La Crosse teen charged with posting nude photos of girl, 16

[BTH]

Whether he deserves it or not, he's going to have an example made of him. There has been a couple similar cases recently and this will be the example. Both of them are complete morons. It's getting increasingly harder to find a "lady" or a "gentlemen" amongst teens. Not saying go back to the mysoginst '50s, but what happened to treating a lady with respect and a lady conducting a little common sense and self control? The Internet makes it far too easy to lose control over a "joke". It's not some little private network where only your friends see it. Its open to all. Point being, a little decorum is needed, at a minimum, to keep your dignity's status or well-being under your own control. About the only way to impress that in no uncertain terms is throwing an idiot under the bus, so to speak. If she wants to act like a little tramp, then let all the La Crosse kids know by her actions. Its not his place to let some pedophile in Cleveland get his rocks off on nudes he was explicitly told by the cops not post. They weren't daring him to do it. Make an example of him. Its not like he isn't deserving.

[77deadhead]

zeronine wrote:

<quoted text>
And do you propose charging the girl in the picture also? She took the picture (produced child porn) and sent the picture via cell phone (distributed child porn), so where are the calls for this girl to be arrested and charged for her role in the distribution of child porn?
Personally, I don't think either of them should be charged. They were both stupid but I just don't see this as being a huge crime.

This is a really good question. Can one be charged with child porn possession/distribution if the child involved is yourself??? If she is waived into adult court to be tried is it still child porn??? You cannot have it both ways, either she's a child or not!

[Learn To Spell]

Consistent wrote:

This boy is charged with a Felony! for this. Is their a victim?
This kid is looking at serious prison time, and a lifetime of registration/probation. For what?
Is there a victim?...is this justice?

Yes, THERE (not their) is a victim. You obviously do not have a daughter, let a lone children. This boy knew what he was doing, and purposely chose to disobey the law.

Case closed.

[Penny]

Whatever happened to the "guys" who when seeing a girl is drunk, offer to get her home safe and sound and ask nothing in return. Or was I just dreaming that they existed? I seem to remember quite a few of them in my teens. It's definitely a different world now.

[David]

Yes, she could be charged. That being said..

(d) Affirmative Defense.— It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating subsection (a)(5) that the defendant—
(1) possessed less than three images of child pornography; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any image or copy thereof—
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such image; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such image.

He is going to get screwed and rightfully so.

[Sarah]

anonymous wrote:

This girl willingly sends her nude picture to her boyfriend (now ex-boyfriend) and than the picture becomes his property. It is up to him what he wants to do with it. This wont teach young girls out there that its not ok to just send nude picture of yourself to just any boyfriend. Lesson not learned!!! Now girls will think its ok to send picture of themself nude. does anyone not have any more self respect?

He does not have the right to post those photos on MySpace. He doesn't own MySpace. And when he was told to take the photos down, he refused.

Suppose I come over and plaster some nude photos of men on your house. Under your logic I would have every right to do so because the photos belonged to me.

[Sarah]

teresa wrote:

<quoted text>I agree completely. Sarah has issues with men. This scanky 16 yr old gal is as much to blame for the troubles her photo shoot have caused. I don't know all the details but have to wonder if she is possibly mentally impaired with limited cognative abilities thanks to bad DNA or just a poor environment.

The girl earned her embarrassment by being so stupid but teresa please do tell me where she forced her now ex-boyfriend to post her photos on MySpace?

Looked to me as though he made the CHOICE to post the photographs. And then he refused to remove them.

Wonderful mind control power that girl has to have made him do all that.

[77deadhead]

why isn't she being charged? She's the one who took the child porn pictures and distributed it to her b-friend.

[Sarah]

77deadhead wrote:

why isn't she being charged? She's the one who took the child porn pictures and distributed it to her b-friend.

Well they might be able to charge her with indecent exposure. But can one be charged with taking child porn pictures of ones own body?

[consistent]

Sarah wrote:

<quoted text>
Well they might be able to charge her with indecent exposure. But can one be charged with taking child porn pictures of ones own body?

She wasnt 18 years old. Her brain isnt developed enought to make a descision like that in spite of the fact that she obviously had some "experience" that lead her to take pictures of herself that she was unable to make a descision to take because she isnt 18 years old.

Is there a victim here?

The question for society is...what should the punishment be for this boy?

By law, he is going to be a child pornographer.
i thinkthe fellow in Lakeville(?), got life in prison for his child pornography. This kid is facing the same charge.

Right and wrong, good and bad, are not my question...their is no question...both were wrong.

My issue is justice. I dontthink it just to put this kid in prison for oneday. Treatment, sensitivity training, county jail...ok.
But to make him register as an offender for life and do prison time?...Not Justice.

[77deadhead]

Sarah wrote:

<quoted text>
Well they might be able to charge her with indecent exposure. But can one be charged with taking child porn pictures of ones own body?

I know...it is quite the conundrum. I really don't know how to feel about this one?

[Red Ryder]

Luckily for the rest of us, they'll be old enough to vote pretty soon. And his ex-con status isn't ever going to prevent him from being registered to vote anyway, in Wiconsin.

[St_Pauly_Girl]

What a messed up system it is when it's ok for this nasty girl to send the pic but not ok for boy to do what he wants with it. Where is the lesson for her?

[Madman]

teresa wrote:

<quoted text>I agree completely. Sarah has issues with men. This scanky 16 yr old gal is as much to blame for the troubles her photo shoot have caused. I don't know all the details but have to wonder if she is possibly mentally impaired with limited cognative abilities thanks to bad DNA or just a poor environment.

Here we go questioning the cognitive abilities, possible impairment, and possible poor environment of the female, but no such curiousity about the male. So often, people will make excuses for the female, but have no patience for the male.

That said, it was clearly STUPID of the girl to send such photos to anyone -- once they are gone, she loses any control over them. Who knows where they will go or who will view them?

It was even more stupid of the boy to post them on a site, and refuse to remove them after being advised by police to do so. Sounds like he was offered a break, and didn't take it -- NOT SMART!

In this case, I say the boy did a greater harm than the girl -- she sent those photos in confidence, and he violated that confidence, flipping off timely advise to unpost them. He does deserve some sort of punishment, but I would stop far short of a felony and registration as a sex offender. Not only would that over-reaction NOT be justice, but it cheapens the Sex Offender label.

Can you see this kid having to notify authorities whenever he moves, and there being public hearings about the "new sex offender" moving into a neighborhood? Get Real!! That should be for slimeballs that actually hurt people or are a threat to do so again -- not a naughty picture-poster! Let the punishment fit the crime -- this is NOT a felony-level infraction.

[Get a grip]

2nd story in the past two weeks or so where underage girls are taking nude pictures of themselves and sneding the photos to boys.

In both stories the boys get in trouble and the girls are "victims"

I guess girls are not held responsible for their own indiscretions......sounds perfectly normal to me.

[Sarah]

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
Here we go questioning the cognitive abilities, possible impairment, and possible poor environment of the female, but no such curiousity about the male. So often, people will make excuses for the female, but have no patience for the male.
That said, it was clearly STUPID of the girl to send such photos to anyone -- once they are gone, she loses any control over them. Who knows where they will go or who will view them?
It was even more stupid of the boy to post them on a site, and refuse to remove them after being advised by police to do so. Sounds like he was offered a break, and didn't take it -- NOT SMART!
In this case, I say the boy did a greater harm than the girl -- she sent those photos in confidence, and he violated that confidence, flipping off timely advise to unpost them. He does deserve some sort of punishment, but I would stop far short of a felony and registration as a sex offender. Not only would that over-reaction NOT be justice, but it cheapens the Sex Offender label.
Can you see this kid having to notify authorities whenever he moves, and there being public hearings about the "new sex offender" moving into a neighborhood? Get Real!! That should be for slimeballs that actually hurt people or are a threat to do so again -- not a naughty picture-poster! Let the punishment fit the crime -- this is NOT a felony-level infraction.

