A 15-year-old girl was arrested for child pornography and child sexual abuse for posting pictures of herself online. Would it be statutory rape if she touched herself? Or would that fall under Romeo and Juliet laws?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Is this like some bizarre religion-wide side-effect or something? Because Catholicism and Buddhism seem like such wildly different faiths, but here we go again, chronic incidents of child rape by priests…Buddhist priests. And like the Catholic side of the story, they've got some of these priests…
Last year, then-attorney general Phill (the extra 'l' is for "lascivious") Kline was sued over his interpretation of a state law. He claimed that a law requiring doctors and other counselors to report sexual abuse required them to inform his office of any sexual contact with a minor child, even if…
This is a real mystery. Donohue is an angry guy with a fax machine who gets donations from affronted Catholics, which is nothing the church can do about, obviously…but he also pretends to be a defender of Catholicism while having no standing with the church and while making the most outrageous…
What is wrong with people? It's just a frackin' book!
A 15-year-old girl has been arrested on suspicion of inciting religious hatred after allegedly burning an English-language version of the Qur'an — and then posting video footage of the act on Facebook.
No. It is obscene to start jailing people…
You got to be fucking kidding.... That's just about the most stupid thing I've ever heard.
I only think aspects of it are stupid. Well, two out of three.
She was charged with "sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography".
Dissemination is exactly what she was doing. Any venue that releases child porn into the public needs to be stopped, and whomever is committing the acts should be in some way punished. She was meeting the demand for people to look at naked young children.
However, I don't get the other charges of abuse and possession. Unless there is much that is being withheld. Jail also seems a bit much, though a year or so of community service couldn't hurt.
I agree that dissemination is a valid charge.
Did you notice that the original article from USA today (not Boing Boing) was dated 2004?
I made a quick (carefully worded) google search and couldn't find a follow up, although there have been a number of blog comments lately. One source (a comment on a blog) indicated that she ended up not being arrested, but I couldn't confirm that anywhere else.