[roger-roger]

I think he should get 18 months but everytime Hairy Joe makes him toss his salad, pictures should be taken and posted on a members only web site. With the money made from website going to the poor girl who was exploited.

[Zipperfish]

He's 20, she's 16? Nah, not kiddie porn in my books, sorry.

[DrCaleb]

Robair Robair:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But I don't agree that it's child porn. That is in a whole category by itself, reserved for the sickest among society.

Think of the precedent you're setting there. It's okay to exploit girls under 18 years of age on your website if you talked them into dating you first?

18 years old, pretty cut and dry.

Therein lies the conundrum. Age of consent, vs. age of majority.

I don't think the pictures were intended as kiddie porn, as both parties took pictures of each other, according to the story. Intent is always a factor in judicial decisions. I think the intent was innocent enough, and his distributing the pictures was a way to get back after being jilted by a lover. Not as a means for noodle dicks to get their jollies.

Think of the precedent you are setting too. Did your parents take pictures of you in early childhood taking a bath? What was their intent?

[Robair]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Robair Robair:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But I don't agree that it's child porn. That is in a whole category by itself, reserved for the sickest among society.

Think of the precedent you're setting there. It's okay to exploit girls under 18 years of age on your website if you talked them into dating you first?

18 years old, pretty cut and dry.

Therein lies the conundrum. Age of consent, vs. age of majority.

I don't think the pictures were intended as kiddie porn, as both parties took pictures of each other, according to the story. Intent is always a factor in judicial decisions. I think the intent was innocent enough, and his distributing the pictures was a way to get back after being jilted by a lover. Not as a means for noodle dicks to get their jollies.

Difference in interpretation I guess. I thought offering pics of her having sex to noodle dicks for the purpose of them getting their jollies WAS the revenge he was exacting after being jilted by his lover/stalking victim. Which would be fine in the eyes of the law IF she was over eighteen years old.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Think of the precedent you are setting too. Did your parents take pictures of you in early childhood taking a bath? What was their intent?

Difference in our interpretation, I wasn't having sex in any of those photos...

[DrCaleb]

Robair Robair:

Difference in interpretation I guess. I thought offering pics of her having sex to noodle dicks for the purpose of them getting their jollies WAS the revenge he was exacting after being jilted by his lover/stalking victim. Which would be fine in the eyes of the law IF she was over eighteen years old.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Think of the precedent you are setting too. Did your parents take pictures of you in early childhood taking a bath? What was their intent?

Difference in our interpretation, I wasn't having sex in any of those photos...

I guess it's all up to our interpretation. It just says 'nude' photos were posted, and that they took photos of consensual sex. The story isn't clear whether the pictures he posted, or offered further pics of, were of her engaged in sex acts.

[Arctic_Menace]

I also wouldn't say that this girl was exploited. They were in a consensual relationship after all...

And it seems like he didn't abuse her or try to force her to do/say anything, so I don't think she's exploited.

[roger-roger]

It was a 16 year old dating an adult, I think there is some exploitation there,

[N_Fiddledog]

The guy sounds kind of stalkerish, because he wouldn't let her be even after repeated warnings.