<p>He didn’t know it was a bad decision to send nude photos of his girlfriend to 70 people including her parents? Not feeling any sympathy for this spiteful little a##hole.</p>
<p>I was just mulling this over yesterday, and it is just plain bizarre how some of our laws apply or don’t apply to people of different ages. </p>
<p>I was thinking of the 16 year old boy passing along the nude pic of his 16 year old girlfriend. He takes a sip of his beer and forwards the picture (via email) to his 18 year old brother who takes a sip of his beer and forwards the picture (via email) to his 22 year old cousin who takes a sip of his beer and deletes the picture from his computer just as the Feds break down the door and confiscate his computer. The pic remains in his recycle bin so he is guilty of possession of child pornography. His younger cousin is also guilty of possession and distribution of child pornography + underage alcohol consumption. His younger brother is guilty of an alcohol violation but too young to be charged with felony child pornography. And the “child” who took the picture and emailed it in the first place? Nothing I guess. </p>
<p>Maybe that young man behaved like a “spiteful little a-hole” but I dont think he was guilty of felony child pornography. I think that is a huge abuse and misapplication of existing law.</p>
<p>why is a 16 yo girl emailing nude photos of herself?</p>
<p>it’s just too easy to be an idiot these days. Snap a nude pic with your camera and you can commit a crime in under ten keystrokes.</p>
<p>I mean if you had to take a picture, get the film developed, pass the picture around to each person. Much harder to be an idiot when there’s so much effort involved.</p>
<p>edit: being an idiot does mean being a criminal. I think the penalty was harsh. He’s not a sex offender, imo.</p>
<p>It’s a stupid way of looking at a law and an evil prosecutor used this dubious interpretation to ruin a life in order to further his career. I wonder how many other crimes this public official has committed in the name of justice. </p>
<p>And what about the girl? Didn’t she both produce AND distribute this “child porn”?</p>
<p>When I was 17 and a college freshman, my HS boyfriend – at a different college (an all-male one) – wanted me to give him my underwear so he could hang it as a “trophy” on his wall.</p>
<p>Soo, how do you feel about this one? 18 year old has 15 year old GF. Girl tells parents “we’re in love, we want to get married, I think I might be pregnant.” Prents get REALLY mad, accuse boy of statutory rape. He gets probation, because parents stay mad, but is labelled as a “sex offender”. Fast forward 7 years, parents no longer mad, kids married with two toddlers, both born after marriage, but they can’t live anywhere because husband is labelled “sex offender”? The girl’s parents regret their anger now, but there is no mechanism for expunging the title “sex offender”, he still ahs to register.</p>
<p>^Not the same. I agree with SCM’s characterization of Mr. Spiteful. When you do something that drastic deliberately in order to hurt someone, that is very different, especially as far as intent, from your scenario.</p>
<p>He is spiteful, stupid, hateful and vindictive. Did I mention stupid, stupid, stupid? Or maybe even hateful, vindictive and stupid…</p>
<p>Does that make him a sexual preditor? He was 18
Do we need to spend tax dollars following him for 35 years? That’s the real question. Do you want your tax dollars in this guy’s face instead of somewhere else for the next 35 years? Make him not be able to get a job and pay taxes ?</p>
<p>No, I agree, dragonmom. I just have zero personal sympathy for him. I’d only feel it might be worth it if he showed some iota of understanding of how disgusting his act was, but instead, at least in the above quotes, it’s all about him.</p>
<p>But no, I’d like to see some more fitting retribution; this isn’t it.</p>
<p>All of the young men I know are highly aware of the 18 year old with an underage gf/bf routine. What he did was vicious and the penalty is appropriate. How do we know how many of the 70 people to whom he sent the picture in turn sent it around? </p>
<p>I think the penalty should have been some years in prison OR the sex offender tag. Let him choose. He wants fair?? Give him 5 years in the State Pen.</p>
<p>“I think the penalty should have been some years in prison OR the sex offender tag. Let him choose. He wants fair?? Give him 5 years in the State Pen.”</p>
<p>I know child molestors who haven’t even been punished so harshly. Now, I think the current sentences for sex offenders are woefully inadequate, but I also wouldn’t consider this kid to be a sex offender either. Probation in and of itself would have been fair, I would say, but he certainly doesn’t deserve to have his life ruined because he was a stupid little ■■■■■■■ for five minutes of his life.</p>
<p>Why is it that these teens voluntarily take these sexually oriented pictures and then when they are distributed it is a crime, but when teens have pictures taken of them and distributed without their knowledge or consent to sexually oriented websites it is legal? It makes no sense.</p>
<p>Well yeah- life isn’t fair.
Life wasn’t fair when your ex girlfriend made fun of your haircut, life wasn’t fair when you then decided to get even and took communication that was sent between two lovers and distributed it to people that you knew would be hurt and upset by it.
You didn’t just try to harm your ex, you set out to harm anybody that might care about her.</p>
<p>Sucks for you.
Reminds me of that ditty by * Sublime*</p>
<p>I want to know why the girl isn’t being prosecuted for spreading pornography on the net, if she sent the pictures to him.</p>
<p>I live in a state where a disturbed individual hunted down and murdered two men who were listed on the “sex offender” registry: crimes unspecified on the registry. One of them was a guy who had a younger girlfriend when he himself was a teenager. (I don’t recall the precise details, but it may have been 19/15 or something like that.) Apparently her parents decided that reporting him for statutory rape was the way to break them up.</p>
<p>Now certain zealots in our state want to make inclusion in the sex offenders registry retroactive to 1980-something. How many people in this guy’s situation may have agreed to plead guilty in order to avoid a trial and threatened jail time? Would they have done so it they knew it would result in being on a “sex offenders” registry open to the public?</p>
<p>Consolation–assuming you weren’t kidding, and I hope you were–she was 16. I’m pretty sure a 16-year-old cannot be prosecuted for sending a picture of herself. if she was an adult, no one would have been charged. But she wasn’t.</p>
<p>You want to equate that with the vindictiveness of what he did?</p>