+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
                 02/22/2018 05:48 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  28.990 Visits   6 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
12/15/2004 02:01 PM ID: 45109 Permalink   

16 Year Old Charged with Child Porn


A Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 16 year old teen has been charged under Canada's Child Porngraphy law.

The 16 year old male had recorded himself and his 16 year old girlfriend having sex in front of his web cam. The sex act itself was not illegal, as the age of consent in Canada is 14.

However, when his girlfriend dumped him, he proceeded to e-mail all of his friends the recording. This violated Canada Child Porn law - creating, possessing or distributing sex images of someone under 18.

    WebReporter: jeffster Show Calling Card    
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
  Strange in a way  
That the age of consent is 14, but filming it is, even when the participants are of legal age. However, what I find even stranger is that he was charged AFTER he sent it to his friends, and not when he made it.

Howd he get caught btw, did she inform the cops or his friends?
  by: Whipd+Kreem     12/15/2004 02:14 PM     
it's the "creating, possessing or distributing" part that caught him up... she could have been charged with the "creating" part as well, since I'm sure she agreed to it.. unless of course he taped them without her knowing.. even then, I'm sure that nothing would have happened until he stupidly went and distributed it...
  by: sjava     12/15/2004 03:15 PM     
  Like most crimes, he told on himself  
so many crimes get found out and solved because the criminals can't keep thier mouths shut.
  by: BornInKy   12/15/2004 03:23 PM     
  I think...  
...he got caught because his ex-girlfriend wasn't too pleased with everybody being able to see that video. Sure, making a video with both parties consenting shouldn't be a problem, and that wasn't illegal as such.

But if you start publishing personal stuff of someone else without their knowledge, that's against the law. If both would've been older than 18, she still could've sued him under copyright law (portrait rights).

Why do I hear of such cases more and more often these days?
  by: glitzz   12/15/2004 04:02 PM     
  This isn't a case  

OF "child" pornography somuchas it is one of Privacy Violation.

One should not be unlawful.

The other cleary is and should remain so.

Privacy is a fundamental Right.

Chastity is a personal choice.
  by: verboten   12/15/2004 04:40 PM     
chastity is a personal choice for a 4yr old?
you're giving Libertarians a bad name with comments like that
  by: sjava     12/15/2004 04:55 PM     
  only if  
you take the point how it was worded rather than intended.
  by: Necralis   12/15/2004 04:57 PM     
  Will not be found guilty  
Alrighty, the whole violation of the girls privacy is moot, she is not entitled to any privacy the way i understand the privacy law. she was willing to be video taped and was an active participant in the act, the law on privacy basically says," its not done in private if there is someone "ANYONE ELSE" present. Even if i am in my own living room naked and someone stands outside and films through my window while my girlfriend and i have sex they did not violate my right to privacy because they were able to view me without tresspassing. I think she is jsut being vindictive and it will be thrown out of court.
  by: DAVEDCLOWN   12/15/2004 06:53 PM     
  Thats not the law  
In question
The law in question is that you cant be in a pornographic movie if your under 18.
If any of the "actresses" are, its child porn, and this guy is quite clearly guilty of distributing it.
  by: Necralis   12/15/2004 06:55 PM     
  The interesting question is.  
He is a child himself.
So, it is wrong for a child to be interested in childs (Of his own age)?
The answer is no, of course.
Considering the fact that it was most likely sent to his friend (and assueming of his age) this is not a crime as the viewer are not adults. Child pornography might it be, but sent to childs, not adults.

The only wrong part I see in that, is that the boy shouldnt have sent this video to get revenge on her. She gave no agreement about distributing the video wich would be illegal, and she could sue him for that, if he made any money of it. But she still could sue him for the effects on her reputation.

This case is mainly going nowere.
  by: veritek   12/15/2004 07:13 PM     
  Public Exhibitation  

Is a wholly different margin and expecation-realm of privacy than simple person-to-person.

Unless a person is a Public Official, or has some reason to be seen as deserving of a lesser-standard of privacy, they are absolutely entitled the reproductive rights of their likeness, be it auditory, visual, or other.

Your personal genome, also, Copyright YOU [DOB.]

The girl clearly had no intention of making a movie for public exhibitation or for use outside of what may be deemed personal and private enjoyment purposes between the two of them.

Even if otherwise, and in lieu of a written statement indicating otherwise, I would err on the side of privacy and say what went on was inappropriate and the young man should be charged with a violation of privacy Rights that his female friend was duely entitled.

That they are young makes it no different than if this was a 30 and 27 year old, and the former sent pictures of the latter to all his friends. That could be rightly prosecuted as defamation, libel, and othersomesuch that falls under the Privacy umbrella of the Law.

You don't do that to people.

Dr.Laura, being a public figure, is an exception.
[Google Images: Doctor Laura]

This young lady is not.
  by: verboten   12/15/2004 07:20 PM     

Google Images: Doctor Laura nude
  by: verboten   12/15/2004 07:24 PM     
  Kinda funny  
That in order to punish her he puts out a video of the both of them having sex... I mean, he's in the video too! Now if he's got a small willy, all his buddies know! What an idiot...
  by: fredfredrickson   12/15/2004 08:03 PM     
If they want to press charges civil or criminal that is fine, but to label someone with child pornography is something that will stick with him in life!!

Bad bad police officers!
  by: RoBBoB     12/15/2004 08:34 PM     
  not the police  
it's the laws and the way the laws are written.. it's up to the DA's office to decide what to charge him with..
  by: sjava     12/15/2004 08:53 PM     
  Child Porn laws going a little far  
There was also a story on here about a case a little while back of a ~14 year old boy being charged with child abuse and creating child porn becuase he filmed himself masterbating.
  by: ssxxxssssss   12/15/2004 11:16 PM     
in that case however, the police found nude pictures of a lot of other children on the kid's computer, in addition to the pics of himself..
  by: sjava     12/16/2004 02:12 AM     
Ok, now that I didnt know :). Puts a different spin on the situation.
  by: ssxxxssssss   12/16/2004 02:45 AM     
yeah, originally I had the same thought of "you've gotta be f'ing kidding me!".. then more of the story came out in the next two days with all the new details..
  by: sjava     12/16/2004 04:53 AM     
Canada has Crown Attorneys not DAs
  by: mightymojo     12/16/2004 11:52 AM     
  A link  
Canadian Privacy Laws differ from American Laws. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
  by: mightymojo     12/16/2004 12:03 PM     
  Kids consuming kiddy pr0n  

Oh, surprise.

Those rotten pedophiles.
  by: verboten   12/16/2004 02:12 PM     
  by: rogueelite   01/29/2005 12:34 AM     
  ummmm dudes and dudettes  
i think that if she agreed to it she cant sue him because it like a contract if you agree to the terms u cant change wat the holder does so sence she agreed then she cant stop him from sending it to ppl but if he did make w/t her knowing then she can sue him but sence she knew about the tape she really shouldnt have done wat she done and if most of these ppl on here r moms and dads or just adults WOOT a 13 year old out you XD i want to go to canada
  by: Fayt456   08/22/2007 06:27 AM     
  I'll bet this video is already...  
doing the rounds on the internet. The more they publicise it the more people would want to see this. QED not rocket science.
  by: Zmethod     08/22/2007 06:53 AM     
Guys this story is from 2004, i think the train has already left the station for comments.
  by: RoBBoB     08/22/2007 02:56 PM     
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: