It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sending a picture of your underaged penis illegal, police taking many pictures of your underaged pen

page: 4
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

This is clearly in error. The law specifically addresses Sexting by name. The legislative discussions show they fully realized they were dealing with teenagers.


Are you sure I am the one in error? This is the statute I have seen in the press that is being used to prosecute.

§ 18.2-374.1. Production, publication, sale, financing, etc., of child pornography; presumption as to age; severability.

A. For purposes of this article and Article 4 (§ 18.2-362 et seq.) of this chapter, "child pornography" means sexually explicit visual material which utilizes or has as a subject an identifiable minor. An identifiable minor is a person who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting or modifying the visual depiction; and who is recognizable as an actual person by the person's face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.

For the purposes of this article and Article 4 (§ 18.2-362 et seq.) of this chapter, the term "sexually explicit visual material" means a picture, photograph, drawing, sculpture, motion picture film, digital image, including such material stored in a computer's temporary Internet cache when three or more images or streaming videos are present, or similar visual representation which depicts sexual bestiality, a lewd exhibition of nudity, as nudity is defined in § 18.2-390, or sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sadomasochistic abuse, as also defined in § 18.2-390, or a book, magazine or pamphlet which contains such a visual representation. An undeveloped photograph or similar visual material may be sexually explicit material notwithstanding that processing or other acts may be required to make its sexually explicit content apparent.

B. A person shall be guilty of production of child pornography who:

1. Accosts, entices or solicits a person less than 18 years of age with intent to induce or force such person to perform in or be a subject of child pornography; or

2. Produces or makes or attempts or prepares to produce or make child pornography; or

3. Who knowingly takes part in or participates in the filming, photographing, or other production of child pornography by any means; or

4. Knowingly finances or attempts or prepares to finance child pornography.

5. [Repealed.]

B1. [Repealed.]

C1. Any person who violates this section, when the subject of the child pornography is a child less than 15 years of age, shall be punished by not less than five years nor more than 30 years in a state correctional facility. However, if the person is at least seven years older than the subject of the child pornography the person shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not less than five years nor more than 30 years in a state correctional facility, five years of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Any person who commits a second or subsequent violation of this section where the person is at least seven years older than the subject shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years nor more than 40 years, 15 years of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

C2. Any person who violates this section, when the subject of the child pornography is a person at least 15 but less than 18 years of age, shall be punished by not less than one year nor more than 20 years in a state correctional facility. However, if the person is at least seven years older than the subject of the child pornography the person shall be punished by term of imprisonment of not less than three years nor more than 30 years in a state correctional facility, three years of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. Any person who commits a second or subsequent violation of this section when he is at least seven years older than the subject shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of not less than 10 years nor more than 30 years, 10 years of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment.

C3. The mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment prescribed for violations of this section shall be served consecutively with any other sentence.

D. For the purposes of this section it may be inferred by text, title or appearance that a person who is depicted as or presents the appearance of being less than 18 years of age in sexually explicit visual material is less than 18 years of age.

E. Venue for a prosecution under this section may lie in the jurisdiction where the unlawful act occurs or where any sexually explicit visual material associated with a violation of this section is produced, reproduced, found, stored, or possessed.

F. The provisions of this section shall be severable and, if any of its provisions shall be held unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the decision of such court shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions.

(1979, c. 348; 1983, c. 524; 1986, c. 585; 1992, c. 234; 1995, c. 839; 2007, cc. 418, 759, 823; 2013, cc. 761, 774.)

Source

Looks like laws meant to stop people from producing real child porn, and a pretzel twist of the law, like all the other cases brought forth and used against teens sexting.

Perhaps the sexting part was reexamined and deemed stupid, and that is the part listed as repealed?

edit on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:58:39 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL



This is a consensual private communication between two people we are talking about here.
Hmmm. The girl is fifteen years old. Can she give consent? Can I have sex with her and avoid a stautory rape charge? Can she even consent to getting a tattoo? Even with her parent's consent, she's not old enough to consent to receiving a tattoo. What if she was fourteen at the time the photo was taken but fifteen when it was sent? Does it matter to you to whom the images are sent?

What you seem to be saying, and I'm hoping for correction, is that you want there to be no criminal penalty for taking sexual pictures of anyone over the age of, say, seven if the kid agrees. Those pictures can then be sent to basically anyone.


The driving force behind making it illegal was the extreme humiliation suffered when these got out into the school, neighborhood, or public at large. Attempted suicides were caused by sexting certain images.

Use your brains...... A few people tried to commit suicide, so lets make every act illegal.
With that comment you announce that you are opposed to the very basis of the anti-bullying laws popping up all over the country.


Because tossing a bunch people in jail and tossing them into the same category and registries as a rapist is a whole lot better than a few people committing suicide. Is that really what counts as logic these days?
You have trouble seeing the logic behind putting lawbreakers in jail, if that is the penalty decided upon by the people's representatives? And it seems to me you are brushing away suicides a bit cavalierly.

OK, as this is only the fourth or fifth time, I understand that you don't like the law, because you think the punishment is too severe for the crime. The Legislature didn't think so, and it's their call to make. Of course, you can complain about it, in fact I applaud you for complaining about it. But, really, where is this getting us? Do you have an approach that could be used to get a court to declare the law unconstitutional? Do you know who the legislators are who voted for the bill, and against the amendment? Are they still even in office?

As I said, I applaud you having an opinion and expressing it, but this is starting to look as though it more properly belongs in "Rants."

If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you'd return the favor and respond to my comments and answer my questions.
edit on 9-7-2014 by charles1952 because: bracket problem



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND I AM ABSOLUTELY WRONG.

The law does not use the word "sexting." It's a little like a law saying "Pedestrians must cross a street within the boundaries of a marked intersection. If the markings do not exist or are imperceptible, the street must be crossed within lines which would be formed by continuing the sidewalk from one side of the street to the other side. In case there is only one side containing a sidewalk .... Blah, Blah" It's called a "jay-walking" law, even if the word "jay-walking" does not occur in the law.

The Virginia Attorney general has prepared a presentation on the law which he entitles "Sexting," and the word is used in several places throughout his presentation.

www.ag.virginia.gov...

My point is that the legislature did not have laws on child pornography twisted, they knew they were dealing with sexting. But, again,

YOU WERE RIGHT AND I WAS WRONG

Also, thanks for finding the law and looking at it. That saves me a fair amount of effort.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

The press being the way it is, the maximum penalty was highlighted as a possible outcome of this case. That's not saying it's going to happen, but it adds significant drama to the reporting. If this kid does get sentenced to 4 years of incarceration & lifetime registration as a sex offender, that would be outrageous, considering the nature of the offense.

The law is a continually evolving process; I hope that whichever way this case ends up, it inspires a review of the law governing it, & some modification in the direction of acknowledgement that one size, indeed, does not fit all.
Um, upon reflection, no pun intended.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:37 PM
link   
This is all part of the Department Of Homeland Security's OPERATION TALLYWHACKER.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Hmmm. The girl is fifteen years old. Can she give consent? Can I have sex with her and avoid a stautory rape charge?
If you are 17 years old, in some states that sex is perfectly legal actually. Some states have some semblance of logic left surprisingly enough.


With that comment you announce that you are opposed to the very basis of the anti-bullying laws popping up all over the country.


Damn right I oppose most of those laws now that you mention it.


How many teens say they have
sent/posted nude or seminude
pictures or videos of themselves?
20% of teens ages 13 to 19
22% of teen girls
18% of teen boys
11% of teen girls ages 13 to 16


So this idiot is perfectly OK with attempting to criminalize 20% of teens, this doesn't raise my opinion of them any.... What a joke, yeah I still think they are idiots after reading your link.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

My pen is not underaged to begin with. Why would the police want to take pictures of my pen anyway? It is not extraordinary at all.....rather ordinary, as a matter of fact.






posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952


Hmmm. The girl is fifteen years old. Can she give consent? Can I have sex with her and avoid a stautory rape charge? Can she even consent to getting a tattoo? Even with her parent's consent, she's not old enough to consent to receiving a tattoo. What if she was fourteen at the time the photo was taken but fifteen when it was sent? Does it matter to you to whom the images are sent?

What you seem to be saying, and I'm hoping for correction, is that you want there to be no criminal penalty for taking sexual pictures of anyone over the age of, say, seven if the kid agrees. Those pictures can then be sent to basically anyone.

already answered paragraph one in a previous reply. Paragraph two, are you even serious? That has got to be one of the worst ever strawman arguments I have ever seen. And that is saying something. Here we are discussing teenagers being teenagers, and the criminalization thereof teenage behavior...... And you interpret that as me defending someone taking naked pictures of a seven year old? You can't be serious......


With that comment you announce that you are opposed to the very basis of the anti-bullying laws popping up all over the country.

If your child is not mature enough to handle the internet, then do not allow them on the internet. If your child has shown they are not mature enough to handle the responsibly of driving, do you give them a car anyways? Common sense people, the internet is a great place, but there are it's pitfalls. If your child cannot handle those pitfalls, then don't buy them a PC, a smart phone etc etc. Making laws for people that can't handle the internet and it's pitfalls is absurd.


You have trouble seeing the logic behind putting lawbreakers in jail, if that is the penalty decided upon by the people's representatives? And it seems to me you are brushing away suicides a bit cavalierly.

What I have a problem with is the creation of laws like this, which more often than not, are used to create criminals out of people that are victimizing no one at all. As I said, that is pure parental failure. Your kid can't handle social media, then don't allow them on social media. No need to make laws to protect a few people who can't handle the virtual world of the internet.


OK, as this is only the fourth or fifth time, I understand that you don't like the law, because you think the punishment is too severe for the crime. The Legislature didn't think so, and it's their call to make. Of course, you can complain about it, in fact I applaud you for complaining about it. But, really, where is this getting us? Do you have an approach that could be used to get a court to declare the law unconstitutional? Do you know who the legislators are who voted for the bill, and against the amendment? Are they still even in office?


That clear it up?
edit on Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:11:28 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
a reply to: TKDRL

Officers should be arrested and the county indicted for production and facilitation of child pornography. And the gavel should be leveled on them firmly and w a purpose. Period. Full stop .



AMEN Brother.

Rebel 5



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   


Manassas City police and Prince William County prosecutors want to take a photo of his erect penis, possibly forcing the teen to become erect by taking him to a hospital and giving him an injection, the teen’s lawyers said.


^^ Forced injections to make penis erect?

Why is no in this thread talking about that?

I thought the "right to privacy" which prevents you from donating blood and bone marrow against your will would apply here where they can refuse anything being injected into them?

The same way a pregnant woman can refuse treatment for a potentially dangerous operation?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: minusinfinity

Eventually, everyone will be forced to take a penis mugshot if the system isn't stopped now.
I'm being serious.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Zer0megAlpha
Mugshot of both your face and genitals, along with fingerprint, blood and DNA sample during arrests. I can totally see that happening, and even having people defend such a system. Why not, they already stripsearch and cavity search you anyways right, taking a picture is not that far of a jump eh?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: igor_ats


Manassas City police and Prince William County prosecutors want to take a photo of his erect penis, possibly forcing the teen to become erect by taking him to a hospital and giving him an injection, the teen’s lawyers said.


^^ Forced injections to make penis erect?

Why is no in this thread talking about that?

I thought the "right to privacy" which prevents you from donating blood and bone marrow against your will would apply here where they can refuse anything being injected into them?

The same way a pregnant woman can refuse treatment for a potentially dangerous operation?


A non negotiable erection sounds awfully like a form of rape.....



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Biigs

EXACTLY

Doesnt matter what the crime is.

Enforced sexal arousal=sexaul assault=torture.

To the one guy on this thread supporting this saying a crimes been commited and evidence needs collecting, i say to them a line needs to be drawn between gathering evidence and torture and this crosseds that line, allow this and what next allow cops to rape women suspects? Allow the rack and thumb screws?
edit on 9-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

doesnt pleading the 5th have a role in this?

I mean, forgetting the disgusting rape/pedo stuff for a moment......



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Possibility of a forced injection into the boys penis? Won't that be not only painful but traumatic as well?

Some folks are sayin the law is the law and that's that??? Well, if that turns out to be the case with no exceptions, including the torturous procedure of that injection, I hope the kid at least gets to paint a smiley face on his "dingy". They always say, "Smile for the camera". Seriously though, it isn't funny but sometimes I feel like if I don't think of a funny dealy, I may end up screaming or crying. Everything relevant to our so-called rights are just going too far. What if one toddler/baby happens to pull a diaper off another babies butt...Angola prison for the lil offending beasty?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
a reply to: shrevegal

I think, subjecting a child to any of it is just all kinds of wrong.

Theres no scenario where a child is forced by adults to get aroused in any way, that can possibly be justified.

I almost vomited in my mouth just thinking about it actually......


edit on b1111729 by Biigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs
a reply to: shrevegal
I almost vomited in my mouth just thinking about it actually......

And you just made me think...are there any experts going to come into a courtroom and say, "Yes, I'm an expert at identifying and matching erect penises. Here's my credentials..."

Who exactly is going to evaluate this evidence? Who is qualified?


edit on 9-7-2014 by NarcolepticBuddha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Not that anyone should be making jokes but: An adolescent peensexpert?

Yeah im sure youd get alot of work in that field. Try explaining that one at a dinner party



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL

Threads like these are funny to me because the entire point of modern government is to assign politicians higher a higher level of rights as an elite class. Its not extortion... its taxes. Its not lying... its protecting national security. Its not child porn... its justice. The entire foundation of modern government is committing what is a blatant crime for me and you... then sleeping soundly at night as if they've done a wonderful service for the community. Stealing as a service. Lying as a service. Child porn as a service. Thats modern government, at your service.

And the most ridiculous part is how the worst crime of all is assaulting a police officer. Go ahead and assault a newborn baby and that is standard justice... but dare to go after a burgeoning man with a squared jaw and military cut trained for combat... well they can't handle that at all. Life in prison or maybe be executed on the spot. No special protections for the people who need it the most. But the elite criminals get the highest standard of protection.

And these are the people we allow to have nukes. This is what the the people want. They want someone to lie for them. They want someone to steal for them. They want someone to kill for them. Its considered democracy in action, but it simply isn't. Just because someone's name is Uncle Sam should not give them permission to run everyone over.



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join