Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

So, why wasn't THE GIRL charged?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by hornet, Feb 10, 2008.

  1. Here we see the stupidity of some parts of the law in all its illogical glory. A 15 year old girl records herself on her phone, sends it to her then-boyfriend, who, presumably because he IS NOW the ex, sends it to some mates, who send it to some mates. The MATES get charged with distributing pornography. She gets nothing!!


  2. The law is not stupid. The catholic principal is. That's where it all started, the police had to follow it, but the Courts will eventually dismiss it. The news picked it up because it makes a nice headline...

    Child pornography is a form of child sexual abuse. Can you show how a 15yo filming herself can be perceived as child sexual abuse?
    If there is someone guilty here, that's the mags, the news, the culture that wants young girls to become a sexual object from a very young age.. Look at the female models on the tv and mags.. You'll find lot's of 13yo there..
  3. And rightly so, because what she does with her property is her business but it doesn't mean everyone suddenly has the right to access it as well. It's like as if you lend your Hornet to your mate and the next day half the town turned up at your place and helped themselves to your bike because hey - you let your mate ride it!

    Or do you think that just because she let her boyfriend to have some action, that means that everyone is entitled to a slice?

    The issue here should be not of distributing pornography, but simply of privacy, and its abuse. Right of privacy should be enshrined in the constitution, along a number of others. But 'how our constitution sucks' is another (vast) topic...


    But even if you wanted to look strictly at the matter of pornography... what *is* pornography? Well, the answer is not completely clear cut, but it goes somewhat to the intention. After all, sex is sex whether in the bedroom or on the set of a p0rn movie - the difference is in intent. What people do in private is their private business. What people do in public and for profit becomes the business of the whole community and the subject of scrutiny.

    So, if the girl sent a video of herself to her boyfriend, that falls under the umbrella of what couples do in private and it is nobody's business. But when said boyfriend distributes that clip to others, it becomes a public affair. But it was HIS fault the clip got out, not hers.

    Finally, you might try the argument of 'well, she should expect he might show the clip to others' - no, she shouldn't. If they were in relationship she had every right to expect him to respect that fact, And even if she did do something slightly silly or impulsive, well, that still doesn't excuse his action. It is established that 'She was asking for it' argument does not wash as a legal defence.

    No matter how you want to look at it, she didn't get charged because she didn't do anything wrong!
  4. Actually she did, It would fall under the same charge of "producing pornography" that they stung that Corey idiot with after he taped a topless twister game on his mobile phone at that party of his. If it doesn't it should.
  5. She initially distributed it.......
  6. By that logic, if making a sexy video of yourself for your boyfriend is pornography then what about having sex with your boyfriend - is that prostitution?

    This is clearly nonsense. If you can't see a difference between expressing your feelings or exploring your sexuality in privacy of relationship as opposed to titillating strangers for profit, I think you have a problem somewhere.
  7. Wikipedia on Pornography:
    Pornography sometimes shortened to p0rn or porno, is the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal.

    Did she or did she not create a representation of her body in a sexual activity and the outcome was sexual arousal? It doesn't have to be professionally made to be considered pornography. If she charged her boyfriend for sex, then yes it would be prostitution. Having sex with her boyfriend if he was older then 17 might incur a penalty on him because IIRC the legal age of sexual consent in South Australia is 17.

    This story reminds me of one that came from my home town. A chick the same age (i've met her after said event btw, some of my friends went to school a few years above her) made a movie of herself doing questionable activities. Said video spread, and iirc, her punishment by the school was that she had to sit down and watch the video with her parents and explain why she did it. I don't know what happened after that, whether or not anyone was charged with an offense.
  8. "It was discovered the girl had recorded the video and sent it to her then boyfriend. It was subsequently allegedly disseminated."

    Why does that sound really naughty?
  9. According to that definition much of interaction between people would be pornographic.For example is dressing up in a sexy mini-skirt an act of pornography? It will certainly show much of the body and it is unlikely to be performed with the goal of stimulating discussion of classical philosophy...

    In fact, according to this definition any sort of flirty or even remotely sexual behaviour is pornographic. So would be foreplay before sex.

    If that's your definition, consider moving to Afghanistan or some such. You'll be happy there...
  10. Surely they should have been ALL (ie bf & mates) been charged with distributing child p0rn.

    You implication that its HER fault has made me loose alot of respect for you Paul. Im sure she got into plenty of trouble with her parents.
  11. Why? If what the men received was deemed to be pornographic, and they are being charged for RECEIVING it, why is she not being charged with DISTRIBUTING it??

    Is it only pornogrpahic if someone receives it, or if someone reports it as being received, or, if seems to be the case here, someone complains about what is being done with it AFTER it has been distibuted? WHEN does it become something which should attract the attention of the law???

    The ex obviously distributed it further out of spite, now she has managed to get him and others into serious trouble, also out of spite. Who's the worse?
  12. Don't get me wrong, i'm a liberal person, but there is a range of pornography called softcore and it does feature women, fully clothed sometimes, in seductive poses. And yes, it is pornography.

    Basically, she produced pornography involving an underaged person (herself) and other then the embarrassment of other people, probably randoms coming up to her and saying derogatory stuff about it, she is getting away with it scot free. If she honestly thought that the boyfriend wouldn't spread it, at all ever (if he didnt do it while they were together, if they broke up i'm sure it would have crossed his mind to spread it then), then she deserves the embarrassment. hornet was pointing out how even tho she produced _AND_ distributed it, the only people getting charged are two people that only distributed it.
  13. EXACTLY!
  14. Because, for the n-th time, she DIDN'T DISTRIBUTE anything, pornographic or otherwise. She made a private gesture that wasn't meant for distribution among strangers - it was meant to turn her boyfriend on. That's what people in relationships do, you know.

    What if instead of recording it on video, she went over to his place in person and performed a little strip-tease for him? Should she be prosecuted for that? Of course not - it wasn't meant for the consumption by strangers. Well, neither was the video - until HE showed it to others.
  15. Shes underaged, its child pornography, she sent it to someone. Noone should ever assume that anything recorded will only remain private, especially when it was sent to a device capable of sending it on. I'm not saying what the guy did was right, but neither was what she did.
  16. ^^^ Correct.

    She shared something with her partner, private and intimate.

    He "distributed" it to a number of other people out of spite. She's done nothing wrong, except being naughty underage and who didn't do that?
  17. She's 15 and didn't think of the consequences ffs
    like most 15 year olds
    get a grip people.
  18. So, answer my question, then for the n-th time; WHEN did it become pornographic, and worthy of the attention of the law???
  19. There is a legal difference between what is done and what is photographed and/or recorded.

    Some things that are legal to do are not legal to record.

    Under-aged sexual activities between consenting individuals (non-adult) within the legal age difference are generally legal.

    Recording those activities is against the law (that's a fact).

    It doesn't make it legal because the person is under a certain age (although it is an extenuating circumstance).

    However extenuating circumstances apply *during consideration of sentence* not before charging.

    So yes I expect she has broken the law.

    Having said that...

    It seems to me that it would serve little point charging her since she's already been punished (by the results of the distribution) than she would have been in court.

    An official caution from the police (or similar) would seem more appropriate.

    As for the boyfriend... yes he should be charged.
  20. I feel I have answered that in my first post - it became 'pornographic' when it was distributed to recipients other than intended by her, through no fault of her own.

    And since I don't see sexuality in general as a problem, my major concern was not the pornographic nature of the material, but rather its private nature and the fact it was made public against her wishes (presumably). I consider her the victim here, not the guilty party.