Teen boy sends nude pic to girl. What law has he broken?
Discussion
robinessex said:
Devil2575 said:
I'm no Columbo but it didn't take me long to find out what law he has broken...
A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
Can you show me the legal reference to that then ? The law says INDECENT. Nudity pre se isn't indecent.A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
Edited by robinessex on Friday 4th September 13:35
WinstonWolf said:
robinessex said:
HantsRat said:
robinessex said:
I’m reasonably confident that just a nude picture actually isn’t considered indecent legally as well.
Well it is if it's of a child! As it was in this case. Do you think if you had nude photos of children (under 18's) on your computer it wouldn't be illegal? 
Devil2575 said:
robinessex said:
Devil2575 said:
I'm no Columbo but it didn't take me long to find out what law he has broken...
A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
Can you show me the legal reference to that then ? The law says INDECENT. Nudity pre se isn't indecent.A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
Edited by robinessex on Friday 4th September 13:35
robinessex said:
Devil2575 said:
robinessex said:
Devil2575 said:
I'm no Columbo but it didn't take me long to find out what law he has broken...
A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
Can you show me the legal reference to that then ? The law says INDECENT. Nudity pre se isn't indecent.A boy who sent a naked photograph of himself to a girl at school has had the crime of making and distributing indecent images
Edited by robinessex on Friday 4th September 13:35
It's not hard to imagine what circumstances would make the picture indecent.
So to speak.
The law in this area is very muddled, but we aren't the only country with this kind of problem;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/n...
Moral panic vs technology vs kids being kids.
So to speak.
The law in this area is very muddled, but we aren't the only country with this kind of problem;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/n...
Indy said:
A 17-year-old boy could go to prison for 10 years after being charged as an adult for 'sexting' his girlfriend with explicit photos of himself.
Cormega Copening, from North Carolina – where the age of criminal responsibility is 16 – is facing five counts of second-degree and third-degree sexual exploitation.
The charges were brought after local authorities discovered that Mr Copening and his girlfriend, both 16 at the time, allegedly sent explicit photos to each other, the Fayetteville Observer has reported.
It is understood that no one else saw the photos and it is not clear why Mr Copening’s phone was searched.
Both teenagers were charged as adult perpetrators of the sexual exploitation of minors – themselves – for making and possessing the photos.
Exchanging sexual images of a person aged under 18, even with another person under that age, is a crime in North Carolina.
While it has been reported that Ms Denson has already pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and been given 12 months’ probation, Mr Copening faces 10 years in jail for the sexting.
Mental.Cormega Copening, from North Carolina – where the age of criminal responsibility is 16 – is facing five counts of second-degree and third-degree sexual exploitation.
The charges were brought after local authorities discovered that Mr Copening and his girlfriend, both 16 at the time, allegedly sent explicit photos to each other, the Fayetteville Observer has reported.
It is understood that no one else saw the photos and it is not clear why Mr Copening’s phone was searched.
Both teenagers were charged as adult perpetrators of the sexual exploitation of minors – themselves – for making and possessing the photos.
Exchanging sexual images of a person aged under 18, even with another person under that age, is a crime in North Carolina.
While it has been reported that Ms Denson has already pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and been given 12 months’ probation, Mr Copening faces 10 years in jail for the sexting.
Moral panic vs technology vs kids being kids.
It's madness.
Didn't the footballer Ashley Cole send nudie pics of himself, isn't that the same thing?
As for "the crime of making and distributing indecent images", I'd like to know what "distributing" means. Would a photographer who takes some saucy shots and puts on his blog/facebook/website be distributing? Are publishers of scud mags doing the same thing too. Or a webcamer with pr0n content?
It's a very purtitanical society where you can't recird and send an image of yourself to someone who wants it.
Didn't the footballer Ashley Cole send nudie pics of himself, isn't that the same thing?
As for "the crime of making and distributing indecent images", I'd like to know what "distributing" means. Would a photographer who takes some saucy shots and puts on his blog/facebook/website be distributing? Are publishers of scud mags doing the same thing too. Or a webcamer with pr0n content?
