Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

This is the perfect example of a fallacious Argumentum ad antiquitatem.

What a ridiculous thing to say in relation to sexual activity. Do you not employ the argument to antiquity and tradition in these matters Bill? Tell us about it. Give Darwin's ghost a good laugh. The pooter-pies have been parading their temptations and the cocks have been twitching their nostrils in response for some inimaginable period of time now. Are you suggesting it was all fallacious? Even educated fleas do it.

Quote:

One could easily use this same argument for contesting women's right to vote; but it would be just as fallacious.

Only in your opinion and that of those you consider qualify as "adults." There are other reasons for denying women the vote. One is that you can end up with these two candidates as your only choice of leader.

Quote:

Dlowan has repeatedly, painstakingly, demonstrated that a 15 year old's brain is not fully developed... and decency demands that adults recognize this simple matter of fact.

I wonder what she meant. I think decency would demand other matters being given priority over this trivial matter.

Quote:

Ohio chose to legally draw that line in the sand at taking and distributing naked pictures of minors, with a focus on private parts, when no reasonable purpose existed.

Are you now deciding what other people's "reasonable purpose" consists of. The lass may well be proud of her pooter and enjoy showing it off. If the wide range of ladies to be easily viewed by anybody with a mind to do so are anything to go by she may have a mind beyond her years.

Quote:

Exceedingly easy for one who's long admired vocal ladies and heroes from Abigail Adams to Alice Paul to Maryam Rajavi. One who's advocated that a basic human rights standard (including, but not limited to, women’s rights) be established and enforced to the extent possible, globally. You won’t profit from impugning my motivation, Spendi… and there’s no relevance in it anyway

I have held long discussions with certain feminists Bill and I can tell you that besides disagreeing with dwolan they consider your idea of women's rights to be a condescending load of smarmy old flannel designed to keep them under at a low cost. And that you are using the Argumentum ad antiquitatem as your chief prop and losing it to boot.

You are probably better off thinking the matter irrelevant as that saves you getting into the details which, as you know, is where the Devil lives.

1 Reply

@spendius,

When you stop trying to be rational and resort instead to this kind of baseless, tasteless banter, I’m done with you. Good day.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

BillRM wrote:

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 you can't think any clearer than this; I will simply ignore you. At least try. If you really can't see a difference in culpability between the sender and the unwitting receiver; you are an idiot. Now, you aren't really that foolish, are you?

BillRM: There is nothing wrong with your thoughts as expressed above. You clearly understand that the criminal statute at issue requires both an offender and a victim. In the absence of a child victim who was abused during the production of the material, pornography is protected expression under the First Amendment. Thus, as a matter of law, the victim is the child who is depicted in the material. In Ohio, a teenage girl took a nudity-oriented photo of herself (perhaps not even "pornographic" as defined) and sent it to her teenage friends. She was arrested for a sexually oriented offense--in substance and effect for sexually abusing and/or exploiting herself. The prosecutor stated publicly that he might also arrest the recipients of the photo for possession under the same statute. Thus, your question is fair. Who is the victim of this so-called crime?

Occom Bill wrote:

BillRM wrote:
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.

I am trying to claim no such thing. That nonsense belongs to Debra, alone. In a philosophical sense; I suppose one may consider her a victim of this or that, but legally; she is a victim of nothing.

And the above NONSENSE belongs to Occom Bill. As a matter of law, the MINOR who is depicted in the photo is the VICTIM. The statute clearly contemplates both an offender and a victim who is a minor. See also:

CHAPTER 2950: SEXUAL PREDATORS, HABITUAL SEX OFFENDERS, SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENDERS
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2950

(A) “Sexually oriented offense” means any of the following violations or offenses committed by a person, regardless of the person’s age:

(1) A violation of section . . . , or 2907.323 of the Revised Code;
* * *
(12) Any attempt to commit, conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing any offense listed in division (A)(1) . . . of this section.

(B)(1) “Sex offender” means, subject to division (B)(2) of this section, a person who is convicted of, . . . or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing any sexually oriented offense.

(2) “Sex offender” does not include a person who is convicted of, . . . or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing a sexually oriented offense if the offense involves consensual sexual conduct or consensual sexual contact and either of the following applies:
* * *
(b) ]The victim of the offense was thirteen years of age or older, and the person who is convicted of, . . . or has been adjudicated a delinquent child for committing the sexually oriented offense is not more than four years older than the victim.
* * *

2907.323 criminally penalizes the "illegal use of a minor." The law clearly contemplates both an offender and a victim. Without an offender, there has been no crime. Without a minor victim, there has been no crime. A minor cannot, as a matter of law, commit a sexually oriented offense against herself.

Occom Bill wrote:

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

No, nothing like that. More like charging a kid for giving drugs to another kid.

BillRM is correct in his analogy. The teenage girl is charged with sexually victimizing herself.

Occom Bill is incorrect in his analogy. The teenage girl is not charged with disseminating harmful materials to juveniles.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

at the end of the day you are just another male chauvinist pig. You are fine with women making their own choices until they want something that you don't approve of. Then you get all militant. Then you parade your sense of superiority around and expect to be treated as if you are a god.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

That's roughly what I think too.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Still just ignoring the question that renders your entire bogus argument mute, I see.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You on the other hand have lied by repeatedly pretending you've answered this question while repeatedly failing to do so:

Quote:
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.
The simple truth here is still not going away.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

at the end of the day you are just another male chauvinist pig. You are fine with women making their own choices until they want something that you don't approve of. Then you get all militant. Then you parade your sense of superiority around and expect to be treated as if you are a god.

A 15 year old is not yet a woman, you sick, twisted piece of ****.

(That is what you agree with Spendi? Rolling Eyes

)

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Still just ignoring the question that renders your entire bogus argument mute, I see.

I think that you might have intended 'moot', Bill.

I think that Hawkeye and Spendius overstated the case a bit. A 'god' no, a saint, yes.

0 Replies

You've carried yourself quite well in these arguments, OCB, I still think that you lack the required legal expertise to view the whole picture. If it was as easy as you make out, we'd all be making a cool million a year as big time lawyers.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

You've carried yourself quite well in these arguments, OCB, I still think that you lack the required legal expertise to view the whole picture. If it was as easy as you make out, we'd all be making a cool million a year as big time lawyers.

Well thank you, JTT. I know that must pain you to say it.

I have never claimed any expertise. That would be Debra who likes to pretend she’s an attorney. $2 will get you $10 she isn't. This is the second time I've seen her get something too terribly wrong to be competent enough to pass the bar. The law is the law, whether you like it personally or not. She seems to always try to bend it to her personal feelings... and that just doesn't work.

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

A 15 year old is not yet a woman

If she can produce a baby she's a woman. Passing your personal approval tests is neither here nor there. In most of evolution, the theory of which you support giving the kids, life expectancies were such as to show the lass in mid life.

What is your criteria? It was Christians who brought in an age of consent.

You're all over the place Bill. All you've got is the law. That's not biology.

The pic might have been an attempt to cast a spell or a charm. I've seen an American movie which showed how that could be done with a photograph.

There are plenty of foolish women in their 30s and 40s.

As Veblen wrote regarding these matters- "The illegitimacy (a word I don't like) rate represents the triumph of the hormones over the proprietries." Anybody who gives biology precedence over moral codes cannot disagree with that. Cannot.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Well thank you, JTT. I know that must pain you to say it.

It pains me not at all, Bill. Why would you assume that to be the case?

2 Replies

@JTT,

the bottom line: whoeevr brought charges against her for victimizing HErSELF, should be shot in the head to end this useless waste of public resources.

Are there not real pedophiles out there to be handled?

good grief america, grow the **** up.

1 Reply

@OGIONIK,

Seriously, i know a lot of females in highschool and even in middle school who would send via phone or through the internet naked photos of themselves to other people.

i mean, its ridiculous. sex exists, get over it. just ruin peoples lives over some crap. good ******* game.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

You're all over the place Bill. All you've got is the law.

All I've tried to discuss is the law. Same place from the onset. It is you and others who've attempted to change the focus.

spendius wrote:

That's not biology.

Actually, Deb has linked plenty of material to back her "not fully developed frontal lobe" argument. You just choose not to hear it.

spendius wrote:

There are plenty of foolish women in their 30s and 40s.

Nothing could be more irrelevant when discussing Kiddie-porn laws.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Well thank you, JTT. I know that must pain you to say it.

It pains me not at all, Bill. Why would you assume that to be the case?

I guess I underestimated you; my error. Nods.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I have never claimed any expertise. That would be Debra who likes to pretend she’s an attorney. $2 will get you $10 she isn't. This is the second time I've seen her get something too terribly wrong to be competent enough to pass the bar. The law is the law, whether you like it personally or not. She seems to always try to bend it to her personal feelings... and that just doesn't work.

Oh, but you have claimed expertise on the subject we're discussing. You allege that you have accurately expressed the "law of the land." But you're wrong. You did not accurately express the law. You have, in fact, rejected the law because it doesn't support your argument. When you claim otherwise, you are lying.

No one disputes that, by enacting the statute at issue, the legislature hopes to eradicate child pornography. But, if you truly KNEW the law, then you would know that "eradicating child pornography" merely for the sake of doing so--the same as "eradicating books and pictures that depict blue whales" simply for the sake of doing so--is NOT permitted under our Constitution. In our Constitutional Republic, government regulation of individual conduct must serve a LEGITIMATE, IMPORTANT, or COMPELLING government interest. Thus, we must ask WHY does the state government hope to eradicate child pornography?

That question has been answered for us in landmark SC decisions (Ferber, Osborn, and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). Pornography, in and of itself, is protected expression under the First Amendment. Thus, the Constitution requires that government regulation of expression (free speech) must be based on a COMPELLING government interest and the means used must be narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.

The government has a COMPELLING interest in protecting victims of child pornography. It is the fact that a real-life child was sexually abused during the production that serves as the basis that allows the government to criminalize the production, distribution, and possession of CHILD pornography. If there is no real-life child victim, then the child pornography is protected speech. Thus, the use of an adult who appears young or the use of a virtual child in the production of pornography cannot be criminalized. See Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. The government cannot ban child pornography, just like it cannot ban video games or candy, out of fear that someone may someday misuse these items to seduce a child and perhaps commit a crime.

The dicta that you seized upon in the Osborne case and that you now claim supports your argument was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in the Ashcroft case. Thus, your salutatory tribute to "the law is the law, whether you personally like it or not," would be far more meaningful if you had actually expressed the law of the land. But you didn't do that. Your attempt to deflect from your own misinterpetation of the law by defaming me and calling me a fraud is unavailing. YOU are the fraud. YOU are the liar.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Your silence is deafening!

Still just ignoring the question that renders your entire bogus argument moot, I see.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

You on the other hand have lied by repeatedly pretending you've answered this question while repeatedly failing to do so:

Quote:
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.
The simple truth here is still not going away.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Still just ignoring the question that renders your entire bogus argument mute, I see.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
You on the other hand have lied by repeatedly pretending you've answered this question while repeatedly failing to do so:

Quote:
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.
The simple truth here is still not going away.

Again, YOU are lying. I have REPEATEDLY responded to your spurious argument. The state may criminalize the production, distribution, and possession of pornographic materials IF the materials depict a real life CHILD who was sexually abused during the production. The sexually abused or exploited CHILD is the victim of a crime and the photographic material records that crime.

You argued that the legislature may criminalize pornography for a purpose other than protecting the victims who were depicted in the material. You argued that the legislature may criminalize pornography so that potential pedophiles cannot use the material as a means to seduce possible victims. Your argument was expressly REJECTED by the Supreme Court in the Ashcroft case. The simple truth is that the Ashcroft case is NOT going away.

You continue to cling to mere dicta in the Osborne case and you misapply it in order to support your erroneous argument. You ignore the consitutional basis for the holding in Osborne, and you repeatedly duck the holding in the Ashcroft case. YOUR entire argument is BOGUS. Your effort to place your shoe on my foot is unavailing.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Nothing could be more irrelevant when discussing Kiddie-porn laws.

Why do you keep on conflating "kiddie porn" with a 15 year old who may well be almost 16 and, as I've said, fully developed biologically and has probably been watching late night TV and maybe surfing the net. And she may well be precocious. Probably is.

The frontal lobe argument is coming suspiciously close to state approval by experts of who is qualified to have a bit of fun. Are we to have brain scans?

I wouldn't shoot the prosecutor but I wouldn't mind seeing him thrown in a pond and given a stretch in a Veteran's hospital as an orderly. I think his touring the schools with this stuff is outright provocation. Maybe it excited him.

Are you scared of putting Media in the frame Bill?

1 Reply

Teenage Girl: Sex Offender?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know