Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4
17 year old charged for having nudes of himself in his phone
Topic Started: Sep 4 2015, 12:07 AM (2,142 Views)
+ Pyrus
Member Avatar


Din
Sep 4 2015, 02:49 AM
TheGmGoken
Sep 4 2015, 02:47 AM
I just think it's weird that the reason why he's in trouble was because hewwas 16 when he took the picture and now he's 17 and is "adult". I understand the whole child porn. But the fact that he doesn't own his own pics is...odd..
What if an industrious pedo decided to produce child porn starring himself from the age of 10 to 16. Then when he's 17 he starts a website and distributes his own porn.

Wut now
That would never work.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Havoc_Wreaker
Default Avatar
Popcorn

Din stop being ridiculous is all i can say, that specific law is self contradicting

oh and he is not a degenerate teenager
degenerate:
''having lost the physical, mental, or moral qualities considered normal and desirable; showing evidence of decline''

what he did was normal and desirable therefore cannot be a degenerate
Edited by Havoc_Wreaker, Sep 4 2015, 03:57 AM.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Steve
Member Avatar
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.

It seems clear that what constitutes as child porn or not drastically needs to be re-evaluated.


Can f*** all the b***s at 16, get 'em pregnant too.
Receive a picture of any of them? JAIL if anyone happens to see it.

How does that make any sort of sense? Sexting is something that's going to happen anyway why ruin teenagers lives for it as if a photo of a naked 16 year old girl in a relationship with a boy of similar age is in any way as bad as a sexually explicit photo of a 6 year old girl...

I mean come on, it's just disgusting how peoples lives can be ruined over something so f***ing innocuous, probably just because the people who write these laws couldn't get any when they were young. It seems that petty to me anyway.

And then there's the bulls*** with guys going to jail for having sex with an underage girl who pretended she was of legal age at a club or whatever...how is that fair? "you should have asked how old she was!" right, 'cause she'd definitely be honest and that's not a weird thing to ask someone out of the blue.


I just don't understand how stupid s*** like this still happens, does nobody with the power to change it ever look through the list of laws and think "wow f***, that just does not work in today's world"
Posted Image


Definitely not a succubus, fear not
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Samantha
Member Avatar
Keyboard Warriors, Everywhere.

Din
Sep 4 2015, 01:34 AM
Taking naked photos of yourself is degenerate.
Sexting is even more degenerate.

They are degenerate teenagers. It's good thar they learned their lesson before their photos/sex videos leak onto the internet for the world to see.

You speak like your about 80 years old, just saying.

It's natural for teenagers (hormones etc) to be sexually active but this isn't what this is about. A 17 year old took nude pictures of him self for private viewing by his GF with her consent. This by the way is totally legal at the age of 16 in the UK, no one here would class them as a ''degenerate''

noun
dɪˈdʒɛn(ə)rət/
1.
an immoral or corrupt person.

Yeah... No
Edited by Samantha, Sep 4 2015, 10:25 AM.

Keyboard Warrior

1. A Person who, being unable to express his anger through physical violence (owning to their physical weakness, lack of bravery and/or conviction in real life), instead manifests said emotions through the text-based medium of the internet, usually in the form of aggressive writing that the Keyboard Warrior would not (for reasons previously mentioned) be able to give form to in real life.

2. Keyboard Warriors are generally identified by unneccessary rage in their written communications, and are regarded as 'losers' by other virtual identities on the internet.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


lucrowe
Sep 4 2015, 02:55 AM
Doesn't really matter at the end of the day bro. He sent sexually explicit images of a minor to another party. Doesn't matter how old he was or is, it's just the law.
The law is the law so he should have known better at the end of the day!
No, it does matter. The law is there to protect and serve the people, if the law seems backwardly unfair and cruel, then it needs to be reviewed. You don't just say "dems what people writ, dems what we follow". That sort of thinking has bred far too much stupidity, and impeded on too much progression over the years.
Quote:
 
