• Fuck Logic: Man's sex legal, cell phone pics of sex illegal
    58 replies, posted
[URL]http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57459345-71/mans-sex-legal-cell-phone-pics-of-sex-illegal/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title[/URL] [URL]http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/21/ill-supreme-court-sex-with-17-year-old-was-legal-pictures-were-not/[/URL] [QUOTE]The age of consent in Illinois is 17. However, photographing the act of sex with a 17-year-old is illegal. So a man's conviction for child pornography is upheld by Illinois' Supreme Court. Illinois has its quirks.This one, though, might puzzle some. For the state's Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man who used his cell phone to take photos of himself and his 17-year-old girlfriend having sex. The age of consent in Illinois is 17, so the sex was legal. However, [URL="http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/21/ill-supreme-court-sex-with-17-year-old-was-legal-pictures-were-not/"]as CBS Chicago reports it[/URL], Marshall Hollins, who was 32 years old at the time, was convicted of child pornography in 2009 for taking the photos. [B]He was given an eight- year sentence, but his appeal to Illinois' Supreme Court was heard this week, with the court's verdict -- to uphold his conviction -- handed down Thursday.[/B] It is illegal to photograph anyone under 18 involved in any sexual act. This decision was taken in 1984 by Congress, which raised the age from 16 because, [URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sex-minor-legal-sex-pics-send-jail-8-years-article-1.1100868"]as the Illinois Court explained[/URL], "There was sometimes confusion about whether a subject was a minor since children enter puberty at different ages. "Writing for the majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice Rita Garman said, "There are rational, reasonable arguments in support of having a higher age threshold for appearance in pornography than for consent to sexual activity. "These reasons revolve around the notion that a 17-year-old is emotionally competent to understand what it is to have sex, but not to fully grasp the potential consequences of being photographed in the act. Some might imagine this thought process a little odd, given the prevalence of sexting in seemingly every high school in America. Moreover, different laws seem to offer a very confused idea of the ages at which people are emotionally competent for certain activities. You can enlist in the army at 17 (with parental permission), but you can't understand the consequences of risque photographs until you're 18. As for understanding what it is to have a Coors Light, well, you have to wait until you're 21 for that. The majority insisted, though, that despite the fact that there was no evidence that Hollins had ever attempted to publish these photographs in any way, the Digital Age raises the specter of such shots making their way out into the world, and staying there forever. "Once a picture or video is uploaded to the Internet, it can never be completely erased or eradicated," Garman wrote. "It will always be out there, hanging over the head of the person depicted performing the sexual act. "Police reportedly began investigating only because of a complaint from the girl's mother, who was somehow in possession of photos Hollins had e-mailed to her daughter. Hollins' case was surely not helped by the fact that he was already a registered sex offender. However, the dissenting judges felt that the case was very clear. Justice Anne Burke wrote: "There was nothing unlawful about the production of the photographs taken by defendant in this case because the sexual conduct between defendant and (the girl) was entirely legal. "In the end, Hollins is behind bars, with his lawyer pondering whether she should challenge the ruling. Perhaps a question worth asking, though, is whether the punishment in this case fits the alleged crime.[/QUOTE] This is bullshit.
He's almost twice her age. I mean, yeah, it's a real dick move having the sex be legal but the recording of said sex not be, especially since the age cutoffs for them are only 1 year apart in this case, but you have to admit that a 32 year old fucking someone almost half his age is pretty fucking creepy.
[QUOTE=Last or First;36461878]He's almost twice her age. I mean, yeah, it's a real dick move having the sex be legal but the recording of said sex not be, especially since the age cutoffs for them are only 1 year apart in this case, but you have to admit that a 32 year old fucking someone almost half his age is pretty fucking creepy.[/QUOTE] Don't lie. If you were a 32 year old man and you had a chance to fuck a 17 year old girl, you'd take the chance in a heartbeat.
Obviously the reason for allowing the actual intercourse but not recording it is that the government directly opposes the concept of "sharing is caring".
Who was already a registered sex offender. Regardless of his past though, I believe 8 years for this particular grey area is quite harsh.
"Police reportedly began investigating only because of a complaint from the girl's mother, who was somehow in possession of photos Hollins had e-mailed to her daughter." I'd be pretty fucking pissed too if my 17 year old daughter had sex with a 32 year old man, let alone was photographed by the guy while they did it. Find people your own age, goddamn. Women are still attractive at 32 years old. [editline]23rd June 2012[/editline] besides, age of consent varies from state to state, so taking pictures of sex with someone under 18 allows potential child porn to reach other states. especially where in most states there's a three year rule, where age of consent is lower than 18, but you have to be within three years of age of the other person to eliminate situations like this.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;36461906]Don't lie. If you were a 32 year old man and you had a chance to fuck a 17 year old girl, you'd take the chance in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE] Um, no, I wouldn't, because that's creepy. You're creepy.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;36461906]Don't lie. If you were a 32 year old man and you had a chance to fuck a 17 year old girl, you'd take the chance in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE] Dude, you're desperate.
What's even more bullshit than this is the fact that a 17-year-old having consensual sex with a 16-year-old is considered sexual assault, at least in Illinois.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Wait is there any backstory on why he's a recorded sex offender? I wouldn't come to conclusions right away...
It's a pretty thing to be sentenced with such severity over an abstract morally-ambiguous grey area; if the laws change he should probably be treated less harshly. I mean, seriously, 17 is just barely under the "you must be at least this tall" sign; I bet that the jury for that case musta had a "you must be at least this loopy" sign. Time is not an acceptable measurement for these kind of cases; not everyone is mature and wise at a set age as some people believe. There should probably be a different system, whereby actual [B]maturity[/B], not years clocked, defines a person, with appropriate "professional standards" being established as reasonable measurements for testing aspects of both biological and psychological maturity. Chronological age should be reserved for how much time someone's been around and nothing more, with the multifaceted maturity of an individual being the aspect of a person we use for judgements. Someone could be mentally immature even when their body is technically Reggie, or be emotionally stable even as a late bloomer, and those variables would be taken into account through actual thought rather than lazy pre-judging based on abstract numbers that don't properly indicate how mature someone is. Putting actual thought into something is the only right way to do things, even if you're tired and don't enjoy the thought of spending seemingly-precious yet abstract values of duration on something that seems simple, even when it requires proper unbiased judgement. However the age disparity was another kinda morally-weird area that probably made the jury's mind all wibbly; they and the judge probably didn't think that a "sugar daddy" or similar roles were kosher. (I bet that no-one knows what i'm talking about; story of my life)
[QUOTE=Loriborn;36461906]Don't lie. If you were a 32 year old man and you had a chance to fuck a 17 year old girl, you'd take the chance in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE] virgin spotted
[QUOTE=Van-man;36462042]Dude, you're desperate.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand what the word desperate means. A twenty-something year old banging a 50 year old woman is desperate. A 32 year old with a 17 year old to most men would be considering scoring big...
[QUOTE=Socram;36462200]I don't think you understand what the word desperate means. A twenty-something year old banging a 50 year old woman is desperate. A 32 year old with a 17 year old to most men would be considering scoring big...[/QUOTE] So you're out of your 20's and you've scored a chick who can't even legally go to a nightclub, and you consider that "scoring big"? Yyeaahh, I Think I'll side with Sainus this one time.
It's hardly bullshit, she's below the age limit for being filmed in what is effectively porn.
[QUOTE=Socram;36462200]I don't think you understand what the word desperate means. A twenty-something year old banging a 50 year old woman is desperate. A 32 year old with a 17 year old to most men would be considering scoring big...[/QUOTE] Please never become a high school teacher.
32 years old that's so gross Age old argument of sugar daddy
That age difference. That's like a teacher and a student.
I think the problem here is that the man is getting in trouble for less invasive of his two actions. Is it a little messed up that a 32 year old is porking a 17 year old? Most likely. But if you think about it (and you don't have to think about it too hard), isn't intercourse a far more invasive and impactful thing than nude photographs? Why is he getting in trouble for the less problematic and potentially abusive behavior when the more personal, intimate, and potentially invasive behavior is legal? The other issue here is the question of whether the Mr. Hollins is being punished under law makes sense. If Illinois law states that this girl is of an age where she is legally recognized as having the mental capacity to decide to have sex with someone of Mr. Hollins' age, then why does the law state that this girl doesn [i]not[/i] have the mental capacity to decide whether she wants to be photographed performing said sex acts? If the problem here is that the girl is too young to make such decisions, then the law needs to be changed and the age of consent needs to be raised to an older age.
[QUOTE=Last or First;36461878]He's almost twice her age. I mean, yeah, it's a real dick move having the sex be legal but the recording of said sex not be, especially since the age cutoffs for them are only 1 year apart in this case, but you have to admit that a 32 year old fucking someone almost half his age is pretty fucking creepy.[/QUOTE] Sex is private, recordings of sex... they tend not to be so private, if that recording is watched (and it can be watched anywhere in the world) there's somekind of law that determines that porn cannot have people under the age of 18 on it or it's considered child porn, and that recording is porn, even if just amateur porn.
[QUOTE=Socram;36462200]I don't think you understand what the word desperate means. A twenty-something year old banging a 50 year old woman is desperate. A 32 year old with a 17 year old to most men would be considering scoring big...[/QUOTE] No, being a 32 year old man and banging a 21+ year old would be considered scoring big. 17 is just a tad bit too low, it's right on the 'creepy-line' if you ask me. The creepy line being the line that sets apart a man with moves and a pedophile.
[QUOTE=Last or First;36462030]Um, no, I wouldn't, because that's creepy. You're creepy.[/QUOTE] Age means no difference between two consenting adults. You might find it distasteful, and that's perfectly alright, but don't act like you're better because of it.
[QUOTE=Van-man;36462042]Dude, you're desperate.[/QUOTE] Or he's Woody Allen.
[QUOTE=Last or First;36461878]He's almost twice her age. I mean, yeah, it's a real dick move having the sex be legal but the recording of said sex not be, especially since the age cutoffs for them are only 1 year apart in this case, but you have to admit that a 32 year old fucking someone almost half his age is pretty fucking creepy.[/QUOTE] If it's consensual, why should anyone give a shit? You could make the claim that "Oh, if the person is 17 they aren't mature enough to make the decision to have sex with a 32 year old". However, are you mature enough to have sex with an 18 year old at 17? Are you mature enough to have sex with a 21 year old at 17? If you are mature enough to have sex with [i]anyone[/i] at one age, you are mature enough to make the decision to have sex with [i]everyone[/i] at that same age. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] I mean, this is akin to the arguments against gay acceptance. What the people are doing is "creepy" or "unnatural". Fuck that, if the person is able to make a consensual agreement, it's absolutely no business of yours to judge what they do in the privacy of their bedroom.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;36461906]Don't lie. If you were a 32 year old man and you had a chance to fuck a 17 year old girl, you'd take the chance in a heartbeat.[/QUOTE] Not everyone here is horny, I know I wouldn't..
Illinois :v: What a great place to live
[QUOTE=Marbalo;36462555]No, being a 32 year old man and banging a 21+ year old would be considered scoring big. 17 is just a tad bit too low, it's right on the 'creepy-line' if you ask me. The creepy line being the line that sets apart a man with moves and a pedophile.[/QUOTE] what lol a pedophile If I go fap to 18 year old girls like every other man on this planet that doesn't make me a pedophile, neither then does banging them. 17 ain't that much of a difference.
[QUOTE=Last or First;36461878]He's almost twice her age. I mean, yeah, it's a real dick move having the sex be legal but the recording of said sex not be, especially since the age cutoffs for them are only 1 year apart in this case, but you have to admit that a 32 year old fucking someone almost half his age is pretty fucking creepy.[/QUOTE] It might be creepy, but it's his and her choices.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;36463568]what lol a pedophile If I go fap to 18 year old girls like every other man on this planet that doesn't make me a pedophile, neither then does banging them. 17 ain't that much of a difference.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between masturbating to someone's image and actually fucking them. [del]Not like anybody here would know[/del] [QUOTE=yawmwen;36462639]If it's consensual, why should anyone give a shit? You could make the claim that "Oh, if the person is 17 they aren't mature enough to make the decision to have sex with a 32 year old". However, are you mature enough to have sex with an 18 year old at 17? Are you mature enough to have sex with a 21 year old at 17? If you are mature enough to have sex with [i]anyone[/i] at one age, you are mature enough to make the decision to have sex with [i]everyone[/i] at that same age. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] I mean, this is akin to the arguments against gay acceptance. What the people are doing is "creepy" or "unnatural". Fuck that, if the person is able to make a consensual agreement, it's absolutely no business of yours to judge what they do in the privacy of their bedroom.[/QUOTE] Except we're not talking about an 18 year old, or a 21 year old, we're talking about a 32 year old. Someone old enough to be her high school teacher, and almost twice her age. He has much more control over the situation compared to how much control a 21 year old would. Are you really arguing that it's just as creepy for an 18 year old to have sex with another 18 year old as it is for them to have sex with an 80 year old? There's also that whole thing of him already being a sex offender, too. If it's really consensual, then sure, it's consensual, but it's still kind of creepy. Not in the "eww, dicks" type of 'creepy' that people have against homosexuality, and not even in the "eww, he's old and grungy while she's still young and pretty" type of creepy (he's 32 for god's sake), but in the "I'm getting some rape-y vibes here" type of creepy. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should stop them*. I'm just saying it's kind of creepy. *Assuming it actually is consensual, which I'm not doubting [QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36463772]It might be creepy, but it's his and her choices.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I'm not saying it's [I]wrong[/I], I'm just saying it's [I]creepy[/I].
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.