NJ girl, 14, arrested after posting nude pics

[SapphireStar]

But a 14 year old doing it is wrong, morally wrong. Yeah I know the internet is full of pornography, Im not dense. But she could have put herself in danger. The Internet can be a playground for freaks, perverts and paedophiles. Its like she didnt consider anything when she did this.

 

[CassinoChips]

But a 14 year old doing it is wrong, morally wrong.

Really? Why? According to whose morals? I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think it's all that big of a deal.

Its like she didnt consider anything when she did this.

Of course she didn't! She's 14! 14 year olds don't consider anything when they do anything! Ever! I can't stop using exclamation points!!!!

 

[Serah]

CassinoChips, you have a choice. You can either start posting things that are relevant to the thread or you can continue posting things that are irrelevant to the thread and receieve an infraction from me. It's up to you. I'm getting just a little tired of you being so ridiculous in this particular topic. I believe you were also warned once already about spammy posts. Keep it up and I'll happily issue that infraction.

 

[Ness]

In my opinion, there needs to be a separation of the issues here. Two questions arise from this discussion:

1) Were her actions morally wrong?
2) Should she be held accountable, from a legal standpoint?

In response to Question 1, my answer is a resounding "doesn't matter". While I would certainly agree that posting said pictures wasn't the most intelligent course of action...well, that has little to do with morality. Just because a course of action was not intelligent does not necessarily imply that it was amoral, and moral courses of action are not always intelligent ones.

Personally, I would not agree with her posting these pictures, at least I certainly know I would not want my daughter (assuming I had one) to do this sort of thing. However, as far as I'm concerned...the issue of the morality of her actions isn't what makes this case so controversial. That's why I claim irrelevance to Question One, at least to the current issue at hand.

Question 2 is certainly an unusual one. To start off with...my answer is "NOOO".

The purpose of child pornography laws was to prevent pedophilia and similar offenses, not to prevent explicit text messages from being sent back and forth between minors and other similar practices. The problem is that advances in technology and changes in society have produced an unusual situation that the law, in its current state, is not fully equipped to handle. It's fairly obvious (or should be) that the alleged "offense" in question doesn't really fit the law, but then again, I suppose that depends on your interpretation of the text.

Thus enters the overzealous prosecutors, who would go so far as to say that Megan's Law applies here. Megan's Law is meant to expose those who have committed sexual offenses (usually violent in nature i.e. rape) for the safety of the public. Some underage girl posting her nudes is clearly not a danger to society. Even the mother of the law's namesake does not agree with its application to cases such as this.

The problem is that the name of the game in legal circles is notoriety...and the only way to achieve that is to get one's name in the papers. Big, messy trials with controversial subjects are fantastic media fodder, and lawyers are aware of this. Prosecutors, who are supposed to serve the public, mostly serve themselves...pursuing criminal charges that really have no reason to exist at all. Take the [Duke University Lacrosse Case] as an example of this unfortunate legal trend.

Long story short, this should be an issue between the girl and her parents, or the girl and herself...but it's downright absurd to prosecute this case.