Trey of Diamonds
Well-Known Member
I don't believe that fourteen year olds are "children".
While I agree with this statement, what we believe doesn't matter. In the eyes of the law, 14 year olds are children.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I don't believe that fourteen year olds are "children".
I would have thought the same principles would have applied as the laws concerning sexual relations between minors (minors can have sex with other minors, but if a legal adult has sex with a child, THEN it's considered illegal). At least that's how it works as far as my knowledge goes
I agree.PureX said:think there is a lot of confusion going on in this case.
For one thing, I don't believe that fourteen year olds are "children". So nude photos of them are not going to be "child pornography" by definition.
PureX said:Secondly, nude photography is not automatically pornography. Nor is pornography automatically illegal. So nude photos of fourteen year olds does not automatically equate to being illegal pornography, regardless of who took the pictures.
Agreed, but then again, the law should be changed. There is a big difference between an 8 year old and a 16 year old.Trey of Diamonds said:While I agree with this statement, what we believe doesn't matter. In the eyes of the law, 14 year olds are children.
By and by, why were the photos of Miley Cyrus not prosecuted as "child pornography"? There was an outrage, sure, but no charges that I was aware of. Isn't that the same sort of thing?
I remember a case from last year where a 17 year old was being charged with statutory rape because his 14 or 15 (can't remember) year old girlfriend performed oral sex on him, and her parents found out and charged him. I know the poor kid had to sit in jail while the ridiculous trial was going on, but I don't remember hearing what the verdict ended up being.
I don't understand... it shouldn't matter whether the parents throw a fit or not. If we (as in the United States' legal system) are defining child pornography as a naked shot of a minor, then Miley's photographer should have been charged.They could have been if someone had wanted to. I doubt it would have held up in court but it could have still been taken that far. However, Miley's parents are a lot smarter than they look and while they frowned at what Annie did, they left it at that.
stellify said:Here in Texas, there's a two-year grace period. As long as the boyfriend and girlfriend are within two years of being the same age, it's ok. That way 18-year-olds don't get in trouble for dating 17 or 16-year-olds. That actually happens so often it's kind of shocking....or 18 to 20-somethings being charged with statutory rape or indecency with a minor because some stupid 16-year-old girl lied and told them she was 18....then either cried rape or her parents took the guy to court once they found out. I've known so many guys who were scared to death to date a girl without checking out her IDs and age with friends first...And the poor guys can never do anything to fight it. I think it's disgusting. (I'm sure this has happened with women being charged by boys, too...Just using girls/men because it's more common).
I don't understand... it shouldn't matter whether the parents throw a fit or not. If we (as in the United States' legal system) are defining child pornography as a naked shot of a minor, then Miley's photographer should have been charged.
I think there is a lot of confusion going on in this case.
For one thing, I don't believe that fourteen year olds are "children". So nude photos of them are not going to be "child pornography" by definition. Secondly, nude photography is not automatically pornography. Nor is pornography automatically illegal. So nude photos of fourteen year olds does not automatically equate to being illegal pornography, regardless of who took the pictures.
The solution to this confusion is simple, however. If an illegal act was committed in order to achieve the photograph, then the people who took the photo and participated in distributing it, etc. are guilty of a crime, and of covering up and abetting that crime. If the photo depicts no criminal behavior, and implies none for it to have occurred, then there is no legal reaction necessary.
Actually, federal child pornography definitions include any minor which under federal law is anyone under the age of 18.
Problem - anything remotely sexual, and its illegal for them to inform the parents thereof in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Back in the 70s, we had a major problem with central Pennsylvanians honor-killing their daughters when doctors, medical professionals, schools, etc. would tell the parents about things like this, or the fact that the daughters had acquired birth control or sexually transmitted diseases. Thus, would be illegal.
Isnt that odd..In some states the age of "consent" is as young as 16..I think most are 17.So they are considred "adults" when it comes to having sex.But yet if that same "adult" takes nude photos or sexually explicit photos of THEMSELVES they can be charged with manufacturing child pornograghy underal the federal guidelines?
Thats kind of wacky.
Love
Dallas
I remember a case from last year where a 17 year old was being charged with statutory rape because his 14 or 15 (can't remember) year old girlfriend performed oral sex on him, and her parents found out and charged him. I know the poor kid had to sit in jail while the ridiculous trial was going on, but I don't remember hearing what the verdict ended up being.
Yep, taking pictures of anykind can get you trouble these days.
Its this sort of ludicrous nonsense that led to a paediatrician in the UK being targeted and forced to leave her home a few years ago...
In the UK, I even got attacked verbally by a mother after I gently moved a child out of the way who was messing about on an escalator, holding everyone up. She was screaming at me "How dare you touch my child!" etc and shouting for her husband...thankfully he was a bit more sensible.
That's crazy! Talk about the dangers of stupid people.
Basic rule of thumb, don't touch someone else's kid. No one can know what your intentions are and there are too many kid snatchers out there today. If a kid is doing something wrong, you tell the parent. The only acceptable excuse is to protect them from a life threatening situation. Otherwise you are in the wrong.
then the child doesnt learn to be terrified and petrified to death of anyone thats not them.
Good point but I don't want my daughter to be terrified of everyone except her mother and me, that's a bit extreme. Consistancy is needed though. All strangers are strangers, not just some of them.
My daughter is shy and naturally doesn't talk to anyone she doesn't already know so she doesn't need much additional training. It's the children that are afraid of nothing at all and will talk to anyone that need to be taught not to do so. You're not teaching them to be afraid, you're teaching them not to talk to strangers. Big difference.