3 ms·

The law gets interpreted very strictly and very literally around this subject. In fact, there has actually been a case where a 15-year-old girl was arrested for

The law gets interpreted very strictly and very literally around this subject. In fact, there has actually been a case where a 15-year-old girl was arrested for taking nude photos of herself and sharing them with others via chatrooms. She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat understandable. But she was also charged with exploitation of a minor, which seems a bit silly in this case (unless she had a split personality doing the photography?).

AlexandrB 15y ago
> She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat understandable. I'm not sure how. The intent (as I understand it) is to protect minors from predators and exploitation, not to give them a criminal record for their own actions - consider that the perpetrator and supposed victim are one and the same in this case. Had they charged others who viewed/shared the photos in the chatrooms, that would be understandable, even if they're minors themselves.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  Whether she realized it or not, she became the initial vector for distribution of child pornography the second she shared the photos online. So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos. I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on, but at least I could entertain the argument with a straight face. The exploitation charge, on the other hand, was patently ludicrous.
  - JulianMorrison 15y ago
    The social harm of distributing photos is that a minor was harmed. Jailing a minor is harm! What utter idiocy.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - bennysaurus 15y ago
    > So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos. Entertaining that argument, the harm though would be to herself. Why should she be essentially doubly punished with membership to the sex offender's list and a criminal record?

AlexandrB 15y ago

> She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat understandable. I'm not sure how. The intent (as I understand it) is to protect minors from predators and exploitation, not to give them a criminal record for their own actions - consider that the perpetrator and supposed victim are one and the same in this case. Had they charged others who viewed/shared the photos in the chatrooms, that would be understandable, even if they're minors themselves.

jonnathanson 15y ago
Whether she realized it or not, she became the initial vector for distribution of child pornography the second she shared the photos online. So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos. I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on, but at least I could entertain the argument with a straight face. The exploitation charge, on the other hand, was patently ludicrous.
- JulianMorrison 15y ago
  The social harm of distributing photos is that a minor was harmed. Jailing a minor is harm! What utter idiocy.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- bennysaurus 15y ago
  > So there is a semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm in distributing the photos. Entertaining that argument, the harm though would be to herself. Why should she be essentially doubly punished with membership to the sex offender's list and a criminal record?