Started By
Message

Teen sends dick pic to 22-year-old woman, now he’s a child pornographer

Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:26 pm
Posted by iPadThai
Member since Oct 2011
1035 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:26 pm
quote:

The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the conviction under state child porn laws of a 17-year-old boy who sent a picture of his own erect penis to a 22-year-old woman. The case illustrates a bizarre situation in which Eric Gray is both the perpetrator and the victim of the crime. Under state law, Gray could face up to 10 years in prison for the conviction.

On appeal, Gray's attorneys had argued that the language of the law was ambiguous—lawmakers did not anticipate a situation like this—and that the law was potentially in violation of the state and the federal constitutions. The court, in a 7-1 ruling, disagreed.

The majority opinion issued Thursday drew a distinction between this case and situations where teens are busted for consensually sexting one another—as Ars reported in 2015. (A Drexel University survey from 2014 found that, while the majority of teens sext with each other, an even higher percentage were unaware that engaging in such behavior could be prosecuted as child pornography.)

"We also understand the worry caused by a well-meaning law failing to adapt to changing technology," the court wrote.

LINK
Posted by fr33manator
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2010
123923 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:26 pm to
I guess he's about to do some







Hard time
This post was edited on 9/14/17 at 7:27 pm
Posted by OysterPoBoy
City of St. George
Member since Jul 2013
34988 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:27 pm to
I didn't even look at myself in a mirror until I was 18. You can't be too careful nowadays.
Posted by dkreller
Laffy
Member since Jan 2009
30262 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:27 pm to
stupid shite
Posted by 777Tiger
Member since Mar 2011
73856 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:28 pm to
quote:

I guess he's about to do some







Hard time


the judge obviously had a bone to pick on this case
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84610 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:29 pm to
quote:

In a dissent, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud noted that Gray—who had already been registered as a sex offender for a separate crime and had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome—would be better served not through incarceration but with proper medical and therapeutic treatment.




Well then.
Posted by Walking the Earth
Member since Feb 2013
17260 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:29 pm to
Thanks, lawyers and politicians.
Posted by highpockets
Lafayette
Member since Feb 2015
1894 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:29 pm to
That's a stiff penalty.
Posted by Scruffy
Kansas City
Member since Jul 2011
72023 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:30 pm to
Zero tolerance in a nut shell.
Posted by slackster
Houston
Member since Mar 2009
84610 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:30 pm to
quote:

our duty is to interpret the law as written and, if unambiguous, apply its plain meaning to the facts before us. Gray's actions fall within the statute's plain meaning. Because he was not a minor sending sexually explicit images to another consenting minor, we decline to analyze such a situation. The statute here is unambiguous. A 'person' is any person, including a minor. Images of a 'minor' are images of any minor. Nothing in the statute indicates that the 'person' and the 'minor' are necessarily different entities."

In a dissent, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud noted that Gray—who had already been registered as a sex offender for a separate crime and had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome—would be better served not through incarceration but with proper medical and therapeutic treatment.

"The majority, however, holds that the statute takes the punitive approach to the depicted, vulnerable victim child," she wrote. "I can't believe the legislature intended that absurdity, either."




The complete lack of common sense outside of the dissenting opinion is alarming.
Posted by OweO
Plaquemine, La
Member since Sep 2009
113896 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:32 pm to
That is stupid. So a 17 year old who sends a picture of his dick to a 22 year old woman will be categorized with sick fricks who are actually potential threats to children?
Posted by SlapahoeTribe
Tiger Nation
Member since Jul 2012
12079 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:32 pm to
Yep, that is indeed the law (in a lot of states).

Any prosecutor is fricking nuts to actually enforce it - this is exactly why we have prosecutorial discretion and our DA is an elected position.

Though I do remember when a DA from somewhere in the Pacific Northwest tried to charge a few 12 year old boys as sex offenders because they spent recess punching 12 year old girls on their backsides.
Posted by TH03
Mogadishu
Member since Dec 2008
171035 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:35 pm to
quote:

Gray—who had already been registered as a sex offender for a separate crime and had been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome


Well that's interesting.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134843 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:46 pm to
My sister texted me and my mom a pic of my 2 year old niece in the tub. I guess I'm gonna do some time.
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
31438 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:48 pm to
but a doctor can prescribe a 15 yo sex-change hormones with impunity and even earn a bravery badge.
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134843 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:48 pm to
quote:


Thanks, lawyers and politicians

I guarantee this is the result of some group of evangelical republicans.
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
31438 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:49 pm to
That hotbed of social conservatism that is Washington.
Posted by McLemore
Member since Dec 2003
31438 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:50 pm to
quote:

That is stupid. So a 17 year old who sends a picture of his dick to a 22 year old woman will be categorized with sick fricks who are actually potential threats to children?


yep, so the prosecutors, judges and justices who are responsible for this are actually the real sex offenders for diluting the power of the laws designed to protect children. good job idiots.
Posted by stelly1025
Lafayette
Member since May 2012
8495 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:52 pm to
First off how was this found out and then sent to court? Second a 17 year old sent a dick pic to a 22 year old and now he can be sent prison for child porn for his own dick pic? I never understood anyone who send nudes to someone else ,but dam this used to be an embarrassing story at most how did it turn into a court case that can send a kid to prison?
Posted by AbitaFan08
Boston, MA
Member since Apr 2008
26537 posts
Posted on 9/14/17 at 7:53 pm to
I laughed way harder at this than I should have.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram