Seen in the Referrer Logs:
06 Jul, Mon, 18:13:02 Google: Can i get arrested for sending nude pictures and im 15
Yes, you can; perhaps you might get off the hook on some legal theory (for instance, if the nudity isn't seen as "lewd"), but this is one thing that you don't want to be even potentially on the hook for. And even if you don't get arrested, you might come to regret -- very soon, or perhaps a few years later -- having such pictures available to anyone. My advice: Keep your nudity unrecorded.
And the question was about "arrested" not "convicted" -- while a fancy legal theory might work on a judge, it's much less likely to work on a cop or a prosecutor.
[ Of course, Eugene is correct as a matter of what the law is, which in this case, is quite clearly an ass. ]
If anyone wants a serious legal question, does the CDA immunity protect the purveyors of an iphone application from charges of distributing child pornography (mild NSFW warning -- censor kiddie porn)?
(see RFC 2068)
.
Minors are subject to arrest and can be tried as minors, for committing crimes any crime for which their conduct meets all elements.
Being tried as a minor is very different then getting tried as an adult in most states. Do any states allow a sentence to last beyond the age of 21?
If I felt that if I ever saw a particular person again, I would lose control and kill them, I would do whatever I had to do to make sure I never saw that person again. If necessary, I can move. But if you're a minor, that person is your principal, and your parents don't cooperate, the law does not permit you to avoid him.
People who the law does not permit to control their own destiny cannot rationally be held by the law to the same standard as those who do have control over their destiny. The law is irrational.
And I'm pretty sure that they are also subject to civil commitment provisions even after that.
Nick
"Keep your nudity unrecorded"
There should be ample material for a quip about posterity here.
My personal choice for US Supreme Court Justice is Donna Dennis, who at least has a modicum of understanding about how we came to be here.
When you click on a link, your browser remembers where you just were and tells that to the destination. If the destination records the information its a referrer log
The information allows you to figure out where your visitors are coming from, google, some other blog, etc. A sudden spike in referrers from a site can indicate they have commented on your blog or otherwise are bringing you publicity, and you can see what they are up to. Because your google search url contains the search terms, your referrer passes it along.
I think that EV answered the question correctly as given, but I am following an interesting ACLU case which is seeking to rein in some prosecutorial excesses in this area.
The fact is that kiddie porn charges for teens who are involved in sexting is stupid to the extreme. I WANT to see one of these cases get to trial and get to the Supreme Court so that they can tell us whether Ferber really applies to this case.
while these cases are stupid, the law is often stupid.
the point is this. we have decided that child porn is contraband. period end of story. therefore, you do not have the right to create it EVEN if it is of yourself. and distributing it is even worse.
now, JUST because somebody is nude does not MAKE it child porn. it's perfectly legal for people to encourage nudity in their own household, or go to nude beaches, even if a minor. the porn is created when the picture etc. is taken. and my understanding is that the picture must be intended to incite prurient interest. iow, a picture of a nude child in a medical text is not child porn. taking pictures of your kid nude is not (necesarily ) child porn either, obviously.
note that if the pictures are sexually explicit, you don't even have ot have nudity. it's not a required element. i once had a woman find pictures of her 14 yr old daughter and two other juveniles engaged in SIMULATED sexual acts. they were fully clothed, there was no genitalia showing. however, it WAS child porn. she was freaked out, and figured some svengali was taking pictures of her kid and grooming her for future porn movies, etc. after a long investigation with a lot of non-cooperation from the juveniles, i finally figured out that 4 teens had gotten together and gotten drunk and decided to take the pictures as a lark. there was no adult porn producer as the mom feared, jsut some idiot kids. and of course copies of the photos had been disseminated to all of their friends.
i recommended to the prosecutor that no charges be brought, and none were, but it technically was child porn. undeniably. simulated sex acts were quite clear.
oh wait, its only illegal if someone takes a picture of it... doing it is perfectly legal but dont you dare catch it on film...
That hardly seems likely when you consider the vast amount of resources the NWO is stovepiping into Orrin Hatch's various shame laws and schemata, including detection apparatus for cradle-to-grave sexual histories for calumny-rich dossiers.
you left out the most important part. IF the participants are minors.
fwiw, it's entirely legal in my state for a 14 yr old to have sex with a 15 yr old. or a 16 yr old to have sex with a 40 yr old. in neither of those cases is it legal to film it.
Are you using this term in an extremely metaphorical way, or just misusing it?
It's worth mentioning on that point that minors have been prosecuted for distributing otherwise perfectly legal adult pornography to other minors. There's been at least one case in just the last couple years where a high school kid got a felony conviction for distribution of pornography to minors for sending legal pornographic pictures to his own classmates. (Unfortunately, I can't immediately find a reference for the case. I do recall that it was blogged about at www.reason.com.)
Pogrom, in the literal sense.
Wow, that's some truly stunning lack of understanding. And I say that knowing you're a cop, so I'm really saying something.
FYI, possessing pictures of yourself, even if they would otherwise be classed as child porn, is not a crime. Now, if one child sends the picture to another, that's a different story--but unlike you, even the law hasn't quite gotten so thick-headed as to criminalize the possession of photos of one's own form.
Then he obviously lacks the maturity to understand the concept of legality and cannot be tried as an adult.
Either the child is an adult capable of consenting to sex acts in general, or he is a child and cannot be held legally culpable for violating the law. One or the other.
The law is quite often an ass.
It's ok to date Miley Cyrus if you're 20 (even if "It's a Felony" in her state) you won't get in trouble for that, but if you photoshop her head onto an adult nude body, you'll get arrested for child porn.
And we wonder why our kids are so frakked up? We're the ultimate hypocritical society. Torture Porn like Hostel is ok, but self sexting will get you prison. You can watch Neda die on cam and get off to it, but if you even talk about the idea of sex with a minor you can get charged, even if there is zero evidence that you planned or were planning on carrying out your ideas.
One of the best quotes I've ever heard "'Child Porn' is the root password to the Constitution, and 'Terrorism' is the back door.
My verbose and deeply insincere apology, Oren; I'd forgotten how much substance that factor adds to Whit's reasoning.
Regardless of my tone, I don't see you leaping to the defense of his actual point: that a child who simply creates and possesses an image of his or her own body, which image would otherwise constitute "child porn," is arguably in violation of the letter of any U.S. law.
I practice law on the Internet all the time. No license is required. The Internet sets the bar very low. :)
While taking and sending nude pictures of your 15 y.o. self might be borderline legal in some areas, forwarding nude pix of your girlfriend to your buddies is straight out. Even if you don't get arrested for that, once she finds out, you ain't gettin' any lovin for a long time.
In summary, don't take pictures that you don't want your parents and everyone else you know to see.
Who says being tried as an adult is the only option? Prof. Volokh said the kid could be arrested. Plenty of arrests are followed by juvenile delinquency proceedings. And as law student pointed out, at least in California juvenile offenders can be kept in custody until age 25.
948.12. Possession of child pornography
(1m) Whoever possesses any undeveloped film, photographic negative, photograph, motion picture, videotape, or other recording of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct under all of the following circumstances may be penalized under sub. (3):
(a) The person knows that he or she possesses the material.
(b) The person knows the character and content of the sexually explicit conduct in the material.
(c) The person knows or reasonably should know that the child engaged in sexually explicit conduct has not attained the age of 18 years.
There might be some sort of constitutional objection or caselaw protecting people who possess pics of themselves, but it definitely IS "child pornography" under the letter of Wisconsin law.
Dang, back in my day "date" meant "dinner and a movie" or something of that nature. Sometimes I long for the olden days.
venia ætatis
www.lawforkids.org
Meant for exactly this kind of situation. If the Juvenile is posting from a participating state, and the question is not already in the FAQS, then an attorney will review and post an answer to the question.
Because everyone here knows that that's what the law is. I might lament that state of law, but only a fool would think that such conduct is not quite clearly criminalized.
But in all seriousness, a JD court would give probation.
Agree, except that lots of parents seem to be clueless about how much supervision and discipline kids actually need, and that we're going to wake up some morning pretty soon and find out that whoopin' your kid gets you sent to jail.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.