Yeah I do and I understand intent and I understand what the word pornography means.
Her intent was not to distribute pornography.
The charges are ridiculous.
Her intent was not to distribute pornography.
The charges are ridiculous.
Sexting Victoria teen girl to be tried on child porn charge Girl, 16, faces child po
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
what ever you say. You're right, you're the expert. What ever you say MUST be the truth and people can hang their hat on it and know where the line is exactly when it comes to child pornography. They just need to ask petros.
blah blah f*cking blah....
ACTNS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA aka INTENT "mens rea".
An act does not make [the doer of it] guilty, unless the mind be guilty; that is, unless the intention be criminal. 3 Inst. 107. The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime. Lord Kenyon, C. J., 7 Term 514; Broom, Max. 300.
ACTNS NON FACIT REUM, NISI MENS SIT REA aka INTENT "mens rea".
An act does not make [the doer of it] guilty, unless the mind be guilty; that is, unless the intention be criminal. 3 Inst. 107. The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime. Lord Kenyon, C. J., 7 Term 514; Broom, Max. 300.
Same deal. I don't have any naked pics of me in possession of anyone I don't trust implicitly and I wouldn't post naked pics of my ex anywhere. If you're gonna be with someone you can't have that kind of trust with you shouldn't be doing nude photography....unless you don't care if your boobies are on the web.
Now obviously you can't have that kind of trust with someone you have only dated for maybe a year or 3 and has the maturity of a teenager.
You lost me here man. Are you against her being charged or do you just want all of them charged?
You have a point. Here's the relevant section of Canadian law:
"163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the **** region of a person under the age of eighteen years"
You could make a good argument that a nude, without more, doesn't qualify.
If that were the case the prisons would be over flowing with people who have done so. There are entire sites dedicated to showing these sorts of pictures and videos without the consent of the person in them.
I find this child porn law to be somewhat inconsistent. If the girl in the picture is the same age as the girl being charged that would put her at the age of sexual consent. It seems a bit odd that at 16 you can consent to have sex with an adult but pictures of a person that age is considered child pornography. One of those laws should change, it doesnt really matter to me which one. Inconsistencies annoy me.
Jail them all and build more prisons. Simples.
And if this had been a 50 year old man who had posted these pictures on the internet you'd be calling for him to be castrated. It's yet ANOTHER occasion - as we have seen time and time again on this forum - of people trying to excuse porn offences just because it was done by a teenage girl.
This girl committed a crime. She should be locked up. I know there are many on the Left who hate to see women banged up in prison for their crimes, as though women should be above the law and not made to take consequences for their actions, but the fact is that she broke the law, and she should be treated exactly the same as everyone else.
So far there is no proof she committed a crime. Just accusations a crime was committed and it must be remembered the people pushing for charges have their own agenda that is not necessarily reflected in current law. Up until about 4 years ago 14 was the age of consent in Canada. SO we also have some moving goal posts.
No, because the laws shouldn't be different for adults and 16 year olds when it comes to violating someone else's privacy, only the application and sentencing of the laws should.
Nice theory! :roll: Are you part of the NWO?
If it was a 50 yo man (or woman) I would say the intent was sexual and he would be guilty of child porn and would hope he went to prison. I am in favor of voluntary chemical castration for sex offenders but that is a different topic.
Debatable, as per Mens Rea.
Lock up everyone. You already said that. Not the best solution to deal with teenagers being teenagers but you obviously don't have the intelligence to understand that.
Wrong again! If a woman, not a little girl, but a grown woman commits a crime that warrants a custodial sentence then they should get it. I agree there are too many that get off light because they have kids or are pregnant and we should change that, but not at the expense of silly little girls.
The laws are the same for any person over 13. The sentencing options are much different and there are 'Diversion' programs available where they get no record for those under 18 but ti depends on what they have done and if there are prior offences.
So, the argument here seems to be that if you attempt to humiliate someone via their nakedness, it is not a crime? It's funny, because there's an awful lot of sexual assault that centres entirely around attempting to shame, humiliate, and dominate someone with their sexuality, while gaining no sexual gratification for yourself. So the argument that she wasn't using it as porn for herself, merely distributing it so others could and the girl would know that, doesn't really inspire a 'no harm no foul' feeling.
But is the law against distributing child porn about violation of privacy? No, it's about more than that, which is why it's really an inappropriate law to be using against this girl.
Now, should there be penalties for distributing material which grossly violates someones privacy like this? Yes I think there definitely needs to be. We've certainly reached a point where it's gone beyond a couple, whether above the age of consent or just slightly below it, having personal pics leaked onto the web. Just about every single person out there now is walking around with a camera in their pocket all the time. We can get up close and personal with a stranger, photographically speaking, with relative ease and, in many cases, distributing these images (whether nude, sexual, or simply a moment of true privacy captured in a pic)has to be taken more seriously.
I haven't completely read through the full thread so my apologies if you've spoken to any of these points earlier. My take on your position on this matter is that something needs to be done, and I'm in complete agreement with you on that point, but I fear that the laws as they currently stand are not appropriate to use in these specific kinds of circumstances.
Totally different circumstances. Parsons was filmed being gang-raped. That is definitely porn under the law, not to mention sexual assault.