General Discussion

snooper2

(30,151 posts)

73. Since RFC1918 was implemented

Sun Feb 9, 2014, 09:28 PM

Feb 2014

Non-authoritative answer:
Name: democraticunderground.com
Addresses: 216.158.28.196, 216.158.28.198

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Va. Teen Faces Child Porn Charges For Tweeting Nude �Selfie� [View all] Jesus Malverde Feb 2014 OP

all kids should be aware of this by now. think twice. no judgment and not seabeyond Feb 2014 #1

I hope they don't convict her of production of child pornography even tho thats technically what Jesus Malverde Feb 2014 #4

This seems more scare tactic and have yet to hear any teenager actually convicted seabeyond Feb 2014 #8

Scare tactic to what end? Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #30

So how the hell is this situation helped by charging this young woman? villager Feb 2014 #2

Maybe not. Question, if someone who she sent this to had it on their computer would you kelly1mm Feb 2014 #5

No, I don't think teens should be charged under child porno laws... villager Feb 2014 #7

I am proposing that they be charged, just like in this case. Follow up question, kelly1mm Feb 2014 #10

So you're proposing a young woman should be arrested & charged for taking a nude picture of herself? villager Feb 2014 #20

If she sends it to her 18 year old boyfriend should he be arrested and charged with child kelly1mm Feb 2014 #21

Even though you are itching to arrest a slew of people here, the problem with villager Feb 2014 #22

She is the only one charged yet. Care to answer any of my questions? nt kelly1mm Feb 2014 #27

Your hypotheticals? No, you're a sick puppy if you think a 16 year old should be branded villager Feb 2014 #32

Possession/distribution of child pornography is a strict liability crime for a reason. To have to kelly1mm Feb 2014 #35

One more point - she was not arrested for taking the selfie, she was arrested for sending it.nt kelly1mm Feb 2014 #36

Yes, she was arrested, not the person receiving it. That's my point. villager Feb 2014 #47

These "kids" don't see it as child porn Politicalboi Feb 2014 #53

Do you think that if some sick man (or woman) gets this picture on thier computer kelly1mm Feb 2014 #54

We will lock up all those nasty nasty young women with their bodies... villager Feb 2014 #58

Why do you keep repeating that she is being charged with taking the picture? As I have kelly1mm Feb 2014 #59

Are you a parent? That should be a simple yes or no question. villager Feb 2014 #63

No, I am not a, technically a parent. I do have custody of my niece though. She is 12. Sending a kelly1mm Feb 2014 #64

The young woman in the OP isn't 12. But more to the point: You want your niece arrested? villager Feb 2014 #66

Would I want my niece arrested - no. Just like if she murdered someone I would not kelly1mm Feb 2014 #68

So you would agree that your niece deserved to be arrested for posting a nude selfie to Twitter? villager Feb 2014 #69

As I have stated above, I would not WANT her to be arrested or branded anything. I would however kelly1mm Feb 2014 #70

But you would see her as no different from mob distributors of child porn... villager Feb 2014 #71

No, I would see her as my niece and still love and support her. I would hope that in kelly1mm Feb 2014 #74

You're getting a bit hysterical over the "distribution" question you'd use to unjustly punish villager Feb 2014 #75

Ok - we obviously see this differently as to (at least) what is distribution. That's cool. kelly1mm Feb 2014 #77

Is there a difference between a nude portrait/picture/statue and pornography? Bandit Feb 2014 #56

Yes. To be pornography it has to depict a sex act or be posed in a manner lewd or titillating. kelly1mm Feb 2014 #61

I'm really mystified by that as well. It's a complete BS charge IMHO stevenleser Feb 2014 #6

I hesitate to kick this thread, but as a parent... hunter Feb 2014 #57

Someone needs to explain to me the allure of kids showing Blue_Tires Feb 2014 #3

Did you have sex in High School? I sure did. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #12

Doesn't mean I wanted to distribute a nude photo to everyone in school... Blue_Tires Feb 2014 #16

Twitter is one thing, I'd suspect texting a pic to your bf/gf is more common. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #17

Kids have certainly been doing stupid stuff for a long time Art_from_Ark Feb 2014 #26

the intertubes and smart phones were around in 1968 you know how many nude selfies snooper2 Feb 2014 #72

Some people simply have exhibitionist tendancies. ProudToBeBlueInRhody Feb 2014 #65

Thank goodness I did all my dumb stuff before the internet....... Swede Atlanta Feb 2014 #9

The law really ought to be able to distinguish between someone under 18 who takes a nude selfie Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #11

The only problem I can see with that Warren justiceischeap Feb 2014 #14

You mean people under 18, with pictures of themselves? Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #15

So a 17 year 11 month old sends a selfie to someone 2 months older and the recipeint kelly1mm Feb 2014 #28

I dunno. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #37

She is not being charged with taking a selfie. She is being charged with distribution of child kelly1mm Feb 2014 #38

That's not the case in question, is it? The law makes all sorts of distinctions, it certainly Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #39

Having sex with someone within 3 years of your age should not be a crime in my opinion. kelly1mm Feb 2014 #40

I agree, but my primary point had to do with the person whose picture it was originally. Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #41

There is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2014 #44

It can get tricky Blue_Adept Feb 2014 #51

A 16 year sending nude photos on themselves online need psychological help not a criminal conviction Shoulders of Giants Feb 2014 #13

I don't think they need psychological help so much as a little bit of common sense.... sibelian Feb 2014 #24

Way way back in 1975 teenagers ran around public naked. It was caused "streaking" Luminous Animal Feb 2014 #29

I'm think psychological help more from the public shaming that will happen, not the nudity itself. Shoulders of Giants Feb 2014 #42

Yep. That was my high school. hunter Feb 2014 #81

Seriously? Blue_Adept Feb 2014 #52

Problem with story as stated: Nudity is not Child Porn cthulu2016 Feb 2014 #18

Post removed Post removed Feb 2014 #79

Uh, no, it's not. MineralMan Feb 2014 #80

Umm. Since when is the Internet "Public"? Trillo Feb 2014 #19

Well, some places offer free Wi-Fi Art_from_Ark Feb 2014 #31

Without addressing your other examples, regarding Wi-Fi Trillo Feb 2014 #46

Internet-to-prison pipeline? Art_from_Ark Feb 2014 #55

Since RFC1918 was implemented snooper2 Feb 2014 #73

It seems the "severity" is due to nothing so much as the cops. Yay cops! n/t Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #23

Impose Sharia Law on her ass! She should be stoned in the village square! Off with her head! nt ChisolmTrailDem Feb 2014 #25

Some in this thread appear to be heading toward that side of things... villager Feb 2014 #33

Yep, that ought to teach her. jsr Feb 2014 #43

Virginia for the most part is still a Southern Baptist state .. and is Christian Sharia! YOHABLO Feb 2014 #34

Hopefully she'll be on the sex offenders' registry for the rest of her life TransitJohn Feb 2014 #45

You're kidding, correct? RC Feb 2014 #76

I would hope that both the Mother and The Daughter recieve more counseling - Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2014 #48

Poor Adolescent Judgment Is Not a Crime! MineralMan Feb 2014 #49

we need to protect this child by putting her in jail booley Feb 2014 #50

God, how stupid can our criminal justice system get? Vattel Feb 2014 #60

Obviously not what the law intended!!! Police states suck. grahamhgreen Feb 2014 #62

And yet it still has its defenders here at the "Underground" villager Feb 2014 #67

Message auto-removed Name removed Feb 2014 #78

SMH Mr Dixon Feb 2014 #82