Heaps of people have been convicted in identical circumstances. Plus they do teach this at school. There's no cause for ignorance in this case. He would have been charged if they found the images a year earlier anyway.
Then heaps of people are being treated unfairly. A lot of people appear to be ignorant about this, since, it seems, every time it happens there is a write up that points out the inanity of it, and most agree the law is wrong - not the teenagers.
Quote:
 
Unfortunately for the young bloke on trial, what he's doing is infact production of child porn and regardless of our personal views and opinions, it's the law and you can't break the law without consequences.
Why is he only being treated as a perpetrator, and not a victim (which he also, technically, is)? The law should be able to distinguish between someone in a equal, consensual relationship, and someone taking advantage of another. There is no victim, therefore there should be no punishment.

As far as illegal porn of himself goes: why can't an adult share pictures of themselves as a minor? Nobody is being unequally forced in to something they are not capable of, or ready to consent to, and as such there is no victim - only a consenting adult sharing themselves. The only grounds that people can object to it is based on decency, and whether something is indecent or not is not grounds to make it illegal. Especially when they're practically adults when the images were taken.

I find smelly alcoholics, with sick all down their tops, to be indecent; should alcoholics be put in prison? Well, perhaps for their own safety, but no. That's not to say we encourage such behaviour—public disapproval would prevent it becoming acceptable to share images of yourself at the age of twelve—but why should someone be punished when there is no victim?
Edited by Sandy Shore, Sep 4 2015, 11:47 AM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Emmeth
Member Avatar
I Yoeri

What if I took a nude picture of myself, that was of no sexual nature at all? I was just standing there butt naked not making any sexy poses, just stand there with no particular expression on my face. Of course, like the title suggests, this is on my phone for my own viewing. Oh, and I am 17 years old.

Would that be classified as being "unlawful"? Would I be breaking the law? What this suggests is that there is nothing natural about your body, because whatever is natural is not against the law.

Oh, and I'm not even gonna mention the whole "degenerate" debate, because that's just ridicoulously wrong.
Posted Image
My Twitch Page
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sasuke
Member Avatar


Just give him the death sentence and be done with it. One outrageous charge deserves an outrageous sentence.
Posted Image
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


How's the trail going anyway?
I imagine this must be confusing for the jury.
You know wouldn't he at worst be on trail for sexting anyway?
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucrowe
Member Avatar


Lazuli
Sep 4 2015, 11:44 AM
lucrowe
Sep 4 2015, 02:55 AM
Doesn't really matter at the end of the day bro. He sent sexually explicit images of a minor to another party. Doesn't matter how old he was or is, it's just the law.
The law is the law so he should have known better at the end of the day!
No, it does matter. The law is there to protect and serve the people, if the law seems backwardly unfair and cruel, then it needs to be reviewed. You don't just say "dems what people writ, dems what we follow". That sort of thinking has bred far too much stupidity, and impeded on too much progression over the years.
Quote:
 
Heaps of people have been convicted in identical circumstances. Plus they do teach this at school. There's no cause for ignorance in this case. He would have been charged if they found the images a year earlier anyway.
Then heaps of people are being treated unfairly. A lot of people appear to be ignorant about this, since, it seems, every time it happens there is a write up that points out the inanity of it, and most agree the law is wrong - not the teenagers.
Quote:
 
Unfortunately for the young bloke on trial, what he's doing is infact production of child porn and regardless of our personal views and opinions, it's the law and you can't break the law without consequences.
Why is he only being treated as a perpetrator, and not a victim (which he also, technically, is)? The law should be able to distinguish between someone in a equal, consensual relationship, and someone taking advantage of another. There is no victim, therefore there should be no punishment.

As far as illegal porn of himself goes: why can't an adult share pictures of themselves as a minor? Nobody is being unequally forced in to something they are not capable of, or ready to consent to, and as such there is no victim - only a consenting adult sharing themselves. The only grounds that people can object to it is based on decency, and whether something is indecent or not is not grounds to make it illegal. Especially when they're practically adults when the images were taken.

I find smelly alcoholics, with sick all down their tops, to be indecent; should alcoholics be put in prison? Well, perhaps for their own safety, but no. That's not to say we encourage such behaviour—public disapproval would prevent it becoming acceptable to share images of yourself at the age of twelve—but why should someone be punished when there is no victim?
The law may not be fair, but if you break it you will suffer the consequences. It's just the way it is. If you don't like it, that's just too bad. Do I think this teenager should be prisoned for what he's done, no way. He probably knows he's made a stupid mistake but unfortunately I don't write the rules. Regardless of our feelings, if he gets punished that will be because a court of law has found him guilty and if so, no amount of pissing and moaning is gonna change that.

Heaps of people do get treated unfairly due to the law! I'm surprised you're surprised by this.

Good point about him also being the victim, but i think the catch 22 of that here is you can't be a victim to a crime you committed. Either way, I don't know why you're fighting me on this. If you have a problem with what I'm saying then you're problem isn't with me, it's with the law; it's with the facts. And unless you're planning on campaigning against it there's quite literally nothing you can do about it. It doesn't matter how much you disagree with me, it isn't going to change anything.

It's like I said, this sort of thing happens. It's not a grey area at all! Is it fair? Probably not. The law is not always fair, but honestly, what can we do about it?
Posted Image

"I'm not in it for the money, I'm rapping to be relevant,
Spittin' for the hell of it to get me in my element
and stomp whack rappers like an elephant...
I'm the celebrant delegate spittin' elegant benevolence" - Lucrowe MC.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lucrowe-MC/661247567303948?ref=bookmarks

*Str8 Outta Namek, A Crazy Mutha F**ka Named Lucrowe*
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


lucrowe
Sep 4 2015, 09:25 PM
Heaps of people do get treated unfairly due to the law! I'm surprised you're surprised by this.
I'm not at all surprised by it; I'm somewhat surprised by you suggesting he should have known better, and as if it's somehow his own fault if he gets punished over this. You don't have to feel sorry for him, and you don't have to feel obliged to do anything about it, but suggesting he—and not the law—is at fault, is absurd.

Not only is it not common to consider that owning pictures of your consenting, same-aged friend's body from year-or-two-ago would be criminal, no one should have to. Certainly not your own body.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucrowe
Member Avatar


Lazuli
Sep 4 2015, 10:20 PM
lucrowe
Sep 4 2015, 09:25 PM
Heaps of people do get treated unfairly due to the law! I'm surprised you're surprised by this.
I'm not at all surprised by it; I'm somewhat surprised by you suggesting he should have known better, and as if it's somehow his own fault if he gets punished over this. You don't have to feel sorry for him, and you don't have to feel obliged to do anything about it, but suggesting he—and not the law—is at fault, is absurd.

Not only is it not common to consider that owning pictures of your consenting, same-aged friend's body from year-or-two-ago would be criminal, no one should have to. Certainly not your own body.
He should have known better. I've explained why.

I've made the same point a few different ways now already. I'm not going to repeat myself again. We're not adding anything new to the discussion. Unless you have something new to add?
Posted Image

"I'm not in it for the money, I'm rapping to be relevant,
Spittin' for the hell of it to get me in my element
and stomp whack rappers like an elephant...
I'm the celebrant delegate spittin' elegant benevolence" - Lucrowe MC.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lucrowe-MC/661247567303948?ref=bookmarks

*Str8 Outta Namek, A Crazy Mutha F**ka Named Lucrowe*
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


I did add something new; specifically for you. You questioned why I was fighting you on this, and claimed my problem would be with the law, and not something you've said, and that you were surprised that I was surprised the law treats some people unfairly.

I informed you why I was against your post, since you expressed confusion, and that I wasn't surprised that the law treats some people unfairly, but that you think it's okay simply because it's the law.

Yes, you explained why you think he should have known better - but you're wrong. It's an asinine offense that, clearly, few people would have thought was criminal until it came up.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lucrowe
Member Avatar


Okay. ONE LAST TIME! Everything you're addressing I've covered. But here we go.

I never said it was okay that the law treats people unfairly. I said there's nothing we can do about it. Which is true! I don't agree with every law there is, but i know enough to know not to break it anyway.

Since more and more young people have been caught up in borderline identical circumstances and been convicted of such, there have been many news reports on the subject and they do teach this in school now (i know i never mentioned the media, but i did mention the school part). So YES! He should have known better! He obviously didn't know better, otherwise he wouldn't be in this mess. I'm not going to speculate as to why he didn't know better, but since there are now preventative measures in place and more education has been appointed to the subject he should have known better.

I'm not taking sides in this argument. This is just how it is. I've explained my personal feelings on the matter, and my feelings don't agree with the law (not 100% at least). However, I've also explained that regardless of my personal feelings it ultimately doesn't make a bit of difference!
Posted Image

"I'm not in it for the money, I'm rapping to be relevant,
Spittin' for the hell of it to get me in my element
and stomp whack rappers like an elephant...
I'm the celebrant delegate spittin' elegant benevolence" - Lucrowe MC.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Lucrowe-MC/661247567303948?ref=bookmarks

*Str8 Outta Namek, A Crazy Mutha F**ka Named Lucrowe*
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

If the Law results in situations like this, then the Law is wrong. Start a petition or contact your political representative about the problem. You could even campaign without doing any of that. There are a lot of different options that are available to you. The Law has to constantly adapt when new information and interpretations are presented. The whole apathetic attitude that a lot of people hold towards the Law and Politics in general is honestly quite scary. Changes in the Law didn't suddenly come about, rights weren't allocated at the whim of a single person. They were a result of people pushing for change.

As for the topic on hand, it's an obvious oversight in the Law. Any Judge worth their salt would either throw this case out or set a precedent so specific situations like this aren't brought to trial again.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


lucrowe
Sep 4 2015, 11:01 PM
I never said it was okay that the law treats people unfairly.
Quote:
 
The law is the law so he should have known better at the end of the day!
And all your other comments that imply he should have just known better.
Quote:
 
I said there's nothing we can do about it. Which is true! I don't agree with every law there is, but i know enough to know not to break it anyway.
So, if you was in this boy's position, would you just say "well, that's the law?" Of course, your reply will be that you would have been too savvy to have made this mistake, but let's not deny this could have been any sixteen/seventeen-year-old, who hasn't done anything wrong. The issue isn't them being too stupid or uninformed to break the law, it's the law being as it is.

Quote:
 
Since more and more young people have been caught up in borderline identical circumstances and been convicted of such, there have been many news reports on the subject and they do teach this in school now (i know i never mentioned the media, but i did mention the school part). So YES! He should have known better!
No. The law should have been reformed by now.

Quote:
 
I'm not taking sides in this argument. This is just how it is. I've explained my personal feelings on the matter, and my feelings don't agree with the law (not 100% at least). However, I've also explained that regardless of my personal feelings it ultimately doesn't make a bit of difference!
You did take sides, when you, over and over, said he is at fault. You consistently say that these teenagers shouldn't be the ones breaking the law, even if you think it's stupid, you haven't once said the law should be changed and these teenagers should have their charges dropped.

As far as I can see, you think it's their fault. This is what I'm addressing.

Why did you give Nagito a thumbs up when I have been saying the law is wrong, and you—who seemingly disagrees with me—have been apathetically saying—which Nagito considers "honestly quite scary"—that they (the teenagers) should have just known better - and that's just the way it is, basically?
Edited by Sandy Shore, Sep 4 2015, 11:54 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 4

Theme Designed by McKee91