It's a very purtitanical society where you can't recird and send an image of yourself to someone who wants it.
This is nothing new - weve been recording these offences for years. Its an offence to distribute an indecent photo of a child ( under 18yrs of age) -simple as that.
Its a state offence-doesnt need a complainant and these are usually discovered as in this case, by schools, or parents checking phones - the state says its unacceptable to send such images by phone, online etc. Cant remember the last one that was prosecuted - theyre recorded because the current recording rules state we have to.
Such records dont necessarily criminalise the sender, arent recorded on PNC as a conviction (unless prosecuted) and neednt be disclosed by the sender at a later time.
The current law needs overhauling to take into account introduction of social media and the fact this stuff is now apparently accepted as the norm by many youngsters now
Its a state offence-doesnt need a complainant and these are usually discovered as in this case, by schools, or parents checking phones - the state says its unacceptable to send such images by phone, online etc. Cant remember the last one that was prosecuted - theyre recorded because the current recording rules state we have to.
Such records dont necessarily criminalise the sender, arent recorded on PNC as a conviction (unless prosecuted) and neednt be disclosed by the sender at a later time.
The current law needs overhauling to take into account introduction of social media and the fact this stuff is now apparently accepted as the norm by many youngsters now
If, for example, you took a 10 second video of your two year old son messing about about in the bath with a huge snotter bubble inflating out of his nostril, and sent it via whatsapp to his grandparents and noticed afterwards that is winkle is visible for 1 second? Could you get in trouble?
JuniorD said:
If, for example, you took a 10 second video of your two year old son messing about about in the bath with a huge snotter bubble inflating out of his nostril, and sent it via whatsapp to his grandparents and noticed afterwards that is winkle is visible for 1 second? Could you get in trouble?
Would it be considered indecent - doubt it. A kid of the same age clearly having his bits and bobs openly exposed for the camera, legs being deliberately held open etc probably would beBigends said:
This is nothing new - weve been recording these offences for years. Its an offence to distribute an indecent photo of a child ( under 18yrs of age) -simple as that.
Its a state offence-doesnt need a complainant and these are usually discovered as in this case, by schools, or parents checking phones - the state says its unacceptable to send such images by phone, online etc. Cant remember the last one that was prosecuted - theyre recorded because the current recording rules state we have to.
Such records dont necessarily criminalise the sender, arent recorded on PNC as a conviction (unless prosecuted) and neednt be disclosed by the sender at a later time.
The current law needs overhauling to take into account introduction of social media and the fact this stuff is now apparently accepted as the norm by many youngsters now
I'll ask again. What's indecent ?Its a state offence-doesnt need a complainant and these are usually discovered as in this case, by schools, or parents checking phones - the state says its unacceptable to send such images by phone, online etc. Cant remember the last one that was prosecuted - theyre recorded because the current recording rules state we have to.
Such records dont necessarily criminalise the sender, arent recorded on PNC as a conviction (unless prosecuted) and neednt be disclosed by the sender at a later time.
The current law needs overhauling to take into account introduction of social media and the fact this stuff is now apparently accepted as the norm by many youngsters now
robinessex said:
Bigends said:
This is nothing new - weve been recording these offences for years. Its an offence to distribute an indecent photo of a child ( under 18yrs of age) -simple as that.
Its a state offence-doesnt need a complainant and these are usually discovered as in this case, by schools, or parents checking phones - the state says its unacceptable to send such images by phone, online etc. Cant remember the last one that was prosecuted - theyre recorded because the current recording rules state we have to.
Such records dont necessarily criminalise the sender, arent recorded on PNC as a conviction (unless prosecuted) and neednt be disclosed by the sender at a later time.
The current law needs overhauling to take into account introduction of social media and the fact this stuff is now apparently accepted as the norm by many youngsters now
I'll ask again. What's indecent ?Its a state offence-doesnt need a complainant and these are usually discovered as in this case, by schools, or parents checking phones - the state says its unacceptable to send such images by phone, online etc. Cant remember the last one that was prosecuted - theyre recorded because the current recording rules state we have to.
Such records dont necessarily criminalise the sender, arent recorded on PNC as a conviction (unless prosecuted) and neednt be disclosed by the sender at a later time.
The current law needs overhauling to take into account introduction of social media and the fact this stuff is now apparently accepted as the norm by many youngsters now
''Whether or not a photograph or pseudo-photograph is indecent is a question of fact, and as a question of fact it is something for a jury or magistrate to decide. The jury should apply the standard of decency which ordinary right-thinking members of the public would set - the "recognised standards of propriety" as R v Stamford [1972] puts it.''
JuniorD said:
Didn't the footballer Ashley Cole send nudie pics of himself, isn't that the same thing?
Was Ashley Cole a child at the time? JuniorD said:
I'd like to know what "distributing" means.
It's the every day meaning of the word. robinessex said:
I'll ask again. What's indecent?
CPS said:
Whether any photograph of a child is indecent is for the jury or magistrate or District Judge to decide based on what is the recognised standard of propriety. R v Stamford (1972) 2 Q.B. 391.
There is no absolute definition. robin
If it helps, When i worked in a camera the highlight of the year were the 'holiday'snaps.
We checked them 'just in case'
The lab didnt print or send out the hard core ones
BUT the rule was
Flaccid OK
Erect Nono
Open legs OK
Open legs and hand involved Nono
Genitals in close proximiy even if flaccid male NoNo
HTH And NO there are no examples
If it helps, When i worked in a camera the highlight of the year were the 'holiday'snaps.
We checked them 'just in case'
The lab didnt print or send out the hard core ones
BUT the rule was
Flaccid OK
Erect Nono
Open legs OK
Open legs and hand involved Nono
Genitals in close proximiy even if flaccid male NoNo
HTH And NO there are no examples
Context is important too. If a picture of my two year old in the bath was found in my collection of family photos I don't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone judge it indecent. But if it was found in my porn collection...?
Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.
Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.
Aretnap said:
Context is important too. If a picture of my two year old in the bath was found in my collection of family photos I don't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone judge it indecent. But if it was found in my porn collection...?
Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.
Context is unimportant in relation to recording this offence. It may count towards him not being prosecuted - if he sends her a photo via phone or online of himself naked - showing his bits and pieces then its an indecent image of a child and it gets recorded accordingly.Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.
Bigends said:
Aretnap said:
Context is important too. If a picture of my two year old in the bath was found in my collection of family photos I don't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone judge it indecent. But if it was found in my porn collection...?
Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.
Context is unimportant in relation to recording this offence. It may count towards him not being prosecuted - if he sends her a photo via phone or online of himself naked - showing his bits and pieces then its an indecent image of a child and it gets recorded accordingly.Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.
voyds9 said:
As the photo was passed around the school why was only one child registered, seems a bit severe
And why hasn't the girl fallen foul of the new revenge porn laws
Radio 4 were on about this case yesterday morning. Aparrently there are 3 names listed on the report, one of which is the boy. I assume the girl is on there.And why hasn't the girl fallen foul of the new revenge porn laws
They also mentioned if the boy was older, then the girl could have been guilty under the revenge porn laws, so again, I assume, there must be a minimum age for revenge porn.
robinessex said:
Bigends said:
Aretnap said:
Context is important too. If a picture of my two year old in the bath was found in my collection of family photos I don't imagine anyone would bat an eyelid, let alone judge it indecent. But if it was found in my porn collection...?
Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.
Context is unimportant in relation to recording this offence. It may count towards him not being prosecuted - if he sends her a photo via phone or online of himself naked - showing his bits and pieces then its an indecent image of a child and it gets recorded accordingly.Similarly the context in which the boy sent nude pictures to the girl (which we dn't know, but can speculate on) matters.
eccles said:
Radio 4 were on about this case yesterday morning. Aparrently there are 3 names listed on the report, one of which is the boy. I assume the girl is on there.
They also mentioned if the boy was older, then the girl could have been guilty under the revenge porn laws, so again, I assume, there must be a minimum age for revenge porn.
That sounds a bit more realistic, cheers.They also mentioned if the boy was older, then the girl could have been guilty under the revenge porn laws, so again, I assume, there must be a minimum age for revenge porn.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff