Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

The more I think about this misused of the law the more annoy I become.

First, the law in question was design to offer protections to young people like the girl in question, not as a tool to do great harm to her.

Second the DA stated reason why he charge her was that he got tired of warning the local teenagers to stop sharing sexual pictures among themselves and he wish to make an example, in other word his pride was hurt that the teenagers did not take the whole issue seriously.

Kind of like shooting, a puppy who is slow to be housebroken is it not in the hope that the other puppies will get the idea?

It would also seem this sharing of pictures was very common with the local teenagers, so why of all the teenagers did the prosecutor not pick a teenager with an intact family to bring the full weigh of the law down on instead of a young woman with no one to stand up for her?

After numerous complaints; the Prosecutor was decent enough to tour the county giving thousands of kids fair warning.

Quote:

After numerous complaints; the Prosecutor was decent enough to tour the county giving thousands of kids fair warning.

Yeah. Putting ideas into their heads to be milked later when one of them bit at the bait.

Begs the question: why wasn't this prosecutor put on a leash earlier? Hopefully someone will be held accountable at election time.

By the way what is next are we going to find teenagers masbating and charge them with statutory raping themselves perhaps?

The above is no more or not less silly then charging someone under the child porn laws for taking a picture of themself.

I have misread nothing, Debra. I directly quoted a Supreme Court Decision. Your continued denial of the obvious only serves to make you look more incompetent. Your continued ducking of the question that disproves your nonsense speaks volumes.

According you; charging a Teen with underage alcohol consumption, to reduce the occurrence of underage alcohol consumption would be an "absurd result."

Common sense, Ohio Statute 2907.323, the Prosecutor, Supreme Court Justice White and the majority of the highest Court in the land all disagree.

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.

It is obvious from the face of § 2907.323(A)(3) that the goal of the statute is to eradicate child pornography.

You're lying again, Bill. I have addressed all of your arguments. All of your arguments are without merit.

The legislature cannot ERADICATE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY just because it wants to--it must serve a LEGITIMATE government purpose.

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.

Now who in the hell are we protecting here by applying the law in the silly manner you wish it to be apply. Who is the victim of this so call crime? The boy who received it? Then however if we are going to apply the child porn laws he is also a sexual offender and off to jail with him to.

If an adult had taken the picture then the 15-year-old girl would had been the victim but no adult did so. You are now trying to claim that she is the victim of the act and the criminal because of the act at the same time.

Kind of like charging someone the crime of robbing themselves or raping themselves or on and on.

Sorry that you don’t approve of naked pictures of females but to punish in any legal way a 15 year old for taking such a picture is clearly insane.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable in a Muslin country where a woman is beaten on the streets if she uncovers any part of her body?

Adults, who aren't depraved like Hawkeye, don't think of 15 year olds as adults.

(You'd be hard pressed to find a more consistent advocate of women's rights.)

Quote:

Adults, who aren't depraved like Hawkeye, don't think of 15 year olds as adults.

Which adults do you mean Bill? 15 year old, and younger, girls have been highly prized in history by kings, generals, ministers, artists, grand viziers, emperors, merchants, archbishops and most others whose position gave them access to them. Are you not aware of that?

The legal age for marriage in France in 1880 was fifteen and the Goncourt journal has an entry- "The Sarah Bernhardt family, now
there's a family! The mother made whores of her daughters as soon as they turned thirteen." And only influential and fashionable men need apply.

Even Coronation Street had a thirteen year old giving birth.

Argumentum ad antiquitatem (the argument to antiquity or tradition). This is the familiar argument that some policy, behavior, or practice is right or acceptable because "it's always been done that way." This is an extremely popular fallacy in debate rounds; for example, "Every great civilization in history has provided state subsidies for art and culture!" But that fact does not justify continuing the policy.

Because an argumentum ad antiquitatem is easily refuted by simply pointing it out, in general it should be avoided. But if you must make such an argument -- perhaps because you can't come up with anything better -- you can at least make it marginally more acceptable by providing some reason why tradition should usually be respected. For instance, you might make an evolutionary argument to the effect that the prevalence of a particular practice in existing societies is evidence that societies that failed to adopt it were weeded out by natural selection. This argument is weak, but better than the fallacy alone.

Quote:

(You'd be hard pressed to find a more consistent advocate of women's rights.)

Easy to say.