15 Year Old Girl Charged as Sex Offender, page 2

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 13 times

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:07 AM by verylowfrequency

reply to post by Dock6

Well the law is wrong sometimes and in this case the law is sickly twisted.

How do you know what her intent was - maybe she has high self esteem and believes she is beautiful.

It takes a real demented sexist to call this teenager a potential prostitute.

Personally I'd like the see the dirty perverts who are persecuting this minor put away for life, for they are the predators who represent evil here.

[edit on 16-10-2008 by verylowfrequency]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:11 AM by Merriman Weir

It's stories like this that make a (small) dent in the idea that paedophilia porn stashes on computers are never 'victimless'. This will have been passed on and on to people that will not even know this girl's identity.

Before people try and reply to this with clenched fists hammering on keyboards in some kind of apoplectic rage: yes, obviously most paedophilia porn stashes have genuine, unfortunate abused victims.

The point is, this girl is a minor and ownership of her 'sexual image' is an offence. So when you hear about paedophiles having x amount of images on their computers, you hear extrapolations based on the idea that all the people in these images were groomed or forced into the creation of these images. Of course this does happen, and when it does happen it's a terrible, terrible thing but this story has shown how there can be 'victimless' child/minor pornography.

As some posters have pointed out, kids are kids, and I doubt very much she's the first teenage girl - or boy - that's willingly exposed themselves like this. I've absolutely no idea as to just how much there is of this material floating on the interwebs but I reckon it's a lot more than any of us probably realise.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:15 AM by Dock6

reply to post by verylowfrequency

Clearly, you're very emotional

this has aroused emotion in you

Says a lot about you

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:26 AM by nfotech

The insanity needs to stop. She's a kid. Kids do stupid stuff, most of the time without being caught. According to the statistics most of us were having sex by the time we were 15. Ever think about what kind of life we would have today if we'd been caught in these times?

We send these kids such a mixed message. On one hand we show her someone like Paris Hilton and say, look how rich and famous you can become just by releasing a sex tape? (Yes I'm aware she was already rich, that really doesn't matter). I won't even get into the bigger mixed message a young woman gets these days from the media which are constant and more hidden.

This girl's a foster kid also, who knows what kind of self esteem issues she has and if she has anyone there to teach her. It's not only a sad statement on the way our society has evolved but how could any community want this girl treated like a child predator?

And now they want to prosecute the kids who received the photos? Unbelievable. If they're "victims" of her "crime" how can they possibly be prosecuted?

A certain city / county / state needs to fire a certain prosecutor. Our criminal justice system has become a joke, a business for profit and now an entertainment industry for launching political careers. Change or die, America.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:30 AM by resistor

The attempt by the PTB to label everything possible a sex crime, and so get as many people as possible on such a ’sex offender’ list is really exposed in this case. IMO it’s just another way to get people into the system and under the gov thumb. Here in Texas, if you get caught having consensual sex with your partner in a car, you’re a sex offender. If you’re out fishing where there’s no toilet, and you’re seen whizzing in the woods, they call it indecent exposure and you’re a sex offender. Then they put out these sex offender lists where half the people on them were having consensual sex in some hook up spot at a city park or a highway rest stop, and scare people with this trumped up boogey man into passing ever more draconian laws. It’s a police state mentality spun out of control. If they would just put the real sexual predators under the prison, and leave everybody else alone we’d all be much better off.

As to this poor girl, it seems obvious that she’s in desperate need of some attention, and I hope her foster parents take this as a clue to give her the love and affection she needs instead of toys like camera phones.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:32 AM by Griff

Originally posted by budski
Wow - PC gone mad!

It's just a teen being a teen for crying out loud.

Does anyone else find the fact that it's in licking county hilarious?

Just as a note of caution. The non-thinking PC crowd might possibly now be able to come after you for sexually explicit language in reference to a minor. Just saying.

I've been saying for a few years now that we live in bizzaro world.

[edit on 10/16/2008 by Griff]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:33 AM by Lucid Lunacy

reply to post by Merriman Weir

The real concern, and the focus of sting operations and such, is to crack down on child-porn rings. They literally physically abuse children and then take photos and videos of it for distribution (commercial gain). So really this event is very very loosely related.

Still I agree with what 'I think' you are getting at. Which is why I suggested that she watch an educational video tape as part of her punishment

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:39 AM by Lucid Lunacy

reply to post by Dark Realms

Not too mention Jessica Biel posed nude for a mainstream magazine when she was 17. She didn't get busted, in fact I think she got paid

Let the record show I had no objections to her decision

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:49 AM by Lucid Lunacy

reply to post by Dock6

Dock your post seems to make the assumption all of us are blind loyalists to the judicial system. That nothing is above the Law. That the Law defines us instead of the original conception which was we define the Law!

I don't know if you are familiar with the dorkyness that is Dungeon and Dragons, but I believe they would say your alignment is 'Lawful Good'. Well, I for one am a 'Chaotic Good'! Okay no more D&D talk

She is a minor. Correct. She took pics of herself in the nude. Correct.

Child porn? Really the interpretation of her intent justifies her punishment. Do I believe she was creating child porn? No. Absolutely not. I believe she was doing the same thing 15 year old girls have done since the Kingdom of Sumer, only now it comes with an iPhone.

Because we discourage photos of minors circulating the web there should be a consequence. I stand strong with the one I gave in my first post.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:51 AM by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Merriman Weir

The real concern, and the focus of sting operations and such, is to crack down on child-porn rings. They literally physically abuse children and then take photos and videos of it for distribution (commercial gain). So really this event is very very loosely related.

Oh no, I completely agree. I realise that the larger problem here are the organised child-porn rings.

Still I agree with what 'I think' you are getting at. Which is why I suggested that she watch an educational video tape as part of her punishment

Well, I'd like to think that what you think I'm getting at it, is actually what I am getting at.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:52 AM by resistor

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Dark Realms

Not too mention Jessica Biel posed nude for a mainstream magazine when she was 17. She didn't get busted, in fact I think she got paid

Let the record show I had no objections to her decision

OMG!!!

Torture the pederast! For God sakes torture him now, we must pre-empt such evil before it can destroy our world!

Actually, 17 is legal in Texas.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:53 AM by Lucid Lunacy

reply to post by Merriman Weir

I'd like to think I got what you think I might have got

I welcome any further clarification though

[edit on 16-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:56 AM by scientist

the first thing that popped into my head, was this thread here.

Most of the people there were all saying that child pornographers should be killed and left in the woods, regardless of age, circumstance or context. I'll be expecting some of you guys to speak up here in defense of your original positions.

Specifically burdman30ott6 and Dock6, since they have posted in both threads now. I'll be expecting your reasons as to why this child pornographer deserves to live.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 05:58 AM by Lucid Lunacy

reply to post by scientist

And I thought of you and that thread when I just wrote the prior post about 'Lawful Good'

[edit on 16-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 06:04 AM by Dock6

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

I don't know where or how you were raised

but I can tell you now, fifteen year old girls where I grew up
would be outraged and insulted were anyone to suggest
taking nude photos of and offering them around was 'normal'.

Fifteen is a child.

Children are entitled to enjoy childhood

The girl had already begun placing unhealthy emphasis on the fact
that her body .. her naked body .. had 'value'

Where I grew up, fifteen year old girls had crushes on boys, sure
but their body was their own. They didn't regard it as cheap currency

The fifteen year old girls where I grew up were aware that EVERYone
has a body and there are only two types. Not as if everyone has
a DIFFERENT kind of body. If they did, then sure, I can see where the
interest would lie .. some might be blue, some purple, some with six
arms, others with twenty nipples.

But there are only two types of bodies and most fifteen year old
girls regard their bodies as something that can ride a horse, play
volley-ball, go mountain climbing, dance and sure .. look pretty when
dressed up.

This girl, in the eyes of the law, is a minor .. a child.
A precocious child who was prepared to exploit her own body
for attention, approval.

It's sad that a person who's technically a child believed she had nothing
more to offer the world than photos of her body which .. is one of the only two types available. Nothing unique about it. A body. That's how she regarded herself .. as a body. A body she knew would titillate the boys who saw her photo.

It's cheap. It's demeaning. But it's proof yet again that those who've been sexualizing our children are succeeding.

Now she's on a sex offenders list. For her stupidity and shallowness and pathetic lack of self-worth.

But wow .. the outrage in here !

Inexplicable, other than to suspect this thread is attracting people who are quite happy for confused kids to post naked photos of themselves in order what ... what ? In order people can sit and masturbate while they look at them ? What else would anyone do with a naked photo of a kid ... check her out for her Olympic hurdling potential ?

Her right to post naked photos of herself ? Her right ?

Her right to be exploited ?

Or is it more a case of the great unwashed deeming it THEIR right to exploit a confused, sad kid by staring at her naked ?

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 06:08 AM by Dock6

reply to post by scientist

I don't know who you imagine yourself to be, let alone why you would post about what you expect from anyone

attend to your own posts .. that's the only area you're entitled to harbour expectation about

My posts are here and if you choose, read them

Otherwise, don't attempt to big-note yourself by introducing other posters threads into a completely separate thread. I think you'll discover that contravenes T & C.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 06:17 AM by Kailassa

It puzzles me that a few posters here think this girl should be punished for her "lack of self worth" by being publicly labelled as a sex offender for the next 10 years.

I feel the effect of this punishment may be a bit self defeating.

It will make it harder for her to go to a decent school or get a decent job.
it could well be the final bit of pressure that does drive her to prostitution.

But hey, let's kick a parentless kid, who's life we know nothing about, while she's down. It's a safe and fun sport, cos there's no way she's going to be able to kick back.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 06:22 AM by ag2000

So if two 15 year olds hook up and have sex while their parents are at work, They would be sex offenders? For what? Molesting a child? I heard about this the other day and mentioned it to my wife...Even she didn't understand how a child could be charged with possessing/distributing child porn (of herself)...It doesn't matter if she hates herself, Likes herself, whatever...It clearly makes absolutely no sense at all. Every kid who has ever messed around with a classmate or taken a picture of themselves and given it to a boyfriend/girlfriend is now a life long sex offender. We now have a country full of Sex offenders...Turn yourselves in.

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 06:23 AM by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Dock6

But wow .. the outrage in here !

Honestly I felt that post was showing quite a bit of outrage.

sure
but their body was their own. They didn't regard it as cheap currency

A precocious child who was prepared to exploit her own body
for attention, approval.

believed she had nothing
more to offer the world than photos of her body

You are making assumptions.

I am about to make one too:

Maybe she like many teens her age is a typical confused adolescent trying to come to terms with her self-identity and sexual maturity. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe a part of her was attributing too much importance to trivial matters like looks. That's pretty normal at that age. Rather expected. Which is precisely why I think the punishment in the article is very extreme.

Fifteen is a child.

Children are entitled to enjoy childhood

Exactly.

So why are you so determined to scrutinize this like an adult? Think like a 15 year old.

In my JHS there were girls engaging in sex. Last I checked they grew up fine. They were 14 and 15 having sex then, and I think they should have waited a little longer. But they are fine now, no harm done. Oh my... I just thought of something.... they had sex with minors!!!

reply posted on 16-10-2008 @ 06:23 AM by 44soulslayer

reply to post by burdman30ott6

Easy there, lets not get all Amish here.

Technology isnt to blame, its the misuse of technology. There are many minors perfectly capable of using a phone without taking naked pictures of themselves.

On topic: This is a pretty stupid legal case to waste taxpayers' money on. There can't possibly be any good for society or the girl to go to prison for 10 years.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^