What's Your Take on this Decision?

Some of you guys are a little confused. The determination of whether any given image does or does not qualify as "child porn" depends entirely on the nature of the image, not on the identity or "intent" of the persons distributing it. Certainly, the nature of the crime and its consequences to the victim are not magically made any less severe just because the person who sent out the shots is a minor. The perpetrator here will receive clemency based on her age as Canadian law dictates, and if it is anything like the analogous American law, records of her conviction will not follow her into the age of majority. Where is the injustice here?
 
Last edited:
No, but my Facebook profile is a pic of me taking a massive **** all over the floor. PM me for details.
 
I can see both sides of the argument, but I still can't dredge up any real sympathy for the little bitch.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I can see both sides of the argument, but I still can't dredge up any real sympathy for the little bitch.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just want to see her charged for what she actually did with a law that applies equally to everyone. An update on the story which I didn't point out earlier helps make my point:

An earlier version of this story said the investigation focused on 36,000 text messages and 4,000 images that were shared between a group of teens over a period of two months. In fact, only three images and a handful of texts out of those thousands of messages were the focus of the trial.
Click to expand...

So there were three questionable images out of 4000 sent over a period of 2 months. That's some pretty close scrutiny and although it is a serious attempt at cyberbullying it hardly fits the label of kiddy porn kingpin for this girl.

To give this some perspective (not equivalency), check out the Yellow Card thread in Community and see how many people have infractions on the JREF over the same period or over the same number of posts. I myself have 21 warnings and one 24 hour suspension in 9000 or so posts.

And even though I have little sympathy for members who get banned permanently, I would like them to be banned for what they actually did and not have the rules tortured to get rid of them.

YMMV.
 
qayak said:
I agree. I just want to see her charged for what she actually did with a law that applies equally to everyone. An update on the story which I didn't point out earlier helps make my point:



So there were three questionable images out of 4000 sent over a period of 2 months. That's some pretty close scrutiny and although it is a serious attempt at cyberbullying it hardly fits the label of kiddy porn kingpin for this girl.

To give this some perspective (not equivalency), check out the Yellow Card thread in Community and see how many people have infractions on the JREF over the same period or over the same number of posts. I myself have 21 warnings and one 24 hour suspension in 9000 or so posts.

And even though I have little sympathy for members who get banned permanently, I would like them to be banned for what they actually did and not have the rules tortured to get rid of them.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

This touches on something colander said earlier about the spirit of the law, at least in Canada, and a thought I had I wasn't able to articulate.

There seems to me to be a trend - probably not anything new, but I don't know either way - to "get" someone. OJ for instance - find him not guilty in criminal court? Punish him in civil court. The LAPD officers who beat Rodney King - find them not guilty on the first offense? Rush in and get a conviction on violating King's civil rights. The whole idea of shopping around to find something to legally penalize someone rather than just prosecuting obvious violations of the law is repugnant to me.

It's like a boss looking around for an excuse to fire someone when they don't like their face or choice of football team.
 
qayak said:
I agree. I just want to see her charged for what she actually did with a law that applies equally to everyone. An update on the story which I didn't point out earlier helps make my point:



So there were three questionable images out of 4000 sent over a period of 2 months. That's some pretty close scrutiny and although it is a serious attempt at cyberbullying it hardly fits the label of kiddy porn kingpin for this girl.

To give this some perspective (not equivalency), check out the Yellow Card thread in Community and see how many people have infractions on the JREF over the same period or over the same number of posts. I myself have 21 warnings and one 24 hour suspension in 9000 or so posts.

And even though I have little sympathy for members who get banned permanently, I would like them to be banned for what they actually did and not have the rules tortured to get rid of them.

YMMV.
Click to expand...

Was she charged with being a 'kiddy porn kingpin'?

How do infractions on JREF provide prospective?

Why does the large amount of evidence sifted through have any baring at all on whether or not the ones found are criminal or condemnable? (You have sex with woman all your life, but you have sex with just one goat...) How does her use of text in large amounts mitigate any of her other actions?
 
qayak said:
I agree. I just want to see her charged for what she actually did with a law that applies equally to everyone.
Click to expand...

She is being charged for disseminating sexually explicit images of a minor, because that is what she did. If you or I had sent out those very same pictures that she sent out, we would be charged with the same thing that she is being charged with.



So there were three questionable images out of 4000 sent over a period of 2 months. That's some pretty close scrutiny and although it is a serious attempt at cyberbullying it hardly fits the label of kiddy porn kingpin for this girl.
Click to expand...

That's fine, because she isn't being charged with any counts of being a "kiddy porn kingpin", whatever that means. She is being charged with distributing sexually explicit images of a minor, because, again, that is what she did. As far as I can tell, leveling these charges for this offense is perfectly compatible with Canadian law as it is currently written.

Would you prefer that Canadian law be changed so that even if you are distributing child porn, you may only be charged with child porn distribution if you are some kind of moustache-twirling, Snidely Whiplash-esque mega-pervert who captains a huge underground money-making child porn empire? How would you word that part of the statute?
 
qayak said:
I just want to see her charged for what she actually did with a law that applies equally to everyone.
Click to expand...


I agree. But that means it's entirely up to Parliament, and the Conservative government hasn't seemed interested in writing such laws. (We'll have to wait and see what it does in regards to prostitution since laws prohibiting that were recently struck down as unconstitutional.)
 
Believe it or not I actually agree that child porn laws can be over-reaching, overly harsh, and overly stigmatized in some cases. Not here though. Hopefully society gets to the point where her entire life isn't ruined because of this.

It's already a generational gap change I've noticed. Younger people, even a great many people my age, don't shame people who have had sexy time fun pictures of them leaked. It's almost universal that people who try to shame others with such pictures only make themselves look mean, stupid, and hypocritical (I've never seen such actions from someone who doesn't create such pictures of themselves as well.) Perhaps soon it will just be considered 'poor form' to leak such pictures, with less sever negative effects for the victim. Note that I'm not saying it will become alright and I'm certainly not saying that child porn is fine and dandy. I also note that my experience might be atypical because of the self-selecting group I normally associate with. Only once has a guy shown me a picture like that that a woman has sent him, without her permission (and no, I didn't ask to see them). It was generally accepted by all around that the guy was/is a giant creep who gets far more attention from the opposite sex than he deserves.

What was I talking about again?
 
Last edited:
colander said:
She is being charged for disseminating sexually explicit images of a minor, because that is what she did. If you or I had sent out those very same pictures that she sent out, we would be charged with the same thing that she is being charged with.





That's fine, because she isn't being charged with any counts of being a "kiddy porn kingpin", whatever that means. She is being charged with distributing sexually explicit images of a minor, because, again, that is what she did. As far as I can tell, leveling these charges for this offense is perfectly compatible with Canadian law as it is currently written.

Would you prefer that Canadian law be changed so that even if you are distributing child porn, you may only be charged with child porn distribution if you are some kind of moustache-twirling, Snidely Whiplash-esque mega-pervert who captains a huge underground money-making child porn empire? How would you word that part of the statute?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't even get what it is some people find difficult to grasp here.
 
Loss Leader said:
I have no problem applying the law as written to the child. She should be punished as a juvenile, though.
Click to expand...

Almost this.

If the life long effects of a sex crime conviction are the same in the UK Canada as in the US, I'd favor some other charge if one exists that fits at least as well as the specifications of the crime she is currently charged with.
 
Last edited:
The effect of conviction in this case will be that her record will be sealed when the offender turns 18.

Personally I think the decision is correct, given the way the laws are presently written. Let's face it, the victim's images were placed on her Facebook page - a couple of quick image captures and they're all over the web, and the victim gets a life of being the object of some creeps' spank fantasies.
 
Corsair 115 said:
I agree. But that means it's entirely up to Parliament, and the Conservative government hasn't seemed interested in writing such laws. (We'll have to wait and see what it does in regards to prostitution since laws prohibiting that were recently struck down as unconstitutional.)
Click to expand...

The good thing in this case is we don't have to wait for the Canadian version of the Tea Party to do something reasonable about the situation. The Supreme Court will be hearing the case. :)

There is a **** storm brewing between judges and the Tories already over the victim's-services surcharge.
 
Loss Leader said:
I have no problem applying the law as written to the child. She should be punished as a juvenile, though.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess . . . although I will have to rethink my view of child pornographers. Apparently they aren't dangerous people who get sexual gratification through the abuse of children. A lot of them are children who did dumb/mean things.
 
Jekyll's Guest said:
Just to be clear, if someone photographed my underaged kid naked, I'd want to take a tire iron to them. As an aside, I think in general our society is insane when it comes to sex and nudity. Repressed and hysterical.
Click to expand...

There's the rub. She didn't take the pictures. The boyfriend, or the actual victim, did (it isn't clear).

So, why weren't they charged? They were the actual creators. Also, if she was charged with possession of child porn, the images must of been on her phone, so how did they get there? Someone had to send them to her. Why weren't they charged?

This has nothing to do with punishing a child pornographer, it has to do with not having a law to punish someone for what they actually did so we twist other laws to make them fit the situation.

What the Crown did in this case is worse than what this girl did.
 
qayak said:
There's the rub. She didn't take the pictures. The boyfriend, or the actual victim, did (it isn't clear).

So, why weren't they charged? They were the actual creators. Also, if she was charged with possession of child porn, the images must of been on her phone, so how did they get there? Someone had to send them to her. Why weren't they charged?
Click to expand...

When you go fishing, do you usually catch all of the fish?

This has nothing to do with punishing a child pornographer, it has to do with not having a law to punish someone for what they actually did so we twist other laws to make them fit the situation.

What the Crown did in this case is worse than what this girl did.
Click to expand...

qayak, would you care to take a shot at articulating the respects in which you believe the offense which this perpetrator is charged with committing differ from what she has actually done? Because from my reading of the statute under which she is charged, she done it, no mistake. Surely your quarrel lies somehow with the wording of the law and not the actions of the Crown, which is bound to enforce the law as it is written.
 
Last edited:
colander said:
Some of you guys are a little confused. The determination of whether any given image does or does not qualify as "child porn" depends entirely on the nature of the image, not on the identity or "intent" of the persons distributing it. Certainly, the nature of the crime and its consequences to the victim are not magically made any less severe just because the person who sent out the shots is a minor. The perpetrator here will receive clemency based on her age as Canadian law dictates, and if it is anything like the analogous American law, records of her conviction will not follow her into the age of majority. Where is the injustice here?
Click to expand...


QFT (warning, don't rely on any opinions I express for any reason, I am not expressing a legal opinion).

The original picture from the then-girlfriend (?) to the then-boyfriend, presumably had a sexual purpose. It was then knowingly distributed by someone who was neither the creator nor intended recipient. From what I know I have no problem with this. It is very different from e.g. a US case in which someone is charged for transmitting their own picture.

Re the comments about the negative consequences of a child porn conviction, well, if that's a problem you should amend the laws dealing with the consequences of a child porn conviction (e.g. a recent bar admission case maybe Kansas or Kentucky, the facts I read involving the past conviction were that it was someone who had apparently knowingly got a bunch of porn images, BUT unknown to him several of which included some children, and had been found guilty because it didn't matter if one didn't know there was child porn, the law was knowingly get porn + children in some whether you know or not = guilty).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom