TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

17-Year-Old Faces Child Porn, Assault Charges for Consensual Sex with Girlfriend

MaxBiggavelli

September 16, 2016
2852 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/13/romeo-and-juliet-and-sexting-17-year-old#comment
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title 17-Year-Old Faces Child Porn, Assault Charges for Consensual Sex with Girlfriend
Author

MaxBiggavelli

Upvotes 2852
Comments 438
Date September 16, 2016 6:36 AM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/530ny8/17yearold_faces_child_porn_assault_charges_for/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/17-year-old-faces-child-porn-assault-charges-for.941522
https://theredarchive.com/post/941522
Top posts by MaxBiggavelli

Man Sues Gym over 'Women Only Hours'

1425 upvotes
June 7, 2016
/r/MensRights

University of Chicago to freshmen: We do not support 'trigger warnings,' 'safe spaces'

1343 upvotes
August 26, 2016
/r/MensRights

Arizona woman who faked cancer for free abortion found guilty of cheating veterans' organization — RT America

88 upvotes
August 4, 2016
/r/PussyPassDenied

Man put on blast over 'nightclub assault' freed as judge rules woman started fight

68 upvotes
August 16, 2016
/r/MensRights

One college rejects free speech zones and safe spaces

65 upvotes
July 10, 2016
/r/MensRights

"This is what true equality looks like."

49 upvotes
January 24, 2016
/r/MensRights

Judge Rules That Hulk Hogan Gets Control of Former Gawker Editor's Assets

41 upvotes
August 14, 2016
/r/MensRights

Watch "Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder and Christina Hoff Sommers at UMass" on YouTube

31 upvotes
April 26, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]feedmecarrots 181 points182 points183 points 9 years ago (144 children) | Copy Link

Given what law enforcement has done, this will not end well and nobody gave a thought to justice being served.

[+]mwobuddy -363 points-362 points-361 points 9 years ago (143 children) | Copy Link

What is justice? He committed a crime. He should be punished.

[–]mikesteane 186 points187 points188 points 9 years ago (101 children) | Copy Link

And so did she.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]BrinkBreaker 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The point isn't that the people in the sub want her charged. It's that it simply is not legally or morally correct that one party in this is punished and one is not.

Either they should both be punished or BOTH be left alone.

That's why you're getting downvoted. If we allow this kind of judgement to stand you leave more than 50% of the population with no incentive to change the status quo.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your conclusion makes absolutely no sense in context to what /u/KrogerPornStar is saying. They're definitely all for no one being charged.

We don't need to speak about equality here when it's clearly obvious that the spirit of the law isn't even being followed. Sometimes the issues are beyond gender issues and more to do with shitty humans being shitheads.

[–]mwobuddy -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let me say this again because I'm very surprised at the negative response I've received here. She did not commit a crime. He did not commit a crime. Legality is not the same thing as morality. I think it's absolutely disgusting that I'm being downvoted for advocating that these charges against the young man be dismissed.

They actually did commit crimes. You're wishing they weren't crimes, but they are.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]mwobuddy -78 points-77 points-76 points 9 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

Nonsense. The point is both should be charged. Him for having child porn, her for having sex with someone underage, and him for having sex with someone underage.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

If a male commits a genuine crime we fully support them being charged. What we don't like is women committing the same crime (i.e. this case) and not being charged.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]mwobuddy -18 points-17 points-16 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

But its only fair. This sub wants fairness by women who have sex with underage males being put in prison for a long time.

I think anyone who has sex with someone underage, VIOLATING A LAW, and "defiling a minor/child" as the legal parlance states it, is guilty.

The act of having sex is defiling. It is the core of the age of consent laws, that sex is damaging or tainting in some manner.

I support the law being applied equally to all violators of it, for any violation automatically makes a victim, as the aoc law assumes a victim is always created, in order to avoid the potential creation of victims by warning people not to have sex with those underage.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure you really want fairness and equality but I believe you're seeking it in the wrong direction and at the expense of this young man.

One might say that with regard to this sub wanting women charged as sick child molesters when some 17 year old guy fucks his hot teacher.

[–]scyth3s 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And a young girl as well.

[–]manicmonkeys 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Get the fuck out here with your nonsense, "the act of sex is defiling". What do you think this is, /r/westborobaptist?

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Read the laws. The act "defiles a child", "contributes to the delinquency of a minor", among other things. Those are actual phrases codified into law with regard to age of consent. Those are the things people who are over 18 get charged with regarding age of consent when they are successfully convicted.

[–]manicmonkeys 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Kay.

[–]muh-soggy-knee 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Well if we want to be really smart arsed and retarded at the same time (and reading your post it seems obvious that you do) then she should also be charged with production of child pornography, AND possession since it will have been on her phone also.

Of course we could just not be morons and stop criminalising teens for doing what teens do.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Of course we could just not be morons and stop criminalising teens for doing what teens do.

a 19 year old sexting a 15 year old is a teen but also an adult, and will get prison time and a sex offender registration.

Even if its "consensual".

[–]muh-soggy-knee 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

As I understand it those were not the age gaps involved here. But tell me more about how the morality of a totally different situation applies here

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That' the point. you find it a totally different thing when it is not, based on self-reporting of sexuality of people with age gaps ranging from 2 years to 20 years as teens.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Of course we could just not be morons and stop criminalising teens for doing what teens do.

But the intent of the law is to prevent "especially vulnerable" persons from sexual abuse. See, on the other side of the bright red line, at 18, anyone is freely able to be sexually abused, where sexual abuse in this occurrence means being lied to for sex, used for sex, and then thrown in the trash. As long as the person 18 or older consents to the sex, then the mind games and the lies, and anything else used to get sex, is perfectly legal.

Like how women are now trying to make sex rape if the guy lies about his income or job or whether he owns a porsche. Women have recognized this loophole.

These lies are the same reason the age of consent was raised from 13 to 18 in the 1920's. Women wanted teen girls, then called "young women", to not be lied to for sex.

But once you're 18 suddenly that is legally okay by them. Except now they want even that changed lately.

What I'm getting at is that the reason the law exists is due to the harm caused by teen females being manipulated into sex, even if they "consent" at the most basic level by being a willing participant. They have been judged incapable of consent due to their risk of pregnancy and their naivety (as the cry often goes when an 18 year old or older male takes advantage of an underage female, she is losing her innocence and being sexually abused because she is just a child and can't consent).

How is this sexual abuse okay because the one doing it is also underage?

[–]muh-soggy-knee 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Maybe because two people of the same age experimenting isn't abuse?

Maybe because it's not always bright to apply a faulty logic from one situation and adapt it into another even less relevant situation. It's not how sensible policy is made.

Is there ANY indication any of the above listed "whataboutisms" happened here?

Even if there were, are we saying that teen boys are inherently smarter than teen girls? Since your position supposes that they could never be duped in this way.

Or maybe it's just that they aren't worth much compared to women, is that your position?

By pretty much any stretch you make of this, you're grasping at straws to justify your bigotry

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Maybe because two people of the same age experimenting isn't abuse?

That's a self-supported argument, meaning it comes from saying it is so.

Its like saying "A is A because its A". You haven't proven in any way that it is or is not abuse.

[–]muh-soggy-knee 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I think you'll find that the burden of proof for establishing that something is X, falls ok the person making the claim.

It isn't for me to prove that it's not, it's for you prove that it is.

Literally critical thinking 101.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

You know, btw, how many women in their late 20's to 30's express regret for losing their "virginity" so early in childhood to someone "wrong"?

This regret was the impetus for the age of consent being raised from 13 to 16-18 in the first place, at the demand of feminists/women, during the 1920's.

So yeah, if women express such severe regret over the sex they had while underage, that should prove in itself that the law is meant to be used against teens who have sex a well, because if they experience the same regret as if it'd been a 20-40 year old that fucked them as a teen, then we literally have nothing more to think about; one who fucks them as underage is guilty of violating them due to the law meaning to protect them from exactly this.

If we're talking molestation or rape, there's already tons of laws on the books to deal with that. In fact, you might learn that the law of age of consent was incidentally meant to also allow those underage to bring claims of sexual abuse without having to show the same proof as rape claims for thoser "overage", when rape claims still required show of force or struggle.

So, the longwinded point is, the law is meant to protect them from feeling abused or used for sex and feeling regret. The law was designed to be used unilaterally against men. The law was designed so that 12-16 year olds didn't have to show rape or force was used to make the claim of rape (because people claimed they'd be too scared to fight back), and thus the law automatically assumes the party making sex at the underage person is guilty of victimizing said person. Thus, the law of age of consent is working properly if a teen is hit by it, because it fits all the reasons for the age of consent law to exist.

I may repeat again, when age of consent violations/statutory rape are brought against an accused, the accused is charged with

contributing to delinquency of a minor or child.

Imparting carnal (meaning bodily) knowledge on a minor or child.

defiling a minor or child.

All three of these things assuredly still happen when two teens who are underage fuck each other, just as much as it happens when an underage teen fucks someone 20 or older.

[–]muh-soggy-knee 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

So in other words the appeal to chivalry argument. Gotcha.

Look, if you want to use 1000 words when the following would suffice:

"I am a bigot who supports inequality before the law"

Then thats fine, ramble away. I mean none of it really made much sense in terms of actually answering the point. But it's always entertaining to watch someone's verbal diarrah hit the floor so thanks for that.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, she victimized herself. If she'd sent pictures of anyone else around, then yes she'd be guilty.

[+]mwobuddy -84 points-83 points-82 points 9 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

Sure, but historically the law was about protecting "maidens" from being "ravished', or "young women" from being "defiled".

Who is victim and who is perpetrator in this instance is just like drunk sex between two adults, as a comparison.

If you want both to get sex crimed and sent to jail, I'll agree to it. After all, they both committed technical crimes.

[–]mikesteane 53 points54 points55 points 9 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

No, I don't. Common sense should prevail. Both should have been cautioned by adults about the potential consequences of their behaviour without the involvement of any publicly paid official.

[+]mwobuddy -47 points-46 points-45 points 9 years ago* (50 children) | Copy Link

Both should have been cautioned by adults about the potential consequences of their behaviour without the involvement of any publicly paid official.

Cautioned?

don't take underage nudes, cause that is child porn and illegal.

Yeah, because caution undoes the event which already took place, which was the production and distribution of child porn.

I'm not sure what other serious sex based crimes anyone can commit and be 'cautioned' about.

What about the 15 year old boy that sodomizes his 10 year old brother? Another time to 'caution'?

The laws exist to prevent the exploitation of what we refer to as minors or children. If something has happened, they have de-facto already been exploited. If all you receive is a stern warning from a badge, you aren't really going to stem the tide of this underage scourge. What teen is going to listen to a stern warning to be turned away from the lure of sexual gratification through the use of underage girls?

If you think crime and punishment is part justice and part deterrent, there is no deterrent in a harsh warning, not to the individuals involved nor onlookers.

Furthermore, as the basis of child porn law and age of consent law is about preventing exploitation, the moment he saw and had her pics, she was exploited. The moment he showed them to others, she was exploited again. The events that transpired were exactly what the laws were designed to prevent.

It just happens that people had intended this to stop adults from taking dick or clit pics from underage people, or to stop adults who force and physically abuse underage people into sexual positions they record on tv or video.

I might remind you at this point nude centerfolds of playboy have been 14-16 50 years ago.

There is a logical extension of this, as unfortunate as you might think it. He got nude pics of someone underage. He then showed them off to others. That is exactly one part of the reason the laws were created.

[–][deleted] 34 points35 points36 points 9 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

He got nude pics of someone underage. He then showed them off to others.

He didn't show them to others, that was another boy that his girlfriend sexted who took a screenshot of the Snapchat and he sent it/them to others. He isn't being prosecuted, only the guy who didn't share anything is.

[–]help_me_m8 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Shouldn't she be charged with creation of child pornography?

[–]scyth3s 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No no no, you don't get it. She a woman. They can't be sex offenders!

[+]mwobuddy -21 points-20 points-19 points 9 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

Ah, then that boy should be in prison immediately. He still is guilty of knowingly accepting child porn though. And of recording himself having illegal sex with an underage child.

Talk about a smoking gun.

[–]SacredWeapon 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

A smoking gun that was fired into ballistic gel, not a person's insides.

The law is interpreted by a judge and sentences are handed down based on mitigating factors. One mitigating factor for possessing child pornography is "The pornography was of a romantic partner who wanted them to have it." Another is "the pornography was produced by the partner."

Typically in cases like this, you see the court do all they can to hand down a no-jail sentence (ex: suspended sentence) provided the defendant has representation that can push for this. The only time that's not the case is when the accused acts like an idiot and violates court orders (case in point: Kaitlyn Hunt).

In cases where that doesn't happen, it's usually because the public defender has no time to even ask for it, so the state acts mechanically.

What should happen here, is the court finds him guilty, sentences him to a suspended sentence, and then recommends the state institute a romeo-and-juliet exception which would render future "offenders" not guilty.

[+]mwobuddy -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The pornography was of a romantic partner who wanted them to have it." Another is "the pornography was produced by the partner."

So something is uniformly illegal and then granted exceptions? The age of consent for both sex and sexual pictures is due to the perceived inability to make that choice.

You're saying that someone has the inability to make that choice, but that its okay "if they really, really like the person, like LIKE like, not just kinda like".

So what if he or she really, really likes some 50 year old? Still okay? Or is it de-facto child porn because that person is over 18? It remains classified as such either way, you're saying that some people are simply allowed to have such, and create and distribute such to others if those others happen to be people they "really like".

[–]mwobuddy -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

A smoking gun that was fired into ballistic gel, not a person's insides.

The law is clear. It is designed to protect underage people from being exploited. Any pictures taken, and sex had, is de-facto exploitation of them, as they are considered not old enough to consent.

romeo-and-juliet exception

So in other words, now their brain is magically capable of consent? Either the law hinges on the capacity for informed consent or it doesn't. If he's a pump and dump type of guy just out for sex, then lies and says he loves her, and then she's hurt for putting out after he leaves her immediately, is it still legal? She lacked informed consent in this instance. Will she have special exemption to bring a legal case because of the lie, or is it just "too bad, he was young enough not to get caught by the age of consent law and it's reason for existing"?

R&J laws provide immunity from the law for underage sex predators.

[–]wraith5 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

You're an awful troll. First, another boy was the one who spread pictures

Second, he's still underage.

Third, common sense. They're both children; there's no defiling going on. Or do you think a 17 year old female having sex with a 15 year old male is wrong

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They're both children; there's no defiling going on.

Defiling a child imparting carnal knowledge to a child Contributing to delinquency of a child. 

Taken from the laws regarding age of consent.

Both of them being "children" does not mean those are not occurring, just as both being children would not mean that one of them getting the other involved in drugs is not contributing to their delinquency.

[–]SlashLDash7 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So then you think she should be in jail for multiple counts of knowingly producing and distributing child porn, correct?

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The one that sent those pictures around? Yes. After all, that's the law. It is child porn, and that is the punishment.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's a great rebuttal.

[–]E13ven 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

what about the 15 year old boy that sodomizes his 10 year old brother

Yup, a 17 year old having consensual sex with his girlfriend is totally equivalent to that, those two instances should certainly fall under the same blanket in terms of the law.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Yup, a 17 year old having consensual sex

By law both he and she couldn't consent so your point is void. That's like saying

Yup, a 40 year old having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend is equivalent to that.

If you don't believe that's ever capable of being consensual due to the law, then neither is theirs.

[–]E13ven 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

That's the problem with not using real life common sense in these situations and just going off of words on a page.

There's a massive difference between two highschoolers trading nudes and a bunch of 50 year old dudes passing around child porn.

A 40 year old should know better than to have sex with a 15 year old. Two underage teenagers having consensual sex is again realistically a very different situation.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

A 40 year old should know better than to have sex with a 15 year old. Two underage teenagers having consensual sex is again realistically a very different situation.

So a 40 year old should know better, but you can't teach a 15 year old to know better?

Are you going to explain why they should know better? Or is your argument based fundamentally on that phrase and not on substance?

There's a massive difference between two highschoolers trading nudes and a bunch of 50 year old dudes passing around child porn.

I'll let you explain it.

[–]Tedesche 43 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

You're out of your mind. The entire point here is that the application of the law in this case is so far divorced from it's intended purpose that it is an injustice to enforce it in this way. If you truly think this kid did something so wrong that he ought to be charged with possession of child pornography and be labeled a pedophile and sexual predator by the U.S. criminal justice system, all I can say is I'm glad people like you are in the extreme minority. What a fucked up POV....

[–]MyL1ttlePwnys 29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Not even a men's rights issue, it's a common sense law issue that you shouldn't criminalize two dumb teens who have consensual sex. That label carries through for life on a crime virtually every 17 year old has done...hell I dated a 17 year old when I was 15 and I couldn't imagine her being a criminal. We were 13 months apart in age.

A 17 year should not be labeled a predator for sex with a 16 year old. I understand the law, but the application of it is completely bullshit for both genders.

[+]mwobuddy -19 points-18 points-17 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not even a men's rights issue, it's a common sense law issue that you shouldn't criminalize two dumb teens who have consensual sex. That label carries through for life on a crime virtually every 17 year old has done...hell I dated a 17 year old when I was 15 and I couldn't imagine her being a criminal. We were 13 months apart in age.

The law is about having sex with someone who can't consent. That's it. If you did it with someone underage, you're a sex predator. You should've been taught better.

You find it fine if an 18 year old or a 24 year old would go to prison for sex with a 15 year old, and why? Because the underage can't consent.

Mutual exploitation or violation does not mean that the law should not get involved.

[–]MyL1ttlePwnys 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No...its the question of when two people who cant consent still have sex. Nobody is saying anything about a 24 year old.

What about two underaged kids having sex? What about an 18 year old and a 17 year old...they have been together and having sex for a year, but the moment one turns 18, that person is a criminal for the next couple months waiting for an arbitrary date?

The law is a completely appropriate law, but with laws comes a responsibility to apply it with wisdom. This is why no exception policies are always a failure. They end up being misapplied for random circumstances that were never considered in the writing of the law.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

that person is a criminal for the next couple months waiting for an arbitrary date?

That 24 year old is a criminal because they didn't wait a couple of months to fuck their girl/boyfriend?

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're being obtuse.

There's a world of difference in a 24 year old coercing a 15 year old into sex and a high school couple that's 17 and 15.

The law in Wisconsin may not recognize this but that's kind of the point of this post.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't agree there's any difference there. In both cases the 15 year old is capable of consenting.

The only time theirs a difference is if money is involved or extortion is involved. A minor can't properly cope with the differences in power when those are leveraged.

[+]mwobuddy -19 points-18 points-17 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

He isn't a pedophile. He isn't one by law either. He is a sexual predator though, as this is what determines sexual predator laws. Was the victim underage?

The entire point here is that the application of the law in this case is so far divorced from it's intended purpose that it is an injustice to enforce it in this way.

Go ahead and make your point about the law.

Do you think someone who' 40 and views a 15 year old's tits is a pedophile or sex predator? What if they masturbate to it? Then I got news for you as everyone who's seen Traci Lord's spread as an overage male (or female) is a sex predator and pedophile.

Pedophile is not related to age of consent law. That's a nice strawman, though.

So tell me what you think the law was meant for, and why it is an injustice. All I see is someone who doesn't know or understand these laws stating that its so horrible.

If you truly think this kid did something so wrong that he ought to be charged with possession of child pornography and be labeled a pedophile and sexual predator by the U.S. criminal justice system, all I can say is I'm glad people like you are in the extreme minority.

And that's why these laws exist, is it? Due to extreme minorities having the control?

[–]Tedesche 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, there are so many failures in logic in that comment, I have essentially zero faith that even pointing them out will lead to productive conversation with you. Like I said: you're out of your mind.

[+]mwobuddy -14 points-13 points-12 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Ah, you aren't willing to expose your own lack of knowledge on this subject. I agree. It would be pointless.

By legal or psychiatric definition, anyone wanting to procure 17 year old tits in recorded format, or wanting to fuck a 17 year old, is not a pedophile, whether 15 or 50. It might be illegal for the 50 year old, but it is not pedophilic by law or psychiatry.

You have your compass misaligned. The law is the law. You brought up

be labeled a pedophile and sexual predator by the U.S. criminal justice system

he wouldn't be labeled a pedophile, but a sex offender. And he is one, by virtue of the laws, and the intent of the laws, which is to prevent underage females from being manipulated into sex or taking sex pictures of themselves.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And he is one, by virtue of the laws, and the intent of the laws, which is to prevent underage females from being manipulated into sex or taking sex pictures of themselves.

Do you truly think that applies to this case? That Austin "manipulated" her? That's the entire point.

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

When someone has had sex with someone under the age of consent, manipulation is assumed to have taken place.

That is the law. That is how it is applied to anyone over 18, and anyone under 18 shouldn't get a pass.

This sub seems very concerned with women being given equal sentencing for sex with anyone underage as men get, but does not want those under 18 charged at all, despite breaking a similar law.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I asked what you thought not what the law is. And you're welcome to respond to my comments instead of your interpretation of the general tenor of the subreddit.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think he did, but if he had been 20 everyone would not care whether he did or not. I'm looking for consistency.

[–]Zer022 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Man, another one? You wrote two stupid as fuck posts. Look, we understand it's the law you idiot. It isn't right though. Do you understand that? That sometimes the law is flawed? Stupid shit like this will keep happening unless we're willing to have a conversation about it.

We've all had sex at 17 (except you), so that means we're all criminals right? Every fucking one of us in your eyes is a criminal. You read too much into man made shit. Next you'll try arguing that the word fuck is somehow inherently evil, even though the word and stigmas around it are man made.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're saying

But.. society!

Yes, society did it.

[–]DaanFag 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is either the most effort I have ever seen somebody put into trolling, or you are actually this retarded.

Either way it's not looking too good for you bud.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's high praise coming from a user named "fag".

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The real crime are these laws that punish basic ingrained human behavior between consenting individuals.

If you can drive a car which is literally a death machine. You can consent to sex.

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The law has been about criminalizing a normal desire and act between people because of the potential for abuse.

The root history of this law is in the 1880-1920 era SJW feminist movement which incoporated the "purity movement". This movement sought to criminalize all male sex with teen females, not just guys over 18 but also under 18, to protect them from the "abuse" of being lied to or used for sex, because it degraded her sexuality and defiled her.

If you look into age of consent laws from California to New York, they incorporate phrases like this;

Defiling a child

imparting carnal knowledge to a child

Contributing to delinquency of a child.

Those things don't magically stop happening because someone who initiates those things happens to be under 18 themselves.

So the question is, are those things really true or are they not true? Because those are the charges someone over 18 is given when they are accused of having sex with a child or minor (such as this 15 year old girl), but peoople want those who do it while under 18 exempt, even though the effects are still happening.

So who's the real hypocrite?

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Those things are not true. The 15 year old is capable of choosing.

