Hey, she posted nude pics of an underage kid.  Still illegal, even if it's yourself.

Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's intelligent, in this case far from

This ranks up there with the law that says it's illegal for your horse to eat a fire hydrant.  

Child porn is sick.But if she gets away with it there will be more.How long of a sentence do you reckon she might get?If not that a fine maybe?I'm at a loss on how you'd be charged for something like that.An adult does something similar they get upto 20 years in prison.How about a minor posting self portraits. Got a headache

The story is woefully short on details, but she was charged with, among other things, dissemination of child pornography.  That's like saying selling your own weed is OK (not that I'm turning this into drug VS thread, just an example.)
I'd be inclined to say that is the true intrest of the police as they search for the people that receive her photos.

As far as searching for the people influencing her to do such, they could probably just look at her 15 year old friends.

I'm much in agreement with Tabun's quote right there.  This news really made my day.

I have pondered a lot about the grey areas created by the current obscenity and child pornography laws.  A majority of which revolve around minors viewing or distributing child pornography themselves.  However, I must insist that nudity [] pornography.  The USA has always been stiflingly reserved when it comes to sexuality in media and in our culture.  A minor uploading a nude picture of his/herself does not constitute a cause for alarm in my opinion nor should it be grounds for imprisonment yet it is being treated as such.

I actually knew a girl who did exactly what this girl did.  She took nude pictures of herself and uploaded them to her personal webspace.  Lo and behold some fellow students discovered said pictures, and the pictures were very limitedly distributed around the school.  (The school was relatively small, only around 150 students or so, and most did not have a grudge against this girl so the pictures faded away into obscurity out of respect.  None of the faculty members were informed save a few teachers who had very tight knits with their students.)  She was in tears for several days, but she came away as a stronger person.  To me, her embarrassment was more than enough punishment.  Any more would be overkill.  The same applies to the girl in the news.

So... how can you produce something without posessing it?  If something is against the law to produce, how could it be lawfull to posess?  Faulty logic.

Obviously a molester viewing it would molest whether or not he had seen a set of pictures.  But the producers of kiddie pron are by definition child abusers.  
You guys are acting like she is going to go to prison for this.  Most likely she will get some kind of court ordered counseling out of this, which they could only enforce after they find her guilty of these charges.  No charges = no help for her.
And yeah, if you tell me you sit in your basement masturbating to the video of an 8 year old kid being raped, than I will begin to wonder about your moral character.  I won't say that posession will influence a person to change his character, but I will say that posession is signal of character and there is plenty of evidence to suggest this.
Don't make me whip out the social contract you signed to live in this (or, rather, your) country, in which you traded your liberty for security.  You know, those pesky things called laws which you could either change according to laws, or go somewhere else.  If you want to change these laws, you are speaking in the wrong forums - be a politician and fix the wrongs that you see instead of sitting here and whining in a video game forum.   If you wish to leave and not fight them, you lose the right to complain about them.

Since the act has nothing to do with its production or possession as you well know, its the abuse that's against the law, that was what I meant by production, as you well know

Court ordered parenting, oh I love it

But not all viewers molest, therefore the causation between possession of child pornography leading to molesation is a spurious one. If this is true what is the point of banning it? The whole idea of posession laws is that they are preventative, and so far there has been no evidence to suggest they are. If we lived in a world where people applied this preventative crap (since in all regards it is) we'd have to ban anything with a sharp edge because it might be used in a crime.

Having a bad character is not against the law, and I'd worry about anyone who would like it to be. You are entitled to your opinion of people, I may think a ton of people are dicks but that doesn't mean I have the right to arrest them


I signed no such contract, and I agreed to it by no tacit concent. I traded none of my liberty for I want nothing to do with this or any other country's security, if they want to arrest me for something, they better bring a bomb squad because I will continue violating the laws that hurt absolutely no one


Honestly, you haven't figured out what I do for a living yet? Come'on you're a bright guy

I too see a logic behind it, the problem is I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that
(Viewing Child Pornography) LEADS TO (Pedophilia)

I am defending the right to posess, not the right to abuse. My rights end at your nose

Lets start with the on topic stuff

I'll admit it, its okay in my book, its just as okay as watching a guy being shot to death in a movie is okay in my book, or even watching the news where real people are being burned to death is okay. The only way to know that you believe in freedom of speech is to be able to defend something you don't necessarily agree with. I may not like the fact that this is going on, but I'll defend it, not because its sporking great for society or whatever but because when you introduce one such restriction in the system it gives politicians the authority to create the next one.

Next: Slightly on topic still


You can posess it, they can try to stop the transaction, they can try to stop you from acquiring it,, but they cannot stop you from posessing it once you already have it, and as we have seen with most nuclear politics that's usually the case. They stop development, they stop acquisition but they shut up about posession.

Next: Canada and I, and the joy of tacit absolutism


True, and quite frankly I'm not going to argue and tell you that is not the case, and rather than explaining to you exactly why, since that would require another 3 pages of writing i'll just link you to the last time I did it and you can read it and understand.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/devlar/26...208.html#cutid1
I have no intention of becoming Sisyphus, If you want to do good in this world do it in a place where you actually have the power to, and since you Americans seem to know so little about Canadian Politics (or you would have invaded us by now for having a dictatorship) after reading that you should understand that trying to change anything in the system I currently live in would require a revolution on the Bolshevik scale. Lybia currently has a better system of government than Canada


Do I have a drivers licence? Yes. Do I follow the rules of the road? Yes. Did the contract I signed to get my drivers licence include a clause about what I could posess, whether its drugs or nuclear material ? No. If they asked me to sign a document like that today would I do it? No.
I'm fairly certain dictators have used that as an excuse for many years, all or nothing. Tacit consent is not a basis for running a government, if it were, we'd be back up to a point where sovereignty was absolute and dictators are able to do anything to their populations without fear or reprocussions. Since by living here you have agree to the legislature being allowed to kill you for looking funny at one of the political leaders, right? right? Since its all or nothing. Then gladly sign me up for nothing