MSN recently posted an article regarding teens facing child pornography charges for sending / receiving lacivious multimedia texts.
Child pornography is clearly a very touchy subject in the United States. It has been argued by some that US v. Williams was a warning shot indicating that virtual child pornography is likely to be addressed in the future. Of course, we’re dealing with real people here.
In the case of the teenage girls being charged with distribution of child pornography, I see a disturbing-yet-hilarious bit of irony: we ban child pornography under the assumption that the minors couldn’t intelligently consent to their actions. Pleadings in the alternative aside, doesn’t anyone else think it’s a bit bizarre that the resulting inferences are (1) Child A is mentally incapable of consenting to having lacivious photographs taken of him or herself; and (2) Child A is mentally capable of exploiting a minor?
That said, I think there’s an entirely valid reason for the law to want to control the dissemination of child pornography. I simply believe that there must be a better way to do it than to seriously consider labeling a child in this situation as a sex offender for life.
Incoming search terms:
- ponography united states pictures
- ponography united states
- ponography
- ponography united states picturesv
- CELLPHONES TEENAGERS
- ponography pictures
- ponograghy
- Teen ponography pictures
- teenagers ponography pictures
- teenagers phone
No related posts.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
i am sort of obsessed with the latest cellphones on the market and i am always on the lookout,-~
Excellent post. I was checking continuously this weblog and I am inspired! Extremely useful information specially the last part :) I care for such information much. I used to be seeking this particular info for a long time. Thanks and best of luck.