I don't think the boy should be charged with a felony and have to register as a sex offender. He's a jerk not a deviant. And as you pointed out he's not too bright either but last time I looked, not being too bright wasn't a crime in and of itself.

There has to be at least some misdemeanor that he can be charged with. I think that it would have to be MySpace as the actual victim since he clearly violated its rules.

He should at least have to pay a fine with maybe some community work thrown in.

[Sarah]

Get a grip wrote:

2nd story in the past two weeks or so where underage girls are taking nude pictures of themselves and sneding the photos to boys.
In both stories the boys get in trouble and the girls are "victims"
I guess girls are not held responsible for their own indiscretions......sounds perfectly normal to me.

I should think the public humiliation would be punishment for the girls.

If it were reversed and the males sent nude pictures to their girlfriends and the girlfriends posted them publicly somewhere then I would be calling for punishment for the girls.

[Sarah]

St_Pauly_Girl wrote:

What a messed up system it is when it's ok for this nasty girl to send the pic but not ok for boy to do what he wants with it. Where is the lesson for her?

The lesson is having her nude picture posted on the Internet where everyone in the world can see it. Wouldn't that be a powerful lesson for you? I know it would be for me.

And it was a violation of MySpace for the guy to post the photos there. Doesn't MySpace have anything to say regarding what's posted on its site and what isn't?

[R3d0xx]

Sarah wrote:

<quoted text>
He does not have the right to post those photos on MySpace. He doesn't own MySpace. And when he was told to take the photos down, he refused.
Suppose I come over and plaster some nude photos of men on your house. Under your logic I would have every right to do so because the photos belonged to me.

The photos may belong to you, but the house you assume to "plaster" said nude photos too does not belong to you, and in fact is someones direct personal property. Myspace, restricted as it is, is still a space on the internet that allows free acces under certain terms and regulations. This you moron violated those terms and regulations, and was banned. And the pictures were received knowingly from the girl, who took them of her self, and distributed them of her own will, thus making them the property of whomever she sent them too. Hes and complete waste of space, and the oxygen he uses would be better spent else where. She is a total teenage slut (far too common) and deserves what she got. leave it at that.

[firestorm_lange]

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
Here we go questioning the cognitive abilities, possible impairment, and possible poor environment of the female, but no such curiousity about the male. So often, people will make excuses for the female, but have no patience for the male.
That said, it was clearly STUPID of the girl to send such photos to anyone -- once they are gone, she loses any control over them. Who knows where they will go or who will view them?
It was even more stupid of the boy to post them on a site, and refuse to remove them after being advised by police to do so. Sounds like he was offered a break, and didn't take it -- NOT SMART!
In this case, I say the boy did a greater harm than the girl -- she sent those photos in confidence, and he violated that confidence, flipping off timely advise to unpost them. He does deserve some sort of punishment, but I would stop far short of a felony and registration as a sex offender. Not only would that over-reaction NOT be justice, but it cheapens the Sex Offender label.
Can you see this kid having to notify authorities whenever he moves, and there being public hearings about the "new sex offender" moving into a neighborhood? Get Real!! That should be for slimeballs that actually hurt people or are a threat to do so again -- not a naughty picture-poster! Let the punishment fit the crime -- this is NOT a felony-level infraction.

This is exactly why the sex offender registry is a joke. People assume everyone posted on there is a pedophile, serial rapist or abuser. It doesn't classify people by the seriousness of the purported crime. Ruin this kids life over one stupid mistake that was at least half the girls fault.

The justice system is getting really efficient at ruining young peoples lives over ridiculous incidents. Self serving prosecutors are the ones responsible for this. Felonies should be reserved for the most henious of crimes, as it used to be, instead of making a mockery of the court system.