getting into discussion. just saying, this has been out here for a good couple years. parents need to make kids aware and educate them. it is our job.

she might have done. Charges like that carry ruinous sex offender registration requirements that should be used with common sense.

It's a strange case. People should know better, in spite of that the leading app for young people is snap chat which is tailor-made for these shenanigans...

Or put on sex offender. We went thru the whole scenario handful of years ago. It hasn't gone that far, ever, as far as i know.

What complete and utter wretched excess...

The other question might be: How did the cops find out?

support a charge of possession of child pornography (assume the recipient was the same age, 16)? If they sent it to someone else, would you support a charge of distribution of child pornography? If either answer is yes, then what is the difference that she sent it (distribution) or had it on her computer (possession)?

...for sending nude selfies to each other. That's ridiculous.

Educate them, sure, explain how the images can easily/usually slip out of their control, yes.

But what -- charge them? Send them to juvie?

What are you proposing?

If this girl sent the selfie to person X (say a 16 year old), and person X sends it to person Y, should person X be charged with distributing child pornography? Should person Y be charged with possession of child pornography? What if person Y was 20? Does that change anything?

Or, let's say that this 16 year old sent a selfie to her 18 year old boyfriend. Did she distribute child pornography? Is he now is possession of child pornography?

Basically what I am proposing is that possession/distribution of child pornography remain a strict liability crime as it is now.

Very Cotton Mather of you!

pornography possession? What if he sends it to his 20 year old pal? If it is not child pornography when she sends it, when exactly does it become child pornography? If she sends it to someone who is 17, does it automatically turn into child pornography when the person turns 18?

Are you really saying that the person who makes the child pornography (taking the selfie) and sends it into the public domain (sends it to twitter) would be about the ONLY person in the chain that is not legally liable? Or are you saying that a selfie voluntarily placed into the public domain by a child is not child pornography?

...your over-eager "book everyone!" outlook on nude selfies is that only the girl herself is being arrested.

... a sex offender for taking a picture of herself.

She needs a talking to, not an arrest record.

But there will always be the crazed and eager, their cuffs and jails ready.

prove mens rea for each case would drastically reduce the number of prosecutions and conviction rate for these crimes. How would a prosecutor be able to PROVE that someone knew that the person depicted was under 18?

You can lock up all the horny 16 year olds taking Snapchat pics of themselves, Cotton Mather, and then I guess you get the orderly, witch-free society you lust after?

They see it as a friend who sent a nude selfie. This is way overblown. This is not some sick man who forced a child to pose for pictures. I actually think this should be handled differently than some sick man with child porn. Fine these kids like a speeding ticket, don't ruin their lives with a record. Especially one that deals with sexual crimes. She willingly sent the picture, it's just a nude picture. Not forced on to her. It was just for shock or a laugh. No big deal IMO.

that they should be charged with possession of child pornography? The 'kid' who sent/took this was not hurt and did not think it was child porn (as you put it) so should some 40 year old sicko be charged if they have it? If the answer is yes, then perhaps you see my problem. She was the one who put this out there.

...and put them in jails for their own good!

How dare they photograph themselves! Nasty women! We need to be protected...

repeatedly stated, and what she is being charged with, is DISTRIBUTING the picture. Perhaps this is where we have our disconnect in seeing the severity of this matter.

Then we'll see how your lust for Javert-like justice for teens who text nude selfies to their current boy / girlfriends really shakes out...

selfie to TWITTER is not the same as to a boyfriend.

Another simple yes or no question.

Should your niece, at 16, be arrested for doing the same thing the young woman in the OP did?

And would you stand there, letting the police arrest her, rather than thinking it might be something better handled by a custodial adult?

WANT her to be arrested. However, that does not change the fact that if she WAS arrested, I would understand that the charge was valid. Same thing with this. If she distributed child pornography (depicting herself or others) I would not WANT her arrested. I would understand why she was arrested though.

I have answered your questions. Please answer just one of mine. If she had sent to twitter a picture of some other 16 year olds' selfie, would that be distribution in your opinion for which this charge would be appropriate?

And you would want her branded a sexual offender for life, as a result?

I fear for her in your custodial care, if this is how you think it best to protect her.

This is something handled between parents and their child. You delete the post. You devise other consequences.

You don't arrest them.

understand that she had broken the law.

Why did you not answer my one question after I answered many of yours? I will repeat it:

If she had sent to twitter a picture of some other 16 year olds' selfie, would that be distribution in your opinion for which this charge would be appropriate?

It is a simple Yes or No question .......

...were she cuffed and hauled away for a boneheaded Tweet.

I fear for your niece, with your unyielding, narrow, and inflexible view of "justice."

the sentencing phase of any trial that she would not be sentenced like a "mob distributor of child porn". That is what the sentencing phase is for, finding a suitable punishment under the circumstances.



Yet again, why did you not answer my one question after I answered many of yours? I will repeat it:

If she had sent to twitter a picture of some other 16 year olds' selfie, would that be distribution in your opinion for which this charge would be appropriate?

It is a simple Yes or No question .......

...your own niece.

Of course Tweeting a friend isn't "distribution." It might be boneheaded, and require a Big Talk about consequences and life choices, etc., but the police don't need to be involved.

Sadly for your niece, you think the police should be involved, because you are unable to distinguish a difference between child porn distribution as an exploitative business, and kids being giddy and reckless about their bodies.

I think any more discussion would be pointless. Thanks for answering my question though. Have a good night.

If not then there is a huge problem for many public places such as museums, Universities, hell even Dept of Justice.

The sex act side is pretty self explanatory. The lewd or titillating would be things like being 'spread eagle'. As the SC said "you know it when you see it".

If anyone can explain that to me I would appreciate it.

... I might go berserker against the involvement of whatever "police officials" got themselves involved.

Sadly, if I tasered the crotch of a public official it would make the incident even more public, so I'd have to count to ten and hold back.

Teenagers do dumb, dangerous things.

A "selfie" ranks below "police involvement" on my scale of justice. Doing dangerous things with cars, on the other hand... yes, do, involve the police. Some teens, I'd maybe even say most teens, shouldn't be driving.

Responsible adults would make certain no coercion was involved in the taking or posting of the picture, explain the dangers (probably as kid makes yadda, yadda, yadda... faces), and then maybe exchange the cell phone for a few weeks with a totally clunky and very unfashionable model.

Responsible adults also teach their kids about sex and safety long before the kid is interested in this kind of trouble.

As for the picture, it's out there among the millions of other "selfies" many of them made by 18+ models who "look" younger. (Now there's a creepy business that deserves some official attention...)

As for potential stalkers, any web presence can attract them, no photos required. That's another thing every kid should know.

nude selfies to the online world...Because it seems to be way too frequent an occurrence...

It's not that hard to figure out, AFAIC.

not sure what one thing has to do with the other...Unless this is the new way teens find dates or sex partners these days (yes, I really am that out of touch with the youth of today)....

And I would agree it's stupid, but then I would also argue that kids today don't have a monopoly on doing stupid shit. Certainly I did my share.

Heck, back in the '70s, it seemed like every Monday half of my classmates would be bragging about all the stupid stuff they did during the weekend, mostly revolving around drugs, alcohol and cars.

would have been sent LOL

We live in a day and age where young people love to share and brag about their life online. It's no shock some go over the line of just "TMI"

seriously I would never have considered sending a nude photograph of myself to anyone, let alone on Twitter even in my day. I doubt I would have even considered taking a nude photograph of myself period and then mailing it or giving it to someone.

Back in the day when you had to purchase film, load it into the camera, take the photograph and then take or mail the film for processing in most states it was illegal for the processor to develop and print photographs that were deemed lewd. You could only do this if you had your own darkroom and photographic development equipment.

But I agree with other posters, what is it with young people today to think it is okay to take a nude selfie and share it with others let alone they don't consider the consequences whether they share on social media or just in a 1 to 1 text or e-mail. Once you hit the send button it is out there FOREVER. You can never recall it.

That's why I tell my employees, read every outbound e-mail or text you send very carefully before you hit the Send button. There may be limited ability within the company e-mail system to recall the e-mail. It works if the recipients have not accessed the e-mail but even if you recall it, the company servers have a copy of it and its contents.

It is unfortunate for her. I don't know if because she is so young she will avoid being treated as a sex offender for the rest of her life or not. Hopefully that is the case as it appears she was just stupid and did not intend any ill will on anyone.

and anyone over 18 who possesses or shares it.

JMO.

is then you'd have people that make money on child porn proclaiming it was a "selfie." I suspect the charges will either be dropped (eventually) or she'll get community service.

Because my point is, the law generally distinguishes between 2 people under 18 having sex with each other (which is something many of us did ourselves, even if some of us sometimes have trouble remembering that far back.. )

....and when someone over 18 has sex with someone under 18. Rightly so.

I guess my point is that to my mind the act of someone under 18 sharing a nude picture with their also under 18 s/o might be a different ethical situation than, say, people over 18 distributing the material.

Of course, in this story she posted to twitter, so perhaps the venue is a relevant factor. But other cases have involved people texting pictures to boyfriends/girlfriends.

Edited to add, if money is involved I would be willing to bet someone in the transaction would be over 18, and in that circumstance throw the damn book at 'em.

is charged? Maybe a "romeo and juliet" law for child pornography?

My first and primary reaction, though, is that the law is taking the wrong approach if it's really prosecuting teens for taking pictures of themselves.

pornography. The child depicted just happens to be her and she is the one who took the pic. If she distributed a selfie of another 16 year old, would you think the charge appropriate?

distinguishes juveniles from adults.

Personally I think more relevant than the "distribution" is the venue of distribution, i.e. twitter. However we've seen similar charges against persons under 18 who texted pictures to their bf/gf, also under 18.

Let me ask you one: do you think people under 18 should be legally allowed to have sex at all, ever, namely with other persons under 18? You do realize this happens, right? Not sure what your HS years were like, but it was a stone-cold reality with mine.

That is the thrust (no pun intended) of romeo and juliet exceptions to the (otherwise) strict liability crime of statutory rape. Distribution and/or possession of child pornography is likewise a strict liability crime. I for one think that is appropriate. To prove possession or distribution of child pornography (at least in MD), the prosecution has to prove two elements. 1) that the person depicted in the pornography was a minor when the depiction was made and 2) that the accused was in possession of(or distributed to another) said depiction.

What most others in this thread seem to not want to recognize is that darn near EVERYONE else who gets this selfie has significant legal liability, at least in MD, and think that is just fine. I am NOT suggesting that those others should not have legal liability, but I am not so blind to see that the 16 year old in question facilitated those crimes through her actions and her actions (distribution, not the taking of the selfie itself) were in themselves a crime.

on anyone who gets it or shares it beyond that, obviously it's a different story--- and whether or not it's a wise use of LEO resources to go after, for instance, the 16 yr old who has a nude picture of his 16 yo gf on his phone, the fact is it's a different situation, as the situation would be further different if that 16 yo shared the picture with others.

Still, the law often makes distinctions between acts pertaining to ones own physical person v. acts done to another, often without even thinking, in a "duh, obviously" sort of fashion. For instance, the difference between a dude who walks into a men's room and puts his hand in his pants and pulls out his own johnson, and a dude who walks into a men's room, puts his hands in someone else's pants and pulls out the other guy's.

"Wide stance" defense, notwithstanding.

There needs to be an element of common sense in the law, that's the objection I see here. Not the idea that there should be no liability for disseminating pictures of underage people.

Charging her with a sex crime that will follow her for the rest of the life strikes me as draconian. Prosecutors are charged with more than just throwing people in the hoosegow. They are charged with seeing that justice is served.

There are multiple ways of disposing of this case that don't require the young woman being labeled a child pornographer. Mercy is part and parcel of justice.

Definition of possession can be dangerous as well.

Once something is out there, it's out there. So let's say an under 18 kid takes a nude selfie and posts it on their Twitter account that I follow or Tumblr account that I follow. (caveat; I tend to autofollow people on these services that follow me). Am I now guilty of possessing child pornography because the image came across my screen?

Look at how Tumblr in particular works with sharing images. It's reblogged and reblogged and comes across any number of peoples feeds. I follow a few hundred people and skim through, but the image is shown to me and kept in my browser cache. I'm now guilty? Even though the feed that it came from says all images are from people 18 and over..

Possession is trickier in the digital world and the law is always, always behind.

What the hell is wrong with our society?

and it was fun. Nude! In Public! And people took pictures! Sometimes blurry photos were published! In news papers!

Not a pathology that required psychological intervention.

Indeed. What the hell is wrong with our society.

I remember being a teen, I know high school will not fun for her now.

On the other hand, some of it was more sordid than silly, and bullying was overlooked by administrators whose only advice was "toughen up, don't be a sissy."

I quit high school, and was a minor in college when nudity was still mostly frivolous, including my own.

The generations always change on what's acceptable sexually and socially. It's changed plenty in my 40 years on this Earth. But I also remember a few polaroids being shared back in my high school days by people wanting to show off - male and female.

To be child porn (despite her obviously not being a child because minor and child are hardly synonyms) it has to include sexual action or lascivious display of sex-parts.

Child porn must, first and foremost, be porn. Hence the name.

So one would have to see the pictures to have any opinion of this prosecution, but of course we cannot review what the authorities are up to here because looking at the evidence is a crime.

Plus, if she gets to disseminate this material is it right that somebody else be charged with a crime for coming across it somewhere?

It is a rather incoherant up area of law.

Viewing child pornography should be, and is, a serious crime. You are incorrect.

That would require free access. Lots of free services on the Internet, but access costs, meaning it's "private."

and the use of public services like water and sewage, postal mailings, etc., is definitely not free.

It is true, even our local supermarket grants it as a convenience, though it's hard as heck to connect. Another point of inequality, perhaps, as one free access point among millions of paid access points turns the network for all the paid folks into a public "location".

Girl is probably in puberty. It seems she's being criminalized, or at least moving in that direction. Puberty occurs anywhere from 12-17 years of age, yet law seems to claim that 18 is when she's allowed to consent as an adult.

Internet-to-prison pipeline?

The way things are going, that might not be such a far-fetched notion.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Like all other sex offenders.

Do you want jail time with that also?

A school resource officer was informed of the then-publicly available photographs’ lewd nature, and talked with both the teen and her mother about the situation.

Arresting kids for posting nudie selfies of themselves is just freaking stupid.

Over 50 years ago, my high school girlfriend and her best friend took her parent's Polaroid camera and took waist-up nude photos of each other. They gave them to their boyfriends. It wasn't much of a revelation, since that boundary had been passed some time ago in both cases.

I hid the photo well, and never showed it to anyone. When my girlfriend and I broke up, I destroyed it and told her that I had destroyed it. Kids do stuff. We should not be arresting them for such nonsense.

...because if the law doesn't' ruin her life, she may ruin her life.

that's kind of what it boils down too.

These charges are absurd.

Alas.

Not good, this is a slippery slope she should be reprimanded but not convicted of a crime, she is only 16 and having a record that early will set her back and damn near destroy her life before she even has a chance. Just read an article about a guy that got fired for something he had on his record from 40 years ago, this is where the world is going employers looking for any reason to fire you let us not help the process by dooming this child at 16 years old.