And linking it back to the purity movement further reinforces my case. It's about punishing those who ignored church morality, not any actual value.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And linking it back to the purity movement further reinforces my case. It's about punishing those who ignored church morality, not any actual value.

Nope. They codified it into law, so it became "legal morality".

The 15 year old is capable of choosing.

Then why is she considered incapable of choosing? One of the most hilarious arguments of the Purity Movement is that if she is incapable of signing a contract, then she is incapable of consenting to sex.

Sexuality has been involved in contract law the moment they made that argument and successfully got age of consent invoked.

Sexuality is contract law by virtue of consent being an agreement in the eyes of the law to have sex, with the effect that if consent is revoked, it is rape. Read some Foucault on the subject of France's age of consent.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Teenagers can consent to many agreements. Driving agreements are an obvious example where the government accepts their consent.

While more difficult to obtain, teenagers can consent to credit cards.

They could also be tried as an adult. The moment you accept a person is capable of being tried as an adult is ultimate proof they can consent.

Now if you believe without any exception that a 15 year old should not be tried as adult, that's fine and we just flatly disagree. If you agree, you're just a hypocrit like most people are. You will never find a hypocritical position from me. If you can actually show me having hypocrisy I will absolutely change something as I put all effort into being consistent and never a hypocrit.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Driving agreements are an obvious example where the government accepts their consent.

That's one way consent. You need the government's acceptance of your desire to have something, as someone under 18. The age of consent is based on mutual desire to trade something.

They could also be tried as an adult. The moment you accept a person is capable of being tried as an adult is ultimate proof they can consent.

But the burden of making that claim is based on argumentation from prosecution.

Furthermore Age of Consent is strict liability, so even if she legally emancipated herself and lived on her own, she's still incapable of sexual consent by law.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point. I fundamentally disagree with the laws as written and I want them changed.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its one thing to disagree with a law, its another to say that a law doesn't really exist as it does when it does exist that way.

[–]Zer022 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When I was 16 I had sex with my 15 year old girlfriend. Am I a criminal?

You're an idiot just so you know. And not the kind that can bounce back from it. You'll suffer with this for the rest of your life. I'm so sorry man, but someone has to let you know.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When I was 16 I had sex with my 15 year old girlfriend. Am I a criminal?

You're an idiot just so you know.

Yes, you actually are, if you've just admitted to this in a state where its illegal. Just because you don't think it should be a crime doesn't mean it isn't.

I stole bread once to feed myself when I was homeless, am I a criminal?

If that's illegal in your state, yes.

[–]TheDemeisen 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Fuck off copsucker.

[+]mwobuddy -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's not a very good argument.

[–]TheDemeisen 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

and now you are blocked forever!

[–]TheDemeisen 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are either a moron or a troll. Either way.... piss off.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Why is sex a crime at 17 in a single digit number of countries but not in many of our allied countries like France or Germany

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because of feminism using "think of the children".

Spain used to have a 13 age of consent, meaning anyone 13 could have sex with anyone 13-100 years old. They raised it to 14 over pressure from feminist movements. Now its up to 16.

[–]Socialdem 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you want to be that white haired politician rallying everyone to allow people under the age of 18 to sex?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why are they minors

[–]Hypertroph 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or have the case nullified by the jury. What he did may have been illegal, but it was not wrong. This is an unjust use of the law,and it is unfortunate that so much effort is made when selecting the jury to prevent them from exercising their power.

[–]TheSummerain 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What crime did he commit?

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Putting his dick in someone that can't consent.

[–]Socialdem 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sometimes the laws are unjust. You get that right? You understand that people who make the laws are fallible like everyone else, right?

[–]MaxBiggavelli[S] 808 points809 points810 points 9 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

Of course, they don't disclose her name, but are more than comfortable disclosing his.

[–]marsnoir 260 points261 points262 points 9 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

Not everyone is going to read the full story and discover that she took the photos and sexted other boys. The injustice here is that at 17 he is still a minor, therefore prosecutable but she is not. Stories like this make me terrified for my own kids well being. It is a constant battle with them now about having an online identity... I doubt that becoming a "child predator" is taught to kids in health or technology classes.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]TrollBurgerHelper 48 points49 points50 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm betting the girl is on her parent's cell phone plan, meaning HER DAD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DISTRIBUTING CHILD PORN OF HER :0

[–]icecow 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I read that's not legally true (in regards to filesharing)

[–]Terminal-Psychosis 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Neither is the majority of the hype this unscrupulous reporter wrote about. Still, damage done.

What is truly scary is how completely biased and sexist not only our courts are, but the media is allowed to be.

Publishing this minor's name, putting such a sexist spin on a non-issue, is unforgivable.

That anything like that is done so freely... wow

and with zero realistic repercussions. :(

This is a huge, social and institutional problem. We need actual equality between the sexes.

[–]icecow 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds like, if anyone, she is the predator

[–]mwobuddy 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Stop victim blaming!!!

[–]topsecreteltee 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

she took the photos and sexted other boys.

Surely the DA will bring distribution charges against her!

[–]moonknlght 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Surely the DA will bring distribution charges against her them!

There we go, all's well now.

[–]topsecreteltee 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Them is a strange way to spell him.

[–]SarahC 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The injustice here is that at 17 he is still a minor, therefore prosecutable but she is not.

Don't you mean adult?

[+]mwobuddy -247 points-246 points-245 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

He became one the moment he put his dick in her, because that's the law.

I suggest you teach your kids that sex is wrong and illegal to enact on anyone underage, and they can go to jail and be put on a sex offender list if they do it. Tell them to wait til 18 and find someone to fuck in college or on the streets around that age.

[–]NorseGodLoki0411 59 points60 points61 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Possibly the gr8est of all b8.

[–]Saerain 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

jlb8?

[–]NorseGodLoki0411 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not bad.

[–]SarahC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or no pictures, then at least when the semen's dripped out it's only her word against his.

Teenage angst and hormones - she's at some point going to think she's been raped and call the police, normally just shortly after becoming a feminist.

[+]marsnoir -132 points-131 points-130 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Sorry you are being down voted, but you're right. The article doesn't mention that different rules apply to kids under 16... There is no Romeo and Juliet type exclusion in Wisconsin, so he indeed broke the law and has photo evidence... Despite being "under age". As for my kids... I can only hope that they will understand the dangers life poses before they get in trouble. They're getting to the age where I'm just about wrong on everything... It's quite humbling to have an argument with a 11 year old about why water is indeed wet.

[–]fourthwallcrisis 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She did indeed break the law, what do you suggest her punishment should be?

[+]mwobuddy -110 points-109 points-108 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I get why they're doing it. It seems cruel. But the system is designed to protect the vulnerable.

They seem perfectly willing to accept collateral if there's a person above 18 at fault in this law.

[–][deleted] 66 points67 points68 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

I just wish the under-18 laws applied to both parties. Both people had sex with someone underage. If you are going to charge one, you need to charge both.

[–]Horseiv 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You hit the nail on the head

[–]MuchoLucio 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's only fair to hold people on equal ground, without judicial bigotry.

[–]marsnoir 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The article is a bit biased, understandably so. At issue here is how unfair the application of the law seems. Cases like this make me wonder why have we started to treat youth like adults... when they have no real rights? The saddest part of the whole mess is that the girl seems lost. No where in the story does it sound like she's getting help... but a lot of people seem to be getting hurt.

Justice is blind, and the DA just wants a conviction... the recommendation of the SRO is that everyone involved should be prosecuted, not just the 17 year old. The police have on record a restraining order against Austin ... to them it's an open and shut case. Why they're not following through on the rest of the group is confusing.

And what's terrifying is that these are high school students. Kids want to "act like adults" and "grow up". If the kids were just a few year's older, and the landscape would be radically different. At odds is that he was 17 and she was 15... and therefore he committed a felony charge. There is no 'wiggle room'... despite how close the two are in age. Apparently in Wisconsin at 15 no one can give consent for sexual conduct. Yet, he was able to give consent for the search of his phone... which he willingly gave away. Of course, the police would have found another path forward, had he objected. I guess the lessons here are: don't live in Wisconsin, don't be a teenager, and don't dabble in adult matters... like that's going to ever happen.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree to the extent that they are both committing acts codified in law as contributing to delinquency of a minor or corrupting or imparting carnal knowledge on a child.

It gets deeper, though. The parents of the girl should also be charged as accessories to statutory rape, for, if stat rape is

contributing to delinquency of a child.

imparting carnal knowledge on a child.

defiling a child

As it is codified in AoC laws, then the parents, handing out condoms to them both and putting their girl on the pill, are directly responsible for encouraging two people who can't consent to have sex.

Therefore they are accessories to those charges I listed above.

[–]marsnoir 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I like this.. but can you name the Wisconsin statutes that would apply? IANAL, but this story is just so messed up.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not off the top of my head, but I can easily see if some older male had underage female friends and was encouraging them to have sex with their boyfriend, he could be probably charged with contributing to delinquency and accessory to imparting carnal knowledge, or even directly imparting it, if the parents got upset their daughters were sexually active and found her facebook.

I haven't bothered to look up the age of consent charges for WI specifically, or other states. I only remember what I've seen in a few of the laws of a few states use what I've stated as the "legal terminology" for why its illegal. I mean, if something didn't defile them, or harm them in other manners, the law "its not harmful, but its illegal anyway" would have no ground.

[–]mwobuddy 468 points469 points470 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Well as a minor, he has full protection against being na- what a minute...

[–]NikoMyshkin 210 points211 points212 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

christ, that is so fucked up and unfair

[–]Raidicus 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The crazy thing is that according to police's own investigation, Kim was the one distributing this "child pornography"

[–]NikoMyshkin 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

americans seem to hate sex and seem hell bent on enforcing objectively unnecessary laws to criminalise it even when it occurs without coercion.

this kid's life is fucked up AND FOR WHAT? he did nothing wrong. just like his partner (whose life isn't fucked up, purely because GENDER).

this whole story is so sad, so unecessary.

[–]samsc2 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah only a few hate sex the rest love it and flaunt the hell out of it aka the Disney channel

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But she was distributing it of herself, and can't consent to it. Therefoer it falls on those either asking for it or receiving it without being asked to be at fault for either asking for it or receiving it, and then showing it off or keeping it.

[–]bradtwo 87 points88 points89 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]Ransal 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

10 years from now a feminist sjw will email his potential employer that this happened, leaving out all information about it in the hopes the employer won't bother to fact check (they won't). Thus begins his life of harassment that will be ignored and hidden from people by the same feminists that harass him.

[–]TheDongerNeedsFood 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thats why he should legally change his name once he becomes an adult.

[–]mwobuddy 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Her name wont be released as the "victim" while he was "accidentally" released and now in the permanent record that is known as the internet.

Oh yeah, I know all too well about the "accidents" law enforcement choose to make in the name of justice.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

yes, she should also be dragged out in front of everyone and get tried for sexual assault too. maybe then people would care. look at that kid's face. he looks like a 14 year old.

[–]AndHeWas 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It says that picture is from 2013.

[+]mwobuddy -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To be fair, he's a minor by law, she's a child by law. So he bears more responsibility.

[–]SarahC 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I thought minor was child? I guess not.

[–]LuitenantDan 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The author says at the end of the article that the only reason his name wasn't changed was that it was disclosed somewhere else.

[–]scyth3s 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, it was disclosed elsewhere? Let's tell all our friends and family and post it on our Facebooks, you know, since the cats already out of the bag!

[–]flashingcurser 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but how would we be able to help him if we didn't know his name?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Pussypass

[–]SacredWeapon 183 points184 points185 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

He is being represented by the public defender assigned to him. His family can't afford better legal representation.

This is an action opportunity. Can the mods get in touch with his family and set up a gofundme for them to get real legal representation?

Public defenders are why the likes of Brian Banks went to prison. This time we can make that not happen. He can get a lawyer that isn't completely overloaded, one who won't just tell him "plead guilty and destroy your life" as his legal advice. One who will fight for him...because they have time to.

[–]TWERKLE 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I was scrolling through to look for a gofund me. This boy needs the help of this community.

[–]Robz888 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's my understanding that GoFUndMe doesn't allow users to solicit donations for legal defense funds.

If anyone knows of another method for doing so, please let me know.

[–]TWERKLE 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Just went to website and looked. Lots of defense and legal gofundme's. Also wasnt in the list of prohibited causes. I have no clue how to contact them or how much an attorney would cost but i willing to donate to the cause. I couldnt imagine being 17 and facing such a thing. He should be worried about which college he is getting accepted to not if he is going to have to register as a sex offender!

[–]Robz888 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks. I passed along your comment to Amy and have advised her to come up with some way to solicit donations.

[–]VTwinVaper 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Generally they shutdown defense funds for those defendants they judge as being deplorable.

[–]percocet_20 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The article has been updated with a link raising funds for his defense

[–]vakeraj 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Can we also get a Kickstarter going to fire that cop?

[–]Aerodine 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The article was updated with a link to a donation page. https://fundly.com/save-austins-future?ft_src=email_share_mobile

[–]percocet_20 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The article updated with a link raising money for legal help

[–]ArtfulCodger 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is a lot no at the end. I donated - great cause

[–]HeForeverBleeds 281 points282 points283 points 9 years ago (91 children) | Copy Link

...authorities charged him with sexual assault of a child, sexual exploitation, and possession of child pornography.

If they're both minors in the state where they are, and they both had sex with each other, why isn't the girl also being charged with sexual assault of a child and sexual exploitation since she also, by law, sexually assaulted child?

Of course the the answer is obvious, but the double standards are just so blatant I don't see how anyone can have any real faith in the CJS. I wonder, if convicted, how long he'll be sentenced for. Despite as many recent cases as there've been of 30-40-year-old women getting a few months or less in jail for sexually assaulting children decades their junior, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this boy ends up spending a few years in jail

I guess I'd better not jinx it, though. But even if he gets no jail sentence, if he's convicted for something like "sexual assault of a child" at all, he could be screwed for good

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (25 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Is it no longer 18 anymore???

[–]guy_guyerson 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

If the issue is age of consent, most states in The US have that set below 18. This isn't relevant to the child pornography though; I believe that's a federal law and distinguishes between minors and adults (which is different than age of consent).

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Can't vote, can't take a picture of your dick, can go into the Military learn to stab people in the neck.

That's the problem, kids today don't have homicidal priorities and it gets them in trouble with the people who do.

[–]hnfr 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

17 is the new 18 but only for guys...

For girls its 17 is the new 16

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

if they gave a 14 year old the death penalty for a crime he could not of committed then the answer is yes. and yes they fast tracked his execution.

[–]Trunksshe 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Wait, did that happen, or are you using a blatant hyperbole here?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney

[–]Trunksshe 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What. The. Hell.

I mean, I know it was the 40's but Jesus is that ridiculous. Any lawyer worth half his pay-grade should know all of the problems here.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

this was more common than not

[–]Trunksshe 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean nowadays, but it's still redonculous to think that it's happened before and could potentially repeat.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

think of the documentary making a murderer, so yes it still happens today.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Did you read the case background?

[–]Trunksshe 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, yeah. But I'm mostly referring to the fact that it was a one-cop testimony, no record, and only 10 minute sentencing.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's really irritating that any police get to be "expert witnesses" and have their word trusted more than a defendant.

It is proven that police often lie, omit facts, or twist the truth on the stand.

[–]generalgranko 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ok this makes me fucking mad

[+]mwobuddy -62 points-61 points-60 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

At 17 he really aught to know better than to dip his pen in the underage ink.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]mwobuddy -33 points-32 points-31 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You are 2 cute.

[–]sateeshsai 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You have a hard on for him too?

[–]Ildona 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Almost all states have tiered age of consent that effectively states "If you could have (normally) gone to high school with them, you're in the clear."

Illinois, just next door to Wisconsin, has a 4 year clause, with 17 as age of consent. So a 17 year old has zero issues sleeping with anyone 14+.

The issue isn't that a legal minor had sex with a legal minor, or even that a legal major had sex with a legal minor (a 19 year old and a 16 year old? No problem in many states). The issue is the photographs.

And that's kind of crazy. But some people also don't delete old photos, so in five years he'd be in trouble if caught with them, or if anyone else saw them.

I see where they're coming from. But this guy doesn't need prison. Both of them need a stern talking to about privacy, the results of actions down the time line, etc.

Seriously, this is such an easily fixed non-event, and the only reason he's being tried is to make a statement about someone's disgust at millennials and their use of the internet for pornographic images of themselves. I assure you that, if my parents had our technology forty years ago, they would have done the same.

[–]ShakespearesDick 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're right, this is clearly about an agenda

[–]mwobuddy -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I see where they're coming from. But this guy doesn't need prison. Both of them need a stern talking to about privacy, the results of actions down the time line, etc.

When's the last time someone broke a serious child porn law and got "a stern talking to"?

[–]Ildona 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

  1. He didn't distribute anything. She did. He had no intent to distribute.
  2. They're effectively the same age. 16 to 17 is no difference. As far as Wisconsin's law is concerned, they're both below the age of consent. Wisconsin is one of the few 18-or-bust states, where 16-17 is a misdemeanor.
  3. In this state, age of majority is 18. So they are legally both minors. (Certain states in the south set age of majority at 19.)

He's not some child predator. They're the same age. This isn't someone breaking some serious law who should be locked up for life or something stupid like that. This is two kids who are hopped up on hormones and don't see the long term results of their relatively benign actions. They need sex education, they don't need to be on some registry.

At the very least, she should be in serious trouble if he's going to get in any, as she was distributing child pornography and had sex with a minor. Which is pretty ridiculous, and jumps through pretty extensive logical loopholes.

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

16 to 17 is no difference. As far as Wisconsin's law is concerned, they're both below the age of consent

No, the other one she sent nudes to distributed. And that one should be in prison as a purveyor of child porn, especailly as he did not have her (legally not valid anyway) consent to distribute her child naked pictures.

16 to 17 is no difference.

15 is child, 16 and above is minor. That is a difference.

He's not some child predator. They're the same age.

So when someone is the same age, they can't be a predator?

relatively benign actions.

Is a 20 year old a sex predator for having sex with a willing 15 year old? What about 30? 40?

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Creating, distributing and possessing child porn are all offences if I'm not mistaken. This is fucking disgusting

[–]Socialdem 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

She's only blind in one eye.

[–]nazi_ovipositor 71 points72 points73 points 9 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

it's shit like this that makes me think repealing consent laws and child pornography laws would to more good than harm.

[–]AdamtheClown 24 points25 points26 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Considering one of them could be 18 and the other is 17 (or one age of consent and other a year younger wherever you're living) and could fuck 10 minutes before they're both legal and could still technically get fucked over by the system, since they still technically fucked a minor.

[–]ProjectD13X 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure other states do it, but I only know Florida law, Florida has a little grace period, I think it's 16-23 is legal. I think if there were multi tiered thresholds there wouldn't be problems like this.

[–]Canttakethewhyfromme 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I guarantee that if it was the girl that was 18 and the boy was 17, they wouldn't have pursued it. Hell, if the two were videotaped having sex and the boy was tied up and shouting "No, stop it!", then maybe they would have pursued something.

[–]HeForeverBleeds 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Having absolutely no child sex laws is just going to the other extreme. It would make more sense if they made exceptions for when both parties are minors and/or when they're within a few years of age

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I don't think all would be prudent, reasonable, or safe. But I think a case could be made for aligning the laws regarding sex more closely with biological reality. When human beings enter puberty, they become both sexually attracted and sexually attractive to the opposite sex, just like with every single other mammal on the planet. This is just true, no matter how much people want to think a 15 year is too innocent and naive to know that he or she wants to poke/get poked by someone else. I think all of the same laws we have now regarding minor who have not yet entered puberty should remain the same, as there is absolutely no reason for anyone to be having sexual interactions with, or possess pornography from an actual little kid. But this mish-mash of different ages, 15, 16, 17, 18, etc depending on what they're doing, where, when, with who, who saw it, who recorded it, how did they record it, who saw the recordings, etc obviously isn't working very well. I say just pick an age, something pretty close to puberty, maybe 14 or 15, and just admit "human beings have found this to be the age of sexual capability for our entire existence up until the last 100 years, maybe we should just go back to what worked" and have that be the cutoff age for all of it. One age of sexual maturity that allows them to be act and be treated like a human with adult sexual urges and to be the recipient of the same. Because that's the biological reality of it, and it's also been the law for the existence of our species up until about 100 or so years ago.

[–]nazi_ovipositor 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

the law is a cudgel not a scalpel. you can't possibly write a law to cover every single possible circumstance. And enforcing it, even moreso. And that's why in the past, the age of consent was 12, aka, puberty. because their ethic was "draw the line where there isn't ANY DOUBT that the other person could consent" instead of "drawn the line where there isn't any doubt that they COULD consent" And now even adults can't always give "informed consent". If they're drunk, if they've been lied to, if they didn't say "yes" at every stage of the encounter. And it may not qualify as rape, but exchanging money for sex is still illegal. What do you think about the fact that in the eyes of the law 12 year olds had more personal responsibility than grown men and women do today?

At some point you need to draw a line and you need to decide which is more important, sending innocent people to jail or letting guilty people walk.

edit: fixed for massive spelling and grammar errors.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It still is, as it always has been, better to let 100 guilty men go free than to send one innocent man to jail.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But muh 1 in 4!

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The law is a scalpel until it is enlarged. To carry that analogy further, a scalpel is great at getting the worst parts without harming the whole, but poor at dealing with the whole in one stroke. That's why you make a cudgel and then try create exceptions. its 'easier'.

The more laws you make, the more criminals you create -Lao Tzu.

[–]SarahC 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When human beings enter puberty, they become both sexually attracted and sexually attractive to the opposite sex,

Hmph...... speak for yourself.

[–]CudleWudles 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Repealing all child pornography laws would almost certainly do more harm than good.

[–]nazi_ovipositor 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

ok let me clarify. laws regarding MAKING child porn should still be illegal. owning it, no.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

All? Sure. But that's a strawman. You could repeal atleast 80% and have more good than harm.

[–]CudleWudles 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He said repealing child pornography laws. I thought he meant all of them. If he meant some, then idek why he brought it up because that's definitely true and I think most people would agree.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

There's so many laws, literally hundreds and thousands across federal and state lines, that's it's inconceivable to repeal all of anything.

The only blanket changes happen at SCOTUS. Even then, more often than not, even unconstitutional laws remain on the books for years and decades before they're removed... if ever removed.

How many states still have criminal laws regarding sodomy? They can't be legally be enforced but they still exist, and every once in a while they actually get charged.

[–]CudleWudles 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, when we're speaking hypothetically, it's conceivable to repeal every law ever.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No it's not. That would be legalizing anarchy. That would never happen via legislative action. Anarchy will only occur via war or atleast open rebellion.

[–]CudleWudles 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, but I can conceive that.

[–]Socialdem -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You're out of your tree.

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

There's only one cure to being a pedophile and that's a bullet to your brain. Remember, if you every have thoughts about harming children you should Han yourself as soon as possible.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Han? Han Solo?

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There's only one cure to being a pedophile and that's a bullet to your brain. Remember, if you every have thoughts about harming children you should Han yourself as soon as possible.

is sex or nudity of them automatically harmful? Then teens are automatically harming children when they fuck them or get their nudes.

[–]AlexReynard 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How about legalizing possession, but still keeping manufacturing and distribution illegal? Then police resources would be devoted to the people actually committing the acts, and also, pedophiles could report the most brutal stuff without fearing a life sentence themselves.

[–]AlexReynard 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's entirely possible. Studies in the Czech republic, Japan and Denmark have shown that, the more types of porn that are legal, the more sex crimes decrease. Almost as if most people are either moral enough (or lazy enough) to prefer fapping in their own home to an image, rather than going out and forcing themselves on another human being.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

[+]mwobuddy -17 points-16 points-15 points 9 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

But then all those teen girls would get exploited by older men and lose their virginity to old men who have good tongues and regret it in the future and feel defiled.

How the fuck are people downvoting someone who is worried about teen girls being abused by old smelly men?

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

Yeah to prevent that we should keep a system in place that can ruin an inovent child's life forever. I'm sorry but we don't hire sexual predators is something he will hear for maybe the rest of his days.

[+]mwobuddy -29 points-28 points-27 points 9 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Then his parents or the system should have done more to teach them the evils of fucking someone who can't consent to sex. Its a failing, and maybe its not "right", but its remaining true to the intent of the law; to prevent underage people from being sexually used.

[–]RussellLawliet 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

How can she not consent but he can?

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Being he is a minor, and she is a child, by law, he bears more of the responsibility.

[–]RussellLawliet 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Those two words mean literally the same thing. Minor and child both mean "below the age of majority".

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, minor means more responsibility and more liability. Otherwise there'd be no distinction.

[–]BumpyQ 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

When you say 'intent of the law', you can swap that directly for 'spirit of the law'. Do you honestly believe that the reason these laws were enacted was to punish teenagers for getting frisky with each other? The very same way that 99% of the people who worked on its enactment did when THEY were teens?

If the current policy makers had to grow up under the laws which they now foist upon their descendants, can you imagine the utter shambles society would be in?

These laws are to protect children from adults and coercion, not teens from one another, and I think you are well aware of it. Save your surface-level moralizing for the pearl clutchers who get the vapors at the slightest hint of perceived impropriety.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do you honestly believe that the reason these laws were enacted was to punish teenagers for getting frisky with each other?

Actually the intent of the law was to punish all males, both older and younger, for sex with females between 14-17. This intent was designed by feminists.

http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/teaching-modules/230

time for a history lesson.

These laws are to protect children from adults and coercion, not teens from one another

You keep swapping child and teen, to make it sound worse when an adult does it, and better when one teen does it to another.

These laws are to protect teens from adults and coercion, not teens from one another.

Now we're closer to a more cogent argument.

not teens from one another.

So coercion into sex should only be illegal for anyone 18 or older on anyone under 18, but it should be legal for teens to apply to other teens, when the reason for the law is because they are "especially vulnerable to coercion into sex", and all the negative effects that brings.... that's your reasoning...

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you saying that 16 year old girls are too emotional and stupid to decide who to fuck? Are you an sexist?

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, women who enacted age of consent said that.

[–]SchrodingersRapist 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

teach them the evils of fucking someone who can't consent to sex

They're both teenaged minors. Either they both can consent to one another meaning no crime, or neither can consent and both should be charged. There is no "evil" imagined or otherwise in this story

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Defiling a child imparting carnal knowledge to a child Contributing to delinquency of a child. 

These are the charges anyone gets who has sex with someone who legally cant consent due to age of consent. Do those things magically stop occurring because his dick was young enough?

[–]SchrodingersRapist 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

anyone gets who has sex with someone who legally cant consent due to age of consent

Then BOTH should be charged, as NEITHER could consent. That is the entire point. One is being charged and identified while the other is being hidden and claimed the victim.

The age of consent in WI is 18, neither could consent, neither were forced, both were children in the eyes of the law, both are guilty of all three charges you list.

Or we could be rational and say that as a dating couple of teenage age they were doing normal, natural things with one another. Not truly criminal things that should see them both put on offender registries for the rest of their lives....Not that I expect you to see logic after all your defenses of charging the boy when they're both as guilty as the other of the offenses.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Or we could be rational and say that as a dating couple of teenage age they were doing normal, natural things with one another.

100 years ago 14 year olds could consent to anyone over 18, and it was natural and normal.

The age of consent law has rapidly made it abnormal and criminalized.

Appeal to normalcy is a poor argument, especially in light of normal being child brides in the middle east.

Normal != right, abnormal != wrong.

[–]SchrodingersRapist 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

....and ignoring the entire point of a post to take rational of two underage teenagers engaging and consenting to a mutual act with one another in a dating relationship to an absurd stance and middle eastern practices that aren't remotely related to the argument is where I call it with you.

I think the others who've labeled you a troll were correct. I'll be sure to tag you so I can ignore you in the future thanks.

Edit: and shit I guess if we're trying to label fallacies lemme give you yours.

You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or we could be rational and say that as a dating couple of teenage age they were doing normal, natural things with one another.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

[–]Socialdem 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mm. That's some damn fine bait or you're freaking nuts dude.

[–]qemist 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

lose their virginity to old men who have good tongues

Sounds like fun for the girls.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You sick, pedophile encouraging fuck!

[–]JebberJabber 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Indeed. I don't think it is a good thing for young women to feel defiled regardless of the law, and of any lapses in their own judgement or precautions.

[–]anothertrad 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I know this judge mother of one of my kid's school friends. I mentioned that to her and she said that the assumption is that the men is usually strong enough to overpower the women, no way they can defend themselves. I said well but that is not a proven fact for this case, at least not yet. She said well but it's always assumed at first. So we entered a loop and I gtfo.

[–]OgreMagoo 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She said well but it's always assume at first.

wait what

[–]anothertrad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

assumed. sounds like they auto-start the case with that premise in hand.

[–]Socialdem 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So. Dumb.

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If a man has to overpower a woman, there would be evidence of a struggle.

[–]bradtwo 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[ deleted ] - cuz stuff and things.

[–]Revoran 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah, well that's arguably sexual harrassment, depending on the context she was sending the nudes in.

But certainly charging a teen with CP charges for giving out nudes of them-self is retarded.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Lmfao I would kill myself I I were her parents

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Eventually she played crazy and decided that she wanted to be "right with the lord" and opted for some mental counseling from a church group to get out of any charges.

Smart girl.

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Double standards were what started the laws this guy got done in for in the first place.

[–]PotatoDonki 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think the "logic" is that, since he's 17, he can be tried as an adult. This is just ridiculous though, because what good are age-related laws when you just round up whenever you particularly feel like going after someone?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Granted, in this case it doesn't make sense and is pretty stupid but for other cases it does make sense. Should a 17 year old be tried as adult for murder or a real sexual assault? Definitely. Should a 16 year old? Probably. 15? Ehh. While this case is stupid to use the standard having the tried as an adult clause makes total sense.

[–]Tedesche 111 points112 points113 points 9 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

The article mentions that there is a pattern of police departments overzealously pursuing prosecutions on sex crimes, to the point where the spirit of the laws in question is clearly being perverted, and yet it fails to mention that the victims of these witch hunts are almost always men/boys. There is sexism here that is going unacknowledged.

[–]Meebee_bebe 26 points27 points28 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree that the way they go after kids under these laws is crazy. My 13 year old received a dick pic. She even went in to tell the office. I got phone calls from the police and had to fight so she wouldn't get arrested for possession of child porn. It's ridiculous.

[–]locks_are_paranoid 27 points28 points29 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

She even went in to tell the office.

This was the incorrect option. A person should never volunteer information to anyone about anything.

[–]Meebee_bebe 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah she found that out quick.

[+]mwobuddy -38 points-37 points-36 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

The article mentions that there is a pattern of police departments overzealously pursuing prosecutions on sex crimes

Dont you WANT sex crimes prosecuted?

[–]Tedesche 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Keyword: overzealously. Do I want actual sex crimes prosecuted? Yes, obviously. Do I want laws intended to prosecute and lock up actual rapists and purveyors of child pornography to be used to conduct witch hunts against innocent teenagers? No. You seem completely fine with the latter though, and that disgusts me.

[+]mwobuddy -27 points-26 points-25 points 9 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

How do you differentiate " actual rapists and purveyors of child pornography" from "innocent teenagers"?

What if some teenager was running a ring at his high school where guys get pics of their girlfriend and he trades thme around as a middle man? Is he a purveyor of child porn?

What about a single guy that fucks tons of girls in high school and then shows off his "catches" nude pics?

Is it possible in your imagination world for a teen to be an actual rapist and purveyor of child porn?

Where do you draw that line? Are you only an actual rapist if your penile age is 19, 20, 40? Are you a purveyor of child porn if you receive/send images of underage people when you're over 18, but not under 18?

Is the only difference between innocent and guilty to you of what age the person being subjected to the law is?

Lets take an example. Suppose this girl is 15. What do you consider an innocent teenager as a male on the other side, taking nude pics of her and fucking her, and what do you consider a rapist or purveyor of child porn in relation to her?

[–]Tedesche 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes, to all of your examples; no, to your last question.

It has nothing to do with age. It's about intent. And you left out the most important example of all, relevant to this thread—the actual case in question.

So, do you think this kid is a purveyor of child porn and a sexual predator? If so, I think you need to recalibrate your brain.

As I said in my other comment, I don't see much coming from further conversation with you on this topic. Call that ignorance all you want, it has nothing to do with what you or I know; it's about your statements and gaping chasms of illogical assumptions between them. I learned from debating religion with religious apologists that such conversations are futile. You are no different.

[+]mwobuddy -15 points-14 points-13 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

You're the one using faith based argument.

You say its wrong simply because its wrong. Do you have any good reason why its wrong?

So if intent is all that matters, then why should the law change? After all, the law is based on the intent of someone older manipulating or abusing someone younger for nudes or for sex.

You have fully admitted that you draw the line at age determining whether you're a rapist or not. Another faith based argument. At odds with your argument that it is intent which matters.

If the law is based on intent, then manipulative teens as well as so called adults can be purveyors of child porn or rapists of teens. If you believe it is intent based, then whether someone is 16 or 60, if they manipulate a 15 year old girl into sex, its rape to you, correct? But not if the intent of the 16 year old is not to manipulate her into sex, but they eventually do have sex, but if the intent of the 60 year old is not to manipulate her into sex they do have sex but it is then rape?

By your own admission, you said yes, a teen running a nude ring is a purveyor of child porn, even though two teens could trade nudes and you'd apparently be okay with it, even though what they're trading is arguably CP.

By your own admission, you said that a single guy fucking tons of girls and showing off his nudes is a purveyor.

By your own admission, you admit a teen can be a rapist.

By your own admission, you admit that age determins you to be a rapist or not. But then that means that intent is meaningless doesn't it?

So if the law is based on the possibility of people over 18 with bad intent taking advantage of young girls, while shouldn't the law be blanket with teens as well as it is with adults, since there could be teens with bad intent, as you mentioned?

You seem perfectly okay with blanket law putting anyone over 18 away for a long time, having them be called sex predators, etc, reviled by everyone. Clearly it is a huge sex crime, but then you wish teens to get a free pass based on "intent"? And how is this established? By hauling each one in front of a judge to determine intent? And its okay to do this for anyone under 18 but not over 18? Is that just or fair?

[–]AnIce-creamCone 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The reason no-one replied to this is because you're way off base here. You can't accuse people of being rape apologists for having common sense about a case like this. The kid is a minor and shouldn't be have his name released publicly. It's not to do with giving minors some magical immunity. It's about common sense. Which you don't appear to have.

Bless your heart.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How is it overzealous?

[–]PubbyChanda 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You seem so completely set on believing that the law operates as it is stated everytime. I'm sorry, but that isn't the case. The world has many shades of grey when you look at context and that is what the judge and jury are for. The world isn't black and white but the law is for the sake of those trying to enact it. By allowing us to view all details and make appropriate decisions based on that and using the law as a guideline. That is why there are temporary insanity clauses and things called crimes of passion (I'm not an expert on the law) etc. Quit being a purist is all I can tell you.

[–]Wswgyg 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No. Not when consensual sex counts as a crime due to arbitrary age limits

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Let stick to the rapes that the cops don't investigate and the DA doesn't prosecute by the tens of thousands of cases for decades and get over human anatomy.

[–]MizterUltimaman 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Welcome to 2016 current year

have consentual sex

go to jail for rape

And they call me immature for holding off on marriage

[–][deleted] 54 points55 points56 points 9 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

Wait, so if you're under 18 in the US, it's illegal to have sex with ANYONE? That doesn't make any damn sense.

[–]unbelievablepeople 41 points42 points43 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

It varies from state to state but generally speaking there's an age of consent that is typically in the late teens. An adult who has sex with someone younger than the age of consent is committing a crime, although two minors having sex with each other are generally not committing a crime.

However, it's important to remember that sexual images of people under 18 are always illegal in the United States. So, if a 17-year-old boyfriend and girlfriend send each other nude pictures, they have both just committed felony distribution of child pornography. It would be legal for them to have sex with each other, but not for them to trade sexual images of each other.

[–]bufedad 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

However, in this case, the girlfriend committed the crime of distributing child pornography (she took the photos and video) and he only committed the crime of possession.

Still, he's the only one being charged.

[–]unbelievablepeople 25 points26 points27 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Yes, that is true. There are really two issues. One is that the laws are badly written and criminalize ordinary teenage behavior. The other is that the laws are unevenly enforced, with boys more likely than girls to be prosecuted.

[–]bufedad 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

My belief is that if the laws were evenly enforced, they would be rewritten.

Our goal should be to force laws to be evenly enforced, because society cares about women.

We should use that to our advantage. Put women in our position, and then the laws will change.

[–]MassiveMeatMissile 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think these laws will change anytime soon, no politician wants to be seen as the guy who's soft on child pornography, which is the way it would be spun by people apposing the change and that politician.

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No politician wants to be seen as the person responsible for little girls going to prison.

If the laws are enforced equally, then they will reform the law.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think these laws will change anytime soon, no politician wants to be seen as the guy who's soft on child pornography, which is the way it would be spun by people apposing the change and that politician.

That's how these laws came into existence to begin with.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

My belief is that if the laws were evenly enforced, they would be rewritten.

Of fucking course. When women start becoming "victims of an unjust law" it changes.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

the girlfriend committed the crime of distributing child pornography (she took the photos and video) and he only committed the crime of possession.

No, because you can't make a victim of yourself and be charged for it. The one distributing child porn is the other guy who she sent pics to, who then sent it to others.

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You can and they have.

[–]goldguy09 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Here in Florida we have the Romeo and Juliet law so 16-24 is legal.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Here in Florida we have the Romeo and Juliet law so 16-24 is legal

That's actually surprising to me and reasonable.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It's so retarded that in a society with primtime shows like "Teen Mom" and "16 and Pregnant" would have such backwards laws about sexuality. I'm not advocating one thing or another, but at least we could TRY to be consistent.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's all about money, a child on the sex offender registry for 25 years is paying weekly or monthly to some kind of probation office.

[–]Wauwosaurus 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Here in Sweden it is legal to have sex if you're 15, all hail the vikings!

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because the real purpose of consent laws are to prevent adults from abusing prepubescent children.

Somewhere it's turned into a modern puritanical gallows for punishing those for being sluts, or more realistically, punishing the men who pay them attention.

[–]Wauwosaurus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haha I was just saying :) And yes, that seems very logical.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Wauwosaurus 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Never said that it didn't :) I think you're reading my comment too seriously.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Wauwosaurus 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

<3

[–]user1492 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Only in Wisconsin and California. Most states have a lower age of consent and "Romeo and Juliet" laws.

[–]Soldier4Christ82 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Wait, California? Are you serious?

This whole thing is ridiculous enough on it's own, but how can people rubber stamp gay marriage and yet act like a teenage boy is a pedophile for having sex with someone his own age?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

They have a high population of people living on welfare, and it starts with teens. Guys live on free rent by getting a girl pregnant and having her apply for assistance. They get a few of these girls rolling so they always have a place to hide from cops and pussy to stick their dicks in.

[–]Soldier4Christ82 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Not that it's right (because it's not), but it only seems fair to me that, if women can abuse the system and live in the lap of luxury on child support and/or welfare instead of providing for her children, men should absolutely be able to do the same; gender equality and such.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

lap of luxury

What? Have you ever lived in low income housing?

Being trapped at home because minimum wage pays less than what a babysitter/daycare costs, and/or your babysitter/daycar eabuses the kid and/or the kid gets sick is not the lap of luxury.

When you can't leave your four walls because the people outside in the low income housing are collecting 'crazy checks' from social security and can't be trusted around you or your kid, it's not the lap of luxury.

Are you even thinking?

[–]Soldier4Christ82 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So you're telling me that child support is never spent on luxury items?

Are you even thinking?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

First of all no woman is going to collect 'child support' while 'not providing for their children' unless someone is very negligent in pursuing and reporting that.

Look what happens when a women tries to get a job

I think you are talking about a totally different class of citizens. I think you are talking about working men who make a bunch of babies with a women they can't stand, and then get stuck paying for that.

I'm talking about men, who get a bunch of women pregnant, so idiots like the guy I just described have to pay more taxes so the player has more places to hide his money, guns, drugs, and seed.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This whole thing is ridiculous enough on it's own, but how can people rubber stamp gay marriage and yet act like a teenage boy is a pedophile for having sex with someone his own age?

Not pedophile, sex predator. Pedophilia is different in both law and psychiatry.

need I remind you that homosexuality was a mental disorder. So was masturbation. What has never been a mental disorder is sexual desire for teens, whether that desire comes from a teen or an adult from age 20-60.

The age of consent was 12-13 in the U.S. until 1920, the purity movement was responsible for raising it to 16-18, under the claim that girls were being manipulated into sex by teen males and adult males. The law was originally intended to punish teen and adult males for sex with 14-17 year old teen females. The law was changed in the mid 1900's so that teen males received lesser punishment, but still punishment.

The law was against changed recently in some areas with R&J laws so neither gender receives punishment, but the reason for the law's existence is the possible ability to be manipulated into sex, which si something both teens are still vulnerable to, but we've made exemptions so that despite them being vulnerable to sex and manipulation, it is legal for one teen to do this to another.

It is legal for an 18 year old to be manipulated by a 60 year old. It is legal in most states for a teen to be manipulated by another teen if both are underage. It is only illegal for sex to occur between a teen underage and anyone adult, whether or not manipulation has occurred.

Therefore the law punishes a very narrow group of people, and cannot truly be effective at fighting manipulation of underage teens or overage teens into sex.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Only if you have a penis though

[–]redditorriot 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The impression I'm getting is that it's legal for an older boy to have sex with a younger gf, until he reaches a certain age at which point it's illegal, until she reaches a certain age at which point it becomes legal again.

Also, no idea if the laws are gender neutral.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its legal for anyone underage to have sex with anyone else. They won't get in trouble. Its illegal for anyone to have sex with THEM.

If they're both underage, they're obviously both having sex with someone illegal.

[+]mwobuddy -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Why? Would it make more sense if it was legal for you as someone underage to have sex with anyone, but illegal for people to have sex with you?

Then you're faced with the possibility that you could be underage and have sex with whoever you want, and then turn around and report them and put them in prison for laughs.

Or the hilarious situation where its two underage people, where each person is legally able to have sex with anyone else, yet not legally able to have sex with. Therefore both would be both legal and illegal.

[–]_Ninja_Wizard_ 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't try to make sense of our fucked up laws

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Morality_and_the_Law

Foucault stressed that:

"What is emerging is a new penal system, a new legislative system whose function is not so much to punish offenses against these general laws concerning decency, as to protect populations and parts of populations regarded as particularly vulnerable" (for example children). "Therefore, there would be on one side the fragile population, and on the other side the "dangerous population" " (the adult in general).

Foucault observes that whereas the law formerly condemned the infringement, the act of breaking the law, we enter from now on in a disciplinary society which condemns the criminal himself – called "delinquent" or "pervert" – and instead of punishing the act, we criminalize a person or a category of the population.

"We're going to have a society of dangers, with, on the one side, those who are in danger, and on the other, those who are dangerous. (...) Sexuality will become a threat in all social relations, in all relations between members of different age groups, in all relations between individuals. And sexuality will no longer be a kind of behavior hedged in by precise prohibitions, but a kind of roaming danger, a sort of omnipresent phantom, a phantom that will be played out between men and women, children and adults, and possibly between adults themselves. It is on this shadow, this phantom, this fear that the authorities would try to get a grip through an apparently generous and, at least general, legislation and through a series of particular interventions that would probably be made by the legal institutions, with the support of the medical institutions."

[–]_Ninja_Wizard_ 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's basically what I said except strung out into three paragraphs

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obviously I didn't do it for you but for the uninitiated.

[–]Snitsie 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

My father was 19 when he met my 16 year old mother. Scary shit.

[–]jrackow 32 points33 points34 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

And that is completely, biologically normal.

[–]armoured 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And legal everywhere else in the fucking world

[–]mwobuddy -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately.

[–]chloeveng 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The law > biology

[+]mwobuddy -8 points-7 points-6 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A 40 year old and 16 year old is also "completely biologically normal". But it is socially unacceptable in 2016.

Appeal to nature fallacy in you.

[–]jrackow 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

3 year and 24 year difference.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

3 year and 24 year difference.

red herring. Does the act of sex

contributing to delinquency of a child.

imparting carnal knowledge on a child.

defiling a child

if it does, no age difference will change this. Those are the law based reasons for it to be illegal for a 40 year old to fuck a 16 year old.

I find it impossible to believe that carnal knowledge is not imparted on a child suddenly because the other participant might be considered a child.

I find it impossible to believe that defiling a child no longer happens because the other might be considered a child, since defilement is the act of sex itself.

I find it impossible to believe that contributing to delinquency no longer happens... etc. Sexual activity while underage is considered delinquent btw.

What R&J exception say is "sure, there's defiling, imparting carnal knowledge, and contributing to delinquency happening, but we don't care to punish the offender(s)".

How does a 40 year old cock defile or impart carnal knowledge on a 16 year old but a 16 year old cock does not?

[–]lyndinn 39 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

https://fundly.com/m2/save-austins-future

I am Austins mother. Although I am not thrilled of the circumstances, I do know that my son is not a predator, an abuser, or a pedophile. He is a young man who has a big heart and big dreams. He fell in love with this girl. The way they treated my son from the time he was questioned about the sharing of pictures, the confiscation of his phone and Facebook account, to the day he stood in my livingroom in handcuffs has been unjust. He fully cooperated and acted respectful. Now I wish he didnt cooperate. I started a campaign on the link above if anyone is willing to.contribute to a decent attorney.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]foosmoo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same here

[–]Davidisontherun 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You should create a new post since this one is buried by earlier comments.

[–]ICEKAT 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am sorry this happened to your boy. PLEASE spread the story as best you can. Help protect the other boys who will put themselves in this position, and don't know any better. It has happened too many times.

[–]user1492 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If there's any justice, the case will be thrown out because the police talked to a minor without permission from his parents.

But really, this is example number 379,921,014 why you should not cooperate with the police.

[–]Robz888 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Hello, I'm Robby Soave, the author of this article.

I know that the mother, Amy, would appreciate any advice or help you have. I can be reached at [email protected] if you have information for me.

I will also let Amy know that the case is being discussed here.

Thanks.

[–]bakedpotato486 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do you know if any GoFundMe or something to help with a proper legal representation has been started yet?

[–]Robz888 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep! Right here: https://fundly.com/save-austins-future?ft_src=email_share_mobile

[–]candyman420 42 points43 points44 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Kim's parents first found out about the situation from Austin's mother, who called them to let them know. On May 6, Kim's mother notified Super High School's assistant principal, Bill Punyko, that several boys were circulating sexual pictures of Kim.

There are the real problems, right there.

[–][deleted] 60 points61 points62 points 9 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Sure there are, but if you read just prior to your quoted portion, you'll find it's not Austin that took the pictures and passed them around. It's a third party named "Thomas" in the article who Kim was sexting with on the side. Thomas took her Snapchat posts, screencapped them, and passed them around.

Thomas should be charged for disseminating those photos, not Austin, who had nothing to do with it other than the fact he was the boyfriend getting shafted because his girlfriend was sexting with other boys on the side.

All Austin did was store photos and video of himself, his girlfriend and the two of them having sex on his cell phone. That's it.

[–]kireol 56 points57 points58 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So, Kim is the one that started passing child porn pics around. Glad to see they are taking her to court. oh, wait.

[–]candyman420 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

And who got the school/cops involved? The mothers. Always the mothers.

These busybody cunts should let kids handle their own problems like this themselves, they are a huge part of the problem.

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The mother got involved when she found out the OTHER guy that the girl sent nudes to was showing them off to others.

She sent nudes to someone that wasn't her boyfriend. Prior to that, her mother knew of their relationship and handed them both condoms and the pill in order for them to get busy safely.

In effect, she contributed to the delinquency of minors by encouraging them to commit illegal sex acts.

[–]candyman420 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Right, busybody cunt mother that should have minded her own business. Unless their lives are in danger, parents should stay out, teenagers can handle their own problems.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Getting the police involved is obviously ridiculous, but what I took from the article was that the cop was already working at the school, and effectively took it upon himself to get involved. Up for debate, but I don't think it's unreasonable for mothers to look out for their kids by notifying the school - their kids are there most of the day / week, and it gives the opportunity for behaviour like that of the guy who distributed the pictures to be discussed in a rational, open way, and tackled both at home and in school. Plus, I reckon having nudes sent around the school might affect your ability to concentrate in class, so, I'd disagree with you that the mother notifying the school qualifies her as being a 'busybody cunt'. If a kid is being bullied at school, it's reasonable to notify, so...

[–]candyman420 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah she is absolutely a busybody cunt. What the hell is the school gonna do about it? Inform the police and ruin his life. Because they inform the police about everything nowadays.

Here's a better idea, kids need to learn early that if they expose themselves to pics, those can potentially get spread around later. Common sense.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I mean, the only person whose fault it is that this was taken up as a legal case, is the cop who chose to do so. That's his responsibility, not the mother's or the school's.

The role of a school is to educate in all areas of life, not just what kids need to pass exams. They fail on this front a lot, but they still have a responsibility to look out for their students' wellbeing. Also, it's very possible that many parents wouldn't talk to their kids about this kind of thing - the idea of consent, of entitlement, of caution and common sense - and if anything, might just yell at their kids. A school has the opportunity to gather its students together for discussion, provide safe spaces, objective trust-worthy counsel. That's the ideal, I realise it's not always reality. A school would have no investment in getting the cops involved. Why would they want to potentially ruin the future of the same students it's trying to educate and give the best start in life? Especially if they can settle it without legal intervention and use it as a springboard for discussion? More cynically, they wouldn't want the publicity. It just wouldn't make sense.

The blame here should be squarely placed on the law enforcement who needlessly involved themselves in something that could have been very easily settled in school.

You're right, it's complete common sense that if you take a picture of yourself, you should either keep your face out of it or send it only to people you completely trust. But if someone chooses to dispense those photos, it doesn't then become your fault, because you didn't make that decision to break confidentiality, the other person did. By the same logic, it isn't the kids', the school's, or the parents' fault that this went as far as it did. Saying that kids need to learn personal responsibility is commendable, but saying that doing so precludes the need to then notify the school (or maybe even their own parents) is the same logic of victim-blaming. 'If you had common sense in the first place this never would have happened.' It's an unfortunate chain of events, but the only person whose fault this is, is the cop who decided to take this to the level of the law. His choice, his responsibility. The mothers and the school were just trying to look out for the kids in their care, regardless of whether or not they should have known better (and for sure, they should have). Blaming the mother seems a bit harsh.

[–]candyman420 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, the only person whose fault it is that this was taken up as a legal case, is the cop who chose to do so. That's his responsibility, not the mother's or the school's.

Uh, no. A cop's obligation is to the law. The law was broken, you can't blame the cop for deciding to do his job.

The parents should be wise enough to understand that the law is ridiculous, and to let them settle problems on their own. Kids do this (trade pics) all the time, it isn't felony worthy.

You don't go whine to the administration about it, because you know that they're going to make a mountain out of a mole hill with the police and ultimately ruin lives.

The cunts in the administration could have ALSO decided not to make it a police matter.

You don't ever, ever, ever involve police in anything unless it's a serious situation. Kids sending some fucking pictures around amongst themselves is not serious.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You send nudes out you can get your ass the whole high school will see them no matter what

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Ultimate_Failure 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Never trust cops.

NEVER TRUST COPS.

NEVER TRUST COPS.

[–]Vandechoz 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

well maybe the legislators too for not fixing the shit laws that make nearly every teen in the country guilty of child pornography

[–]Mcawesome5388 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This exact thing happened to a buddy of mine. He served a year on house arrest, five years of probation, and ten years on the sex offenders list. It essentially ruined his life.

Edit: fixed autocorrect

[–]civilsaint 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Next up on Netflix: Making a Rapist

Wisconsin strikes again.

[–]soylentcoleslaw 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Kid says the parents gave him access to condoms and put the girl on birth control. Smart parents.

Kid hands his phone over to the police when they ask him to. Dumb parents. Never taught him to never, ever trust the police and never volunteer anything. Of course if he hadn't had the pictures and video on there, he would be in a better position, but what are the odds you convince any 17 year old to delete/not take naked pictures of his girlfriend? Not likely.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You realize not trusting the police and not cooperating is why they act the way they do right?

[–]soylentcoleslaw 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You realize that by acting the way they do, they undermine the public trust, and as they are civil servants, it should be their responsibility earn the trust of the public and not have it handed to them by virtue of wearing a uniform? Of course the Supreme Court would have you believe that it's not the responsibility of the police to "serve and protect", only to enforce the law without regard for its intent.

[–]StormBeforeDawn 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Fuck you. They will screw you given the opportunity and you are lucky that you haven't learned that the hard way yet. Cops are not your friends. Ever.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No wonder cops want to shoot you when you treat them like shit.

[–]el_throwaway_returns 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If cops are this immature then maybe we need to reconsider how much power we give them.

[–]StormBeforeDawn 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, have to be polite (whatever it's worth, I'm white and white collar). Shooting/assault from cops is a whole other topic, what I am on about is cops lying to kids to get them to screw themselves when the kids are too young to not know any better than to trust a LEO. My brother almost went to jail for a cop breaking the law followed by a coerced testimonial from little sister (a minor) that was couched to fit the cops narrative.

Fortunately the cop's lies fell apart in court but imagine how many families that fuckery happens to who don't have the money to fight it?

[–]InterstellarSpaceBot 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

So two minors can't have sex? What is the fucking problem here every way I look at it he did nothing wrong. He isn't even over the age where having sex with a minor is a crime! That's 18. He's 17. Can someone explain where exactly the police are getting the idea he committed a crime??

[–]jasonreid1976 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Distribution of child pornography - possession of photos of a person under the age of 18.

[–]InterstellarSpaceBot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

So no one, regardless of age can have CP? Even minors?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes, of course. If that weren't the case pornographers would use minors to create and distribute it while marketing it to minors.

[–]InterstellarSpaceBot 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That does make sense. But it essentially means sending nudes is illegal until age 18

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes the world just needs to get over the naked body, and people who are still enticed by it can be brain scanned and corrected with appropriate voltage and medication.

[–]InterstellarSpaceBot 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Now hey, I'm not promoting CP. I was just surprised to learn even teens can get in legal trouble for sextile other teens

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

God this shit is so fucked. This isn't even about men's rights to me. They were having a normal teen sex life and now his name is tarnished forever. I was a teenager once and guess what? I had underage pics on my phone of me and my girlfriend. Everyone did. It's not child porn when you're the same age and these cops should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's not child porn when you're the same age and these cops should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

Begging the question logical fallacy.

Why is it not?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Child+Pornography

Child pornography may include actual or simulated sexual intercourse involving minors, deviant sexual acts, bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or the exhibition of genitals in a sexually arousing fashion.

That means anything. She likely did exactly that in the pictures, and that was the intent of them, therefore they are child porn, as she is underage, regardless of the relationship of whoever receives them.

You are flat out wrong. They are child porn.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Just because that's the definition doesn't mean it's right. No kids were being harmed and it was all consenual. The only reason they were hurt was because of the stupid kid passing the pictures around which led to adults illegally searching kids phones. Now there are adults looking at kids naked bodies which is where it starts getting fucked up. It wasn't fucked up when they were all the same age. It's normal shit kids of that age do and none of them are thinking of any of that as child porn.

Honestly it should be called peer porn since it wasn't meant for pedophiles or adults.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No kids were being harmed and it was all consenual.

How do you know?

Now there are adults looking at kids naked bodies which is where it starts getting fucked up. It wasn't fucked up when they were all the same age. It's normal shit kids of that age do and none of them are thinking of any of that as child porn.

So if you don't think of it as child porn, then child porn is okay?

Now there are adults looking at kids naked bodies which is where it starts getting fucked up.

Sexually active people who send their dick or clit pics out to others, and its fucked up to look at those pictures only because someone is over 18?

The equivocations.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The difference is critical. It's wrong for a middle-aged person to view a child as a sexual being. But it's not wrong for teenagers of relatively similar ages to view each other that way.

Why the legal system still struggles with this concept amazes me.

[–]mwobuddy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

its because this person is equivocating. First, they're a child, then they're a teen.

It has never been wrong until the last 100 years for a middle aged person to view them as a sexual being. The claim "it is wrong" is taken as self-evident fact, regardless of any reasoning.

Furthermore, while homosexuality and masturbation have been considered mental disorders, viewing teens who have gone through puberty as sexually attractive has never been a mental disorder. People have tried to make it one in the last 10 years, and it has been fought by psychologists.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They only go by how the laws are written. It's only black or white in their legal minds.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's sad that the "talk" we have to have with our kids is about not recording your sexual exploits on your god damned phone and not trusting the police.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I fucking hate people without common sense, they should go jump off a cliff, disgusting!

[–]oshmkufa2010 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All hail Patriarchy, where the "rapes" of women aren't taken seriously enough and rape culture is thriving...

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Get me out of here!

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What a joke.

[–]stabb 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just asking, Children can be tried for Adult sentences given the nature of the crime right? Or was it just the other side pushing for mature age and the law applies kind of thing?

[–]morebeansplease 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How the fuck can a minor sign their rights away?

[–]Fuckinmidpoint 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Never consent to any search. Poor kid, fuck.

[–]Ultimate_Failure 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the main problem with cops in this country is that they are stupid.

We need to somehow raise the prestige of the profession so it starts attracting better people.

[–]Vandechoz 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For once, this isn't feminism. But are feminists doing anything about it? No, because it almost always happens to boys and men.

[–]DrDemolisher 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And let me guess. If a 19 years old girl was to have sex with him, she would be accused of sex with a minor? But him with a 15 years old, he is considered an adult?

[–]senracatokad 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am so disgusted and ashamed to be a part of a society that would do this to a 17 year old. They're only two years apart for Christ's sake. There are REAL pedophiles in the world and this kid faces up to 40 years for having sex in a loving relationship??!!

[–]Astrrum 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why you encrypt your data, kids.

[–]EDDbDG 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is fucking ridiculous. There are actual children being abused by actual child rapists in your fucking state, and a high school relationship is what you choose to prosecute? Jesus. This is crazy.

[–]jaheiner 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course, cause adult female teachers fuck their students and get a slap on the wrist and no sex offenders registry. A kid and his girlfriend have sex and he's a rapist and pedophile.

Perhaps he can use some of that male priviledge we hear so much about to get him out of this one.

[–]tobiascuypers 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow, I live in the City where this is taking place and this is my first time hearing of this. Great Rep for us.

Seriously tho, this is terrible. As everybody else said this is more than just infair, it is unjust too. Things Like this is why I am subbed here.

[–]wookinpanub1 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What's with the trend of removing or delaying the age at which young people have privileges (smoking age in Cali is 21) but if they violate the law we try them as adults at 17?

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they're only kids.

Its called the infantilization effect. It started with age of consent rising in the early 1900s and continues with more and more laws.

[–]EduBA 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wiscosin, home of Steven Avery, his cops and his judges.

[–]mactroneng 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Could he (or his parents) ask for charges to be brought against the girl as well?

[–]jason-funk 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

4chan will probably doxx her and call her a rapist publicly fir better or worse

[–]droidtime 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's next, charging male dogs with beastality when they mount a bitch?

[–]iHeartCandicePatton 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This injustice won't get the exposure or public outcry that the Brock Turner case did, because nobody informed the masses that they need to care about this one.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

back where im from, the parents have to give consent for 16-18. its the parents pressing charges i dont think the boys parents are though. hence why it seems biased

[–]RussellLawliet 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Neither of the children's parents are pressing charges. Both of their parents knew that they were having sex and the girl's parents gave them condoms and put her on birth control. This is the state prosecuting a boy for possessing child pornography despite the fact that another boy was distributing it.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RussellLawliet 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

But they're not prosecuting the girl, who created and distributed the child pornography. This is a pretty clear double standard.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]RussellLawliet 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Doesn't matter under US law. Distribution is distribution.

[–]MrKaru 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Gosh that poor girl. This is why we need to purge Rape culture

/s

[–]iongantas 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think we need to make the 1/2 + 7 rule into law or something.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So if a 40 year old fucked a 20 year old, they'd be facing prison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39uImC9_PYI

[–]iongantas 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wouldn't apply to age of majority.

[–]Stunner900 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

sue sue sue, the state

[–]Squez360 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If both are not being charged then why not charge her instead? Girls can easily have sex with anybody so why isnt she liable?

[–]JimboYokimbo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How old is she?

[–]Ransal 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I just read a typical high school teen drama where the overreaching state decides they want to punish a boy because a girl made a mistake.

[–]VojvodaSrpski 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What is age of consent in the US?

[–]McFeely_Smackup 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There is no single age of consent, every state has their own. 16 is the most common, others are 17 or 18.

There is also a federal age of consent of 18 that covers areas that state laws don't (crossing multiple state lines, etc)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

After discovering indecent photos of Austin's 15-year-old girlfriend on his cell phone

this is why he got charged. he was older but even then he might still be charged if she was older.

[–]rg57 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Cases like this show what is wrong about the whole concept of basing sex laws on ages. Plainly these people are capable of consent, and are not harmed, except BY the intervention of the very law that claims to protect them.

It's almost as if, once we grow into majority ourselves, we suddenly forget who we used to be. Most of us were not moronic lumps incapable of making decisions such as "no" and "stop", or "yeah!" and "keep doing that".

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The law clearly states all kids have to be 18 now to lose their virginity. He's being made an example out of. I told ya'll it'll happen.

[–]RevisoryCa_krm1 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

He looks so young compared to me and im only a few months older than him. This shit is scary as fuck for me to see

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I called a while ago. Ya'll didn't listen to me. It's gonna be illegal for kids under 18 to date and have sex. Told you so.

[–]NeuroEuphoria 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So who's starting the change petition to get this cop removed? He's an absolute fucking psycho; to ruin children lives over this...All of them! This is some sick shit, does the fucker get off to the idea of destroying their lives and having them file as sexual predators? - > Especially since, sorry to say, this is only one persons fault and that's "kim" she should've known better. Sounds like typical emo kids and their parents tho; their parents are always in some degree fucked up, the kids included. Source used to be an emo-highschooler Edit maybe I'm being too hard on kim too, this is all fucked up...they're kids :/

[–]jason-funk 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think he needs the most sleazy, borderline lawbreaking, money hungry shark lawyer to try to get the same charges pinned on her as a counter

[–]waferdog 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The district attorney in this case recently lost an election after 20-some years in prison in office. It will be interesting to see how his replacement handles this.

[–]Afatcat12 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I found this. Help this poor, poor kid... https://fundly.com/save-austins-future?ft_src=email_share_mobile His mom started this fundraiser if anyone wants to help.

[–]Kizrock94 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The world, mostly western world, is throwing rationality out of the window

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Meanwhile: the rest of looks on in bemusement as a bunch of puritanical law dicks ruin a childs life.

[–]MagicTampon 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

d

[–]Kuramo 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

A good reason to carry on with being MGTOW. Any relationship with women either marriage, engagement or friendship is a danger for every male.

[–]hotspencer 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a real interesting story, but I can't take the source seriously at all.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The law really needs to be changed, how many lives have to be ruined from this type of bullshit before something is actually done?

[–]Longboarding-Is-Life 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Underage sexting is kinda like assisted suicide. There is no clear "right" or "wrong" way of legally handling it

[–]Cybralisk 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Sure there is. Don't prosecute teens for taking and sending naked pictures of themselves

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And always prosecute teens who don't get rid of pictures sent to them or show them to others.

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It gets deeper, though. The parents of the girl should also be charged as accessories to statutory rape, for, if stat rape is

contributing to delinquency of a child. imparting carnal knowledge on a child. defiling a child 

As it is codified in AoC laws, then the parents, handing out condoms to them both and putting their girl on the pill, are directly responsible for encouraging two people who can't consent to have sex.

Therefore they are accessories to those charges I listed above.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yup

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]mwobuddy 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good.

[–]92Hippie -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

He's banging a 15 year old though.. that's messed up

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Did you live under a rock in high school? It's 2 years. If we use that argument than we should be disgusted with other people's parents who are 10 years or so apart from each other. Or a 40 year old newly divorced guy who's banging 21 year old college chicks...that's wrong now too?

[–]92Hippie -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

21 is not 15 bruh wtf

[–]Arby01 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

kid was 17 at the time bruh, wtf are you on about?

17 and 15 year old getting it on? Pretty much the definition of normal.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I am aware. I'm pointing the fact it's a slippery slope argument. How is 17 and 15 wrong? It's only 2 years. Whatever, point is, it's now illegal for high schoolers to fuck until they're 18 apparently. Way to go America. Now even childhood is shitty. Don't fuck on prom night cuz it'll ruin your life apparently...

[–]mwobuddy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But there's a HUGE power imbalance with 21 and 40. The minds of 21 year olds are still developing! The older person of 19 years has so much more experience and isnt as impulsive!

All quite similar claims as to why people think it should be illegal for 17 to get fucked by 25, or 15 by 20, etc etc.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bruh. What has this got to do with men's rights?

[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+]mwobuddy -23 points-22 points-21 points 9 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

Austin isn't a sexual predator.

And how is that established, my I ask Mr. Author? Significant age difference? Intent? What establishes sex from sex predator?

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

I don't know of you're a troll or just a moron...

But by your own logic the girl should be charged with Exploitation of a Minor, Manufacturing and Distribution of Child Poronagraphy and finally Rape of a Minor. After all...she admitted to taking the pictures and that the sex was consensual. Well under the law, which according to you needs to be strictly enforced, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as well. Because as you have been arguing, the law doesn't make any distinctions. She's a minor, she has absolutely no rights in regards to consenting to sex and neither does he.

Edit: For the record, I firmly believe that nobody should be facing charges in this.

[–]mwobuddy -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

After all...she admitted to taking the pictures and that the sex was consensual.

A 15 year old can admit he or she had consensual sex all they want with a 40 year old... it still won't be considered consensual.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And he's 17, so he couldn't consent either. She IS just as guilty and responsible as he is.

[–]mwobuddy -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hes a minor, she's a child. By law, he bears more legal responsibility, being a minor.

Yes, she also committed a crime. She should be punished. Punishment lighter than him.

The teen distributing her nudes should also get hard prison time, as any other child porn distributor would. Some bubba time would make him think twice.

Its how we feel about 50 year olds who do it, we should feel similar about teens who do it, because ignorance of the law is no excuse, and violation is violation.

If a 12-13 year old sodomized a 1 year old, we'd want them sent to adult prison for life.

[+]mwobuddy -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The law is pretty clear cut.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Then she should be prosecuted as well.

[–]mwobuddy -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree, if only because she was proven to have had sex with an underage minor by being in his porn video.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Only because of that? So she's free and clear on sending and making child porn?

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You can't legally be responsible for victimizing yourself. If she'd sent around nudes of another girl, yes, she'd be responsible.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So...just because she sent them to a boy she can't be held legally responsible for it. Wow...if that is some of the most sexist shit I have ever read.

[–]mwobuddy -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Person A makes video of themselves.

They send it to person B. That is not a crime although possession of video is.

Person B sends it to C, D, and E. Now all are guilty of possession, B is guilty of distribution.

Gender has nothing to do with the argument, in the most legal form, although it is commonly used improperly by law.

No, she is still not a criminal for distribution. She is at least partially criminal for the sex that was recorded.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Obvious troll is obvious. Back to /r/TwoXChromosomes with you.

[+]Aviril-LoL -22 points-21 points-20 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

This has nothing to do with men's rights at all. His girlfriend was 15. He had indecent images and videos of her. By law this is possession of child pornography. Having sexual intercourse with a minor is statutory rape. No exceptions. This has nothing to do with men's rights, but with retarded, conservative American law. If the sexes were reversed it would be exactly the same.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Did you read the article. She was sexting, and a THIRD party distributed it.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But the issue isn't with the photos at all. And that has been proving by none of the other kids being charged. If there was a grand conspiracy against males here then all the males would be charged. The issue here is the sexual assault of a minor under 15.

[–]roharareddit 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are a complete moron.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter