Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

I'm confident that a judge here would wave that prosecutor away with a fly-swat and tell him to stop wasting the court's time

Occom Bill wrote:

Ridiculous. The intent of the law is to stop the production and distribution of kiddie porn. Charging someone for doing so is hardly an absurd result.

The "intendment of law" means "the true meaning, the correct understanding or intention of the law." You have announced the alleged intention of the law without providing a factual basis for your announcement.

We don't have to engage in guessing games concerning legislative intent. The State of Ohio defended the statute before the United States Supreme Court. Thus, the whole world knows that the legislative purpose of the statute [R.C. § 2907.323] is to protect the victims of child pornography. Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 109 (1990). The Supreme Court stated:

"It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor is compelling. . . . The legislative judgment, as well as the judgment found in relevant literature, is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child.”

WHY, WHY, WHY, would the legislature hope to stop the production and distribution of child pornography? BECAUSE the legislative intent is to protect the VICTIMS of child pornography. The victims are the children who are the SUBJECTS of the pornographic materials. It is the victim's physiological, emotional, and mental health that the State of Ohio (and every state in the nation) hopes to safeguard. The State of Ohio, as well as every state in the entire nation, protects minors via statutory enactments because--as a matter of law--they lack the capacity to protect themselves.

Like the Hamling petitioners, Osborne had notice that his conduct was proscribed. It is obvious from the face of § 2907.323(A)(3) that the goal of the statute is to eradicate child pornography. The provision criminalizes the viewing and possessing of material depicting children in a state of nudity for other than "proper purposes." The provision appears in the "Sex Offenses" chapter of the Ohio Code. Section 2907.323 is preceded by § 2907.322, which proscribes "[p]andering sexually oriented matter involving a minor," and followed by § 2907.33, which proscribes "[d]eception to obtain matter harmful to juveniles."

The Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, for example, states that

Child pornography is often used as part of a method of seducing child victims. A child who is reluctant to engage in sexual activity with an adult or to pose for sexually explicit photos can sometimes be convinced by viewing other children having "fun" participating in the activity.

Other interests also support the Ohio law. First, as Ferber recognized, the materials produced by child pornographers permanently record the victim's abuse. The pornography's continued existence causes the child victims continuing harm by haunting the children in years to come. 458 U.S. at 759. The State's ban on possession and viewing encourages the possessors of these materials to destroy them. Second, encouraging the destruction of these materials is also desirable because evidence suggests that pedophiles use child pornography to seduce other children into sexual activity. [n7]

The prosecutor, Ken Oswalt, made public statements to ABC NEWS. Oswalt said, "There's a totally false perception among juveniles that there is no risk to this. That picture, once taken and sent, gives anyone who receives it the ability to do anything with it, forever. If that picture of you found its way onto the Internet, that's going to haunt you, potentially forever."

Thus, the minor at issue--who lacks the capacity as a matter of law to perceive the risk and the harm--could be haunted for the rest of her life if the "naked picture" she sent to her friends finds its way onto the Internet. So. How does the prosecutor act to protect this minor girl from this harm? He decided to subject this minor girl to a far greater harm that includes branding her as a felonious sex offender. Imposing a conviction for a felony sex offense upon the girl and possibly requiring her to register as a sex offender for the next 20 years will do FAR MORE HARM to the girl than the existence of a naked photo.

In a manner of speaking, if the CURE is far worse than the DISEASE, then few minors (or their parents), if any, would come forward to report crimes. Due to the prosecutor's improper application of the Ohio statute and his self-serving desire to bask in the national publicity, minors and their parents throughout the entire nation will be afraid to come forward. In turn, this places too much power and leverage in the hands of perpetrators.

Using the ARNOLD case posted above, the girls who photographed themselves in a sexually explicit manner and transferred those pictures to ARNOLD in exchange for money and marijuana are VICTIMS. Yet, someone like ARNOLD can now show his victims the Ohio prosecutor's press release and make them very afraid that they too could be prosecuted and convicted of a sex offense and branded as sex offenders.* A perpetrator could use that fear to blackmail the girls into posing for more nude photos or worse--for sexually explicit photos. Even the girls' parents, if they learned of the exploitation, would be afraid to report a perpetrator for fear of incriminating their own daughters.

*The Ohio prosecutor, in his press release and public statements, did not distinguish between nude pictures that are protected expression and pictures that involve a lewd exhibition or graphic focus on a minor's genitals. In short, he has misrepresented to the entire nation that taking, possessing, or transferring pictures showing mere nudity, without more, is a felony offense.

Using a law that was intended to protect VICTIMS as the means to subject them to additional VICTIMIZATION leads to adverse consequences. The legislative purpose is defeated. The result is absurd.

Your interpretation of the statute is UNREASONABLE because it does not serve the purpose to protect minors--it defeats the purpose. Your inability to comprehend this distinction compounds the problem. Some perpetrator of child sex offenses is probably monitoring your arguments and will use those arguments to blackmail his victim into posing for harmful pictures. The perpetrator will convince the minor, if she goes to the police to tell on him, then she will also be incriminating herself and she will be placed in jail and prosecuted as a sex offender--just like the girl in Ohio.

How evil is that Occom Bill?

You're in the business of aiding and abetting perpetrators of child sex offenses.

Maybe you need to heap your insults upon yourself instead of flinging them at me. If it was YOUR daughter that was being exploited and victimized by a law that was intended to protect her, you would want someone like me to defend her.

What's your motive Bill for all this stuff and your evident lack of gallantry.

This girl is 15. That's a woman. That's not a kiddie. I prefer fatty matures myself but this lass is a woman. To define a woman as a female person who has just gone past midnight on her 16th birthday, or 18th, which is even more ridiculous, is biologically fatuous. It is taking advantage of a matter the law can never have intended in order to bang on about some hobby horse or other.

She might be a little wild but that's not altogether unusual if one brings a Darwinian perspective to bear or even a cursory reading of the relevant literature.

I'm confident that a judge here would wave that prosecutor away with a fly-swat and tell him to stop wasting the court's time.

If it is ruled this kid can ignore the law with impunity; there will be a rash of this behavior and I don't find that healthy

Quote:

If it is ruled this kid can ignore the law with impunity; there will be a rash of this behavior and I don't find that healthy

if we could rid the law of all attempts to promote "healthy behaviour" we would be far more civilized. Law should be used to prevent behaviour that infringes upon the freedom and the rights of others. You remember don't you? I am free to do whatever I want until what I want bangs up against what you want. You are not free however, to use law to make me do what you think I should want.

Death to the do-gooders!

Anyone sending images, that meet the criteria to be considered kiddie-porn, to kids is infringing on the other's right to not receive it. Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose

Debra Law wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:

If your interpretation of 2907.323 had merit; what statute would apply to a minor who habitually created masturbation porn and sent it to people other than minors?

2907.32 Pandering obscenity.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2907

This statute only applies if it is distributed publicly or for profit. It would not apply to the girl for sending her kiddie porn privately, nor would it even address its production.

2907.32 Pandering obscenity.

(A) No person, with knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, shall do any of the following:

(2) Promote or advertise for sale, delivery, or dissemination; sell, deliver, publicly disseminate, publicly display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide; or offer or agree to sell, deliver, publicly disseminate, publicly display, exhibit, present, rent, or provide, any obscene material;

In Miller v. California (1973), 413 U.S. 15, 18, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, fn. 2., when articulating its definition of obscenity, the United States Supreme Court noted that the word "obscene" means "'offensive to the senses, or to taste or refinement; disgusting, repulsive, filthy, foul, abominable, loathsome,'" quoting VII Oxford English Dictionary (1933) 26, while the term "pornography" derived from the Greek (porne, harlot, and graphos, writing), means "'a depiction (as in writing or painting) of licentiousness or lewdness: a portrayal of erotic behavior designed to cause sexual excitement,'" quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary (3d Ed. 1986) 1767. Sexually explicit or sexually oriented images may fall within the category of pornography, but not all pornography is "obscene."

(Substitute adult recipients in this exact case; and it would apply not at all) That is what 2907.323 is for. Would you like to try again? Or would you like to admit that Ohio intends to prosecute the production and distribution of kiddie porn with the statute they created for that purpose?

2907.01 Sex offenses general definitions.

(H) “Nudity” means the showing, representation, or depiction of human male or female genitals, pubic area, or buttocks with less than a full, opaque covering, or of a female breast with less than a full, opaque covering of any portion thereof below the top of the nipple, or of covered male genitals in a discernibly turgid state.

Your attempt to shove the crimes of 2907.323 into several different statutes that do not specifically address the kiddie porn the way 2907.323 does is idiotic.

If the legislators intended to immune minors from 2907.323; they would have simply done so. That some producers will also be actors is very predictable, and legislation made no attempt to exclude these persons either.

You put up a good fight, Debra, but your premise remains ridiculous. You still haven't answered why 2907.323 continues to apply long after a minor becomes an adult or perishes. Why? Because it is obvious that legislative intent extends beyond protecting the minor[s] depicted. This is obvious to anyone with a brain in their head, Debra. Your persistent ducking of this fatal flaw in your argument is obvious.

Occom Bill wrote:

You put up a good fight, Debra, but your premise remains ridiculous. You still haven't answered why 2907.323 continues to apply long after a minor becomes an adult or perishes. Why? Because it is obvious that legislative intent extends beyond protecting the minor[s] depicted. This is obvious to anyone with a brain in their head, Debra. Your persistent ducking of this fatal flaw in your argument is obvious.

Inasmuch as my "premise" is based on the facts and the law, including the public policy of every state in the nation and the legislative intent of "child pornography" statutes, I am right . . . and you are wrong.

Have a good day.

Supreme Court Justice White's opinion is not proof of anything. Possibly not even Supreme Court Justice White's opinion itself.

Debra Law wrote:

Occom Bill wrote:

You put up a good fight, Debra, but your premise remains ridiculous. You still haven't answered why 2907.323 continues to apply long after a minor becomes an adult or perishes. Why? Because it is obvious that legislative intent extends beyond protecting the minor[s] depicted. This is obvious to anyone with a brain in their head, Debra. Your persistent ducking of this fatal flaw in your argument is obvious.

Inasmuch as my "premise" is based on the facts and the law, including the public policy of every state in the nation and the legislative intent of "child pornography" statutes, I am right . . . and you are wrong.

Have a good day.

Why bother quoting me if you're not going to answer the question asked? As stated in it; you can't. I showed you Supreme Court Justice White's opinion as proof, and you still dance around as if your idiotic interpretation still has merit. Your pronouncement of "I am right" doesn't trump the Supreme Court Justice White, Debra, and only a fool would continue on as if it did.

Good Day!