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.
Originally posted by skeptic1
The world is not black and white. It is only shades of gray. And, in this type of situation, there has to be a middle ground where we can agree she was wrong but also agree that she shouldn't have her life ruined because of it.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by logician magician
Oh is that what you were doing? Just being a devils advocate?
I see. Well never mind anything you said. It's no longer absurd. Thanks for being the voice of reason for all us with group-think
Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I think people’s reaction to that relationship to me has been a perfect example of how idiotic and presumptuous people are, and how society has mangled definitions of “pedophilia” and “rape” and “child”.
Originally posted by Dock6
She's a minor. Right ?
Photos of minors are illegal. Right ?
They are termed 'child pornography'. Right ?
We're OPPOSED to child-porn. Right ? ..... Right ? ... Or not ?
So where's the problem with the law as it was administered in this instance ?
Originally posted by schism85
I completely agree. Its no buissness of the goverments to be in. The only reason why they are involved, is because the school found out, and didn't know how to handle it properly, so they called the police. Bad call on their part.
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I think some people are trying to use a strict sense of Law in a black and white sense when even the judicial system they are using embraces that a gray area exists. Determining 'motive' based on circumstantial evidence, and the subjective analysis by a jury, etc.
Originally posted by americandingbat
I'm surprised this thread is still going.
I do understand people's concerns that this case could provide a loophole for child porn collectors. Except that it is illegal to possess child porn. So a 55-year-old with a computer full of images of naked 15-year-olds that he somehow got hold of is breaking the law. The 15-year-olds don't have to be charged with making pornography for him to be charged with possession.
P.S. to Res Ipsa – I've talked to both men and women who had sexual relationships with teachers or other authority figures when they were 15 and 16. Not enough to make this scientifically valid, certainly, but enough to raise my eyebrows. In the case of "consensual" relations (not rape through violence or threats) the men were more harmed by the experience, and carry deeper scars longer. (edited to fix screenname)
[edit on 10/16/08 by americandingbat]
Originally posted by logician magician
Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
The intent to create the child porn was there, by her very action of snapping a picture of herself naked. She knew that she was a minor, she knew she was taking a picture.
It doesn't particularly matter if she knew she was creating "child porn" under law because ignorance is not a defense.
------------------------------------------------------------
You almost got away with your argument but you said "The intent to create the child porn was there,..." No it wasn't. The intent to take a naked picture of herself and share it with someone was. NOT to "create child porn" Yes, there is a legal difference. (to tell you the truth I don't know what the elements are for proving child porn creation. I know that possession is enough to tag someone of course. But if someone chooses to do it themselves and does it themselves with out any aide? didn't cover that in family law sad to say. (side note...someone brought up malice and aforethought too....dude or dudas...that is an element of first degree murder not porn.)
Originally posted by schism85
reply to post by Res Ipsa
WOW! Great post, can't believe you took the time to write all that. I had a girlfriend when I was like 14 she was 19 or so. No bad experiences there. In fact, she was my girlfriend for years. She was totally normal, not a pepophile or anything. She just saw me as me, and not my age, because I didn't act my age, or think my age.
[edit on 16-10-2008 by schism85]