Canadian teen convicted of 'sexting' photos of boyfriend's ex

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/10/world/americas/canada-sexting-teen/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- A Canadian teenage girl has been found guilty of distributing child pornography in connection with "sexting" pictures of her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend, the youth crown prosecutor for Victoria said Friday.

The British Columbia case of the then 16-year-old, who is not identified because she is a minor, is believed to be one of the first cases in Canada where a teenager has been convicted of child pornography charges related to "sexting."

The teenager, who also was convicted of uttering threats, is out on bail while awaiting sentencing, Crown Prosecutor Chandra Fisher said. She declined to speculate on what sentence the teen might face.

Calling the case "precedent-setting," Fisher said the case should serve as a warning to teens about what they text and post online.

The case began in November 2012 when the teen learned that her 17-year-old boyfriend was still in contact with his former girlfriend.

"The accused was not at all happy that he was still in touch with his ex," Fisher told CNN.

The teenager initially threatened the ex-girlfriend on Facebook, the prosecutor said. She then texted five explicit pictures of the ex-girlfriend that she found on her boyfriend's phone to a group of people, Fisher said.

The teen's attorney, Christopher Mackie, said the charges were inappropriate.

"Our sights have always been set on the constitutional question. ...She never denied that she did this," he told CNN. "Online bullying, yes. Child pornography, no."

**LordofHats**

SO let me get this straight... Your boyfriend is still seeing his ex, and you... Get angry at the not-so-ex? Um, maybe you should dump your boyfriend?

And of course, child porn is child porn. Who put it out is kind of irrelevant to what it is. That said, I do think specific laws should be in place for malicious sexting, simply because its an offense worthy of punishment on its own.

**kamakazepanda**

Wait, how old is the ex, and what is the age of consent in Canada?

Once again, a dumb thing done by young dumb people who can't think before they, then again, that's hardly something unique to young people.

**A Town Called Malus**

kamakazepanda wrote:
Wait, how old is the ex, and what is the age of consent in Canada?

Once again, a dumb thing done by young dumb people who can't think before they, then again, that's hardly something unique to young people.

The boyfriend was 17 so I'd assume the ex-girlfriend was somewhere in the 15 to 17 mark. The age of consent in Canada is 16.

**djones520**

Age of consent has nothing to do with pornography. You still have to be 18 for your pictures of nude you to go public.

I'm actually quite surprised this was the first time a case like this had gone down.

**Ouze**

djones520 wrote:
I'm actually quite surprised this was the first time a case like this had gone down.

Perhaps in Canada? It's certainly been a precedent in the US for many years now.

**Fafnir**

The important thing to keep in mind is that she wasn't distributing pictures of herself, but of someone else. It's not so much 'sexting' as it is sexual harassment, among other things.

**Captain Fantastic**

Sexting is such a fundamental aspect of adolescence at this point, which is kind of sad. I don't think I knew a single person in high school who at some point or another didn't send a naked picture of themselves to someone else.

That takes all the fun out of attraction, to me at least. It didn't even occur to me that what I was asking for at the time was actually child pornography. It also makes me laugh a little, for reasons I'll keep to myself.

**d-usa**

Captain Fantastic wrote:
Sexting is such a fundamental aspect of adolescence at this point, which is kind of sad. I don't think I knew a single person in high school who at some point or another didn't send a naked picture of themselves to someone else.

That takes all the fun out of attraction, to me at least. It didn't even occur to me that what I was asking for at the time was actually child pornography. It also makes me laugh a little, for reasons I'll keep to myself.

And this case really didn't deal with one minor sending some self-made child-porn to another minor.

The problem was that a third party found these nude pictures of a minor (so: child pornography) and distributed them to other individuals.

**Howard A Treesong**

LordofHats wrote:
SO let me get this straight... Your boyfriend is still seeing his ex, and you... Get angry at the not-so-ex? Um, maybe you should dump your boyfriend?

And of course, child porn is child porn. Who put it out is kind of irrelevant to what it is. That said, I do think specific laws should be in place for malicious sexting, simply because its an offense worthy of punishment on its own.

Was he *seeing* his ex or only in contact as the article says.

Anyway, I have no sympathy. You have no business stealing and distributing nude photos of other people just for revenge, especially minors. It's sexual harassment.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
SO let me get this straight... Your boyfriend is still seeing his ex, and you... Get angry at the not-so-ex? Um, maybe you should dump your boyfriend?

And of course, child porn is child porn. Who put it out is kind of irrelevant to what it is. That said, I do think specific laws should be in place for malicious sexting, simply because its an offense worthy of punishment on its own.

Was he *seeing* his ex or only in contact as the article says.

Anyway, I have no sympathy. You have no business stealing and distributing nude photos of other people just for revenge, especially minors. It's sexual harassment.

What about the storage of child pornography for the "poor" BF? In the States, it is illegal to own, possess, make or distribute pornographic materials whose subject is an underage person, is that the same in Canada as well?

**azazel the cat**

kamakazepanda wrote:Wait, how old is the ex, and what is the age of consent in Canada?

Once again, a dumb thing done by young dumb people who can't think before they, then again, that's hardly something unique to young people.

**Relapse**

I wonder how the parents of both girls and the boy recieved the news he was taking these explicit pictures and storing them on his phone.

**djones520**

Relapse wrote:
I wonder how the parents of both girls and the boy recieved the news he was taking these explicit pictures and storing them on his phone.

Any parent who really doesn't know that their kids are doing stuff like this are to damn foolish to be greatly impacted by the news in the first place.

**Iron_Captain**

Sending explicit pictures of yourself to someone else is okay imo,
but sending explicit pictures of someone else to others is really wrong and mean.
She should of course be punished, but it seems strange to press child pornography charges against children. Doesn't that negate the whole point of why child pornography is actually forbidden?
Imo, it should be treated in the same way it would have been treated if it had been an adult sending explicit pictures of another adult to a group of adults.

**MrMoustaffa**

The pics are of a person under 18 right?

Sounds like child pornography to me.

**Ensis Ferrae**

MrMoustaffa wrote:
The pics are of a person under 18 right?

Sounds like child pornography to me.

Yep, and because one of the "victims" was dumb enough to store those pictures for the GF to so conveniently send on, should face charges as well. I'd bet that Canada has some sort of contract with the NSA, and could find out whether the ex took the photos and transmitted them to the bf, or if the bf took the pictures of the ex. If they were transmitted, they should nail the ex as well

burn them all

**Peregrine**

Iron_Captain wrote:
She should of course be punished, but it seems strange to press child pornography charges against children. Doesn't that negate the whole point of why child pornography is actually forbidden?

It's forbidden to protect the child involved, and there is a clear victim here who should get that protection. This isn't a case of 16 year olds sending each other pictures of themselves, where enforcing the strictest interpretation of the law means punishing the "victims" of the crime for abusing themselves, it's a case of a third party taking pictures of someone under 18 and distributing them to other people without their consent. The fact that the person distributing the pictures was also under 18 means that the sentence should reflect their age (just like every other crime by a minor), but it doesn't make it any less of a crime.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Peregrine wrote:
Iron_Captain wrote:
She should of course be punished, but it seems strange to press child pornography charges against children. Doesn't that negate the whole point of why child pornography is actually forbidden?

It's forbidden to protect the child involved, and there is a clear victim here who should get that protection. This isn't a case of 16 year olds sending each other pictures of themselves, where enforcing the strictest interpretation of the law means punishing the "victims" of the crime for abusing themselves, it's a case of a third party taking pictures of someone under 18 and distributing them to other people without their consent. The fact that the person distributing the pictures was also under 18 means that the sentence should reflect their age (just like every other crime by a minor), but it doesn't make it any less of a crime.

The only "problem" I have with your statement, is the apparent fact that the photos were "pre-existing" in that she found them on her current boyfriends phone, hence why I think all 3 should be getting some punishment, even though there are fairly clear "victims" here

**Peregrine**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
The only "problem" I have with your statement, is the apparent fact that the photos were "pre-existing" in that she found them on her current boyfriends phone, hence why I think all 3 should be getting some punishment, even though there are fairly clear "victims" here

But that wouldn't be appropriate. Punishing the ex in the pictures is completely unjustified. She's the clear victim in the situation, and punishing her would be a case of enforcing the letter of the law against all common sense. The intent of the age laws is to prevent children from being exploited, punishing the child for "exploiting" themselves makes a joke of that intent. And you could possibly argue that the boyfriend is guilty of something, but that's a case where common sense should apply. We don't generally prosecute consensual relationships between minors, even if the age of consent laws make it technically illegal, unless there's some other reason (abuse, etc). Sending someone to prison for having pictures of their girlfriend doesn't prevent any harm (which, after all, is the whole point of having laws), it just potentially ruins their life and adds to the harm.

**LordofHats**

Punishing teens for the simple act of sexting is, brain dead. Nothing useful is achieved by it (like punishing teenagers for statutory rape). When those photos end up in the public sphere however, they become something of a problem, especially when their release is malicious.

**Bromsy**

LordofHats wrote:
Punishing teens for the simple act of sexting is, brain dead. Nothing useful is achieved by it (like punishing teenagers for statutory rape). When those photos end up in the public sphere however, they become something of a problem, especially when their release is malicious.

W0rd.

**master of ordinance**

LordofHats wrote:
Punishing teens for the simple act of sexting is, brain dead. Nothing useful is achieved by it (like punishing teenagers for statutory rape). When those photos end up in the public sphere however, they become something of a problem, especially when their release is malicious.

Well said LordofHats, exactly what I was thinking.

**LuciusAR**

This sort of stuff is nonsense and I don’t see how prosecuting teenagers for activities such as is these is in any way in the public interest.

Laws against child porn are there to prevent children from being abused by perverted adults, they shouldn’t be used to punish adolescents for their own consensual sexual experimentation.

Not that this sort of thing is advisable, in fact it should be strongly discouraged. But using child porn laws to do so is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

**Ensis Ferrae**

LuciusAR wrote:

Laws against child porn are there to prevent children from being abused by perverted adults, they shouldn’t be used to punish adolescents for their own consensual sexual experimentation.

Except that in this case, the boy was storing photos of his ex, which were then used by the current girlfriend to get "revenge" for his still maintaining contact with her.

**kronk**

Iron_Captain wrote:
Sending explicit pictures of yourself to someone else is okay imo,
but sending explicit pictures of someone else to others is really wrong and mean.
She should of course be punished, but it seems strange to press child pornography charges against children. Doesn't that negate the whole point of why child pornography is actually forbidden?
Imo, it should be treated in the same way it would have been treated if it had been an adult sending explicit pictures of another adult to a group of adults.

It doesn't matter how old the kid is that distributed the child porn. Child pornography is child pornography. The only difference between a 15 year old doing it and a 35 year old doing it is one gets tried as an adult, and the other falls into the juvenile system. At least, in the US.

**Eisensapper**

Considering you can be charged (in Canada) with child pornography if you have images of naked adolescent cartoons characters, I'm not suprised by this at all. Lately they have also been trying to bolster anti-bullying laws as well, and they probably wanted to set some presidence with this case.

**Dreadclaw69**

Eisensapper wrote:
Considering you can be charged (in Canada) with child pornography if you have images of naked adolescent cartoons characters, I'm not suprised by this at all. Lately they have also been trying to bolster anti-bullying laws as well, and they probably wanted to set some presidence with this case.

One prior employer warned all staff that sending an image of Bart Simpson, shown from behind with his shorts down, p*ssing on an opposing soccer team's jersey would be considered child porn and that the Police would be involved next time that image was forwarded.

**Frazzled**

Good. Its about time laws were applied to this nonsense.

**Seaward**

kronk wrote:
It doesn't matter how old the kid is that distributed the child porn. Child pornography is child pornography.

Would that apply to the 15 year-old in the pictures, herself?