended to protect minors from exploitation. I would think that you can't possible exploit yourself. Therefore, she did not violate the INTENT of the law. That's why her penalty should be far less than the average pedophile, because she didn't take advantage of anyone, and violate the rights of those the law INTENDED to protect.


It's like a kid bringing a butter knife to school so he can spread PB&J on his sandwhich. The law says "no knives in school" so yes, he TECHNICALLY violated the law. But if he was charged the same way the guy who brings a 9" K-Bar and threatens a fellow student is, we'd all yell about idiot administrators with no common sense, because butter knife boy clearly didn't violate the INTENT.

 

She's an idiot kid, but this is taking things too far. She needs to be educated about being a whore. I feel for her and the environment she's from.

 

I was one of the persons she sent pictures too

Here she is
She has very pretty eyes








Maybe they arrested her because she was unnatractive.
Which in that case

 

my eyes how they bleed!!!!

 

Damnit you beat me to it

 

She had possesion of pictures that are considered illegal, i.e., a minor in a sexual position or nude.

She sent them out, that's illegal.

However, I don't see the sexual abuse of a minor. If so, every thirteen year old boy is going to jail.

 

Well...this particular story happened in 2004. I wonder what actually happened to her.

Here is a more recent one.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5995084&page=1

This girl is 15 from Ohio. She may actually have to register as a sex offender!


EDIT...

Apparently this is a very large problem all around the country. This article briefly talks about the story from the OP. Sounds like the girl was actually charged.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08157/887282-54.stm

"The law in Pennsylvania is you cannot post sexually explicit pictures of a child. You cannot sell, distribute, display or share them. It's against the law. It doesn't say anything about the age of the person who does it"

 

Ok, my problem with this is that yes she did TECHNICALLY produce, posses, and distribute child pornography BUT and its a big but (I hope, giggity giggity ) shes the person in the pictures as well as the photographer. I just find it wrong and a violation of privacy that you can't take pictures of yourself without getting convicted of something. Its HER body and I believe she can do whatever she pleases with it.

If somesome asked her for the pictures or tricked her into sending them, then yes shes dumb but the person doing the asking should be penalized.

 

i'm in ohio, so i heard about that one. the idea of a girl being labeled a sex offender really scares the crap out of me.

some people don't understand what the whole 'sexual offender' / 'sexual predator' labels really do. if you somehow get one of those attached to you, its there for life. depending on your state laws, you may be required to notify all your neighbors anytime you move. you may be required to live far outside the city you work in and/or may simply not be able to work at all since your employers will automatically ignore your resume once they find out.

so lets say some girl takes pictures of herself naked and can't get a job 10,20,30 years later because of it - does that really seem like the punishment fitting the crime to any of you? its insane.

 

this is where... we disagree. you want to charge a 15 year old girl with a felony that is usually reserved for the worst kind of pedophiles and smut peddlers, just to teach her a lesson? And not only that, you think this will somehow teach her 'some self respect?' In what world does making a public spectacle of an insecure teenage girl make her feel BETTER about herself?

I don't think its 'right' nor do i think she has the 'right' to do it. all i'm saying is that the law was created and is usually enforced for the sole purpose of protecting the child who is having the pictures taken of him/her. i believe it is a truly horrible perversion of the law when one which is meant to protect someone is instead used against them.

you don't actually have children, do you?