NationStates

Galloism wrote:And yet he was charged with child sexual exploitation regarding keeping pictures of these mysterious not adults and also not children his own age and older.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Ors Might wrote:A fifteen year old boy is not a man, though. They’re a child.

Vass apparently believes America is Sparta.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Gormwood wrote:Even underaged minors who cannot legally consent, whom one of the girls were.

They were both underage. The fact that they caved to his pressure is no one's fault but their own.

Galloism wrote:

Diopolis wrote:A fifteen year old isn't a man yet, you're right, but I'd argue that "he's a child" is just as wrong here.

And yet he was charged with child sexual exploitation regarding keeping pictures of these mysterious not adults and also not children his own age and older.

Hmm.

Ifreann wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Vass apparently believes America is Sparta.

You apparently agree.

Nova Cyberia wrote:They were both underage. The fact that they caved to his pressure is no one's fault but their own.

Diopolis wrote:

Galloism wrote:And yet he was charged with child sexual exploitation regarding keeping pictures of these mysterious not adults and also not children his own age and older.

Hmm.

Let me be clear: I believe he should be charged with harassment, indecent exposure, and any other applicable crimes, but not with child sexual exploitation.

However, in order to violate Colorado's criminal harassment law, these acts must be done with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person.

Under Colorado law, a person commits indecent exposure if they knowingly expose their genitals to the view of any person under circumstances likely to cause affront or alarm with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of any person.

...

The individual's intent and the location of where the alleged indecent exposure are important. If someone exposes their genitals in a place not likely to be in view of other people, it may not be indecent exposure. For example, if someone went to a secluded hiking spot they may decide to take off their clothes to sunbathe. If someone suddenly comes across their path, this may not be indecent exposure because they did not knowingly expose their genitals to the view of any person.

Similarly, if you expose your genitals in a location where it will not likely cause an affront, this may not be considered indecent exposure. For example, if someone goes to a known nude beach and takes off their clothes, this may not be indecent exposure because other people at the nude beach are not likely to be alarmed or offended.

Ifreann wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Vass apparently believes America is Sparta.

You apparently agree.

Nova Cyberia wrote:They were both underage. The fact that they caved to his pressure is no one's fault but their own.

Galloism wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Let me be clear: I believe he should be charged with harassment, indecent exposure, and any other applicable crimes, but not with child sexual exploitation.

Criminal harassment is exceptionally narrow though, and in Colorado, there's a very significant criminal element that's missing (hence why they probably didn't charge him with it):

https://www.shouselaw.com/colorado/dome ... sment.html

However, in order to violate Colorado's criminal harassment law, these acts must be done with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm another person.

Given he was carrying on a mutual long range relationship, this would not appear to meet the criteria for criminal harassment.

Indecent exposure may also not apply depending on the content of the text messages, and whether it was likely to cause affront or alarm:

Under Colorado law, a person commits indecent exposure if they knowingly expose their genitals to the view of any person under circumstances likely to cause affront or alarm with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desire of any person.

...

The individual's intent and the location of where the alleged indecent exposure are important. If someone exposes their genitals in a place not likely to be in view of other people, it may not be indecent exposure. For example, if someone went to a secluded hiking spot they may decide to take off their clothes to sunbathe. If someone suddenly comes across their path, this may not be indecent exposure because they did not knowingly expose their genitals to the view of any person.

Similarly, if you expose your genitals in a location where it will not likely cause an affront, this may not be considered indecent exposure. For example, if someone goes to a known nude beach and takes off their clothes, this may not be indecent exposure because other people at the nude beach are not likely to be alarmed or offended.

https://www.shouselaw.com/colorado/sex_ ... osure.html


I don't know if any other Colorado crimes could apply.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:You apparently agree.

That doesn't really follow that well, Iffy my boy.

Diopolis wrote:Hmm. I definitely believe his actions should be illegal, although it would appear that non-child-sexual-exploitation charges wouldn't stick because of Colorado law. Although 15 year olds aren't full adults with the full ability to make their own decisions, they're more than old enough to know what they were consenting to here.

I don't think he should have gone on the registry, on account of his age, although I also think that his actions aren't severe enough to really justify it.

Galloism wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Hmm. I definitely believe his actions should be illegal, although it would appear that non-child-sexual-exploitation charges wouldn't stick because of Colorado law. Although 15 year olds aren't full adults with the full ability to make their own decisions, they're more than old enough to know what they were consenting to here.

I mean, that goes both ways though doesn't it?

I don't think he should have gone on the registry, on account of his age, although I also think that his actions aren't severe enough to really justify it.

Honestly, the proper punishment would probably be to delete the pictures and take away his xbox (or equivalent) for six months.

I'd also be ok with like 50 hours of community service or something like that.

Ifreann wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:That doesn't really follow that well, Iffy my boy.

Vass, supposedly, thinks that teenagers are wholly responsible for their own actions.
You, plainly, think likewise.

Diopolis wrote:

Galloism wrote:
I mean, that goes both ways though doesn't it?

Yes. I don't think it's intellectually honest to claim he was sexually exploiting the girls. I do claim he was harassing them, but under colorado law that doesn't hold up(I do think that when teenagers are involved there should perhaps be a lower threshold for harassment, because they're not really adults yet, just like they're not really children).

Honestly, the proper punishment would probably be to delete the pictures and take away his xbox (or equivalent) for six months.

I'd also be ok with like 50 hours of community service or something like that.

I mean, the court can't exactly take away his xbox. Community service is probably the best move here, in terms of existing things that the court can hand out.
Honestly this sounds like something that their parents could easily have sat down and worked out a solution to.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Vass, supposedly, thinks that teenagers are wholly responsible for their own actions.
You, plainly, think likewise.

I believe that it's rather silly to make one teenager responsible for the actions of another in a circumstance such as this.

Galloism wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Yes. I don't think it's intellectually honest to claim he was sexually exploiting the girls. I do claim he was harassing them, but under colorado law that doesn't hold up(I do think that when teenagers are involved there should perhaps be a lower threshold for harassment, because they're not really adults yet, just like they're not really children).

I'm not sure carrying on a long distance relationship is "harassment", even in the general sense.

By this metric, if they had asked him repeatedly to buy them a tiara (is that what kids want these days? tiaras? it was a big thing when I was a kid), it would be harassment.

Cekoviu wrote:

Galloism wrote:
I'm not sure carrying on a long distance relationship is "harassment", even in the general sense.

By this metric, if they had asked him repeatedly to buy them a tiara (is that what kids want these days? tiaras? it was a big thing when I was a kid), it would be harassment.

At age 15, kids wanted tiaras in your day?
That's like a thing that 3-7 year olds want.

Ifreann wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:I believe that it's rather silly to make one teenager responsible for the actions of another in a circumstance such as this.

So you don't think that teenagers are responsible for their own actions? Then you don't think that EH and LB are at fault for sending nude pictures to TB.
Or you do think that teenagers are responsible for their own actions? Then you do think that TB is responsible for his actions. Sending the two girls unsolicited dick pics and insisting that they reciprocate and keeping the pictures when they did.

Ifreann wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:I believe that it's rather silly to make one teenager responsible for the actions of another in a circumstance such as this.

So you don't think that teenagers are responsible for their own actions? Then you don't think that EH and LB are at fault for sending nude pictures to TB.
Or you do think that teenagers are responsible for their own actions? Then you do think that TB is responsible for his actions. Sending the two girls unsolicited dick pics and insisting that they reciprocate and keeping the pictures when they did.

Nova Cyberia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:So you don't think that teenagers are responsible for their own actions? Then you don't think that EH and LB are at fault for sending nude pictures to TB.
Or you do think that teenagers are responsible for their own actions? Then you do think that TB is responsible for his actions. Sending the two girls unsolicited dick pics and insisting that they reciprocate and keeping the pictures when they did.

Honestly, Iffy, they're all kids. Yes, TB is responsible for sending unsolicited dick pics and then keeping them. EH and LB are responsible for sending nudes back to him.

About as responsible as any group of 15-year olds can be, anyway.

I don't, however, believe any of them are entirely 100% responsible as if they were adults.

Diopolis wrote:

Ors Might wrote:A fifteen year old boy is not a man, though. They’re a child.

A fifteen year old isn't a man yet, you're right, but I'd argue that "he's a child" is just as wrong here.

Greater Cesnica wrote:In all seriousness however this is fucking shameful. They are literally the same age, they're in high school, they have wild hormones, and he didn't fucking threaten them into sending nudes, and they never reported him. Soooo what's the big deal here? Misandry much?

Magisterial Imperium wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:In all seriousness however this is fucking shameful. They are literally the same age, they're in high school, they have wild hormones, and he didn't fucking threaten them into sending nudes, and they never reported him. Soooo what's the big deal here? Misandry much?

No more lotharios. End the lothatrio epidemic.

Ors Might wrote:If having nudes of a fifteen year old girl counts as child pornography, why wouldn’t it be correct to call him a child?

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Nova Cyberia wrote:Honestly, Iffy, they're all kids. Yes, TB is responsible for sending unsolicited dick pics and then keeping them. EH and LB are responsible for sending nudes back to him.

About as responsible as any group of 15-year olds can be, anyway.

I don't, however, believe any of them are entirely 100% responsible as if they were adults.

And the boy shouldn't receive 20 years on a registry designed to punish child molesters and rapists. That will ruin his life.

Ors Might wrote:

Diopolis wrote:A fifteen year old isn't a man yet, you're right, but I'd argue that "he's a child" is just as wrong here.

If having nudes of a fifteen year old girl counts as child pornography, why wouldn’t it be correct to call him a child?