Posted on 07/05/2018 3:25:28 PM PDT by Forgotten Amendments
.
Right on the money!
.
Actually, it was/is child pornography by definition. She was 17 and under the age of majority. While she may have consented, by statute she was unable to give consent.
The old line 15 will get you 20 is still operative. And when I was 16, I would never consider fornicating with a girl who was 15. Same applies here. He should have never considered taking a naked picture of his under the age of majority girlfriend even if she let him.
“Makes no sense at all.”
Ditto. It makes no sense at all to post outrage when you have been suckered by a click-bait article.
.
This is many orders of magnitude beyond absurd.
.
I guess you are for allowing pedophiles open access to the kiddies ...
.
Well, now I have been posted to by a click bait troll!
My collection is complete.
In Ohio, the age of consent for sex is 16 years old. This means that, generally speaking, someone who is 16 can consent to sex with an older person, no matter what the age difference is between them. Sex with someone under the age of 16 in Ohio is presumptively statutory rape.
Ohio’s age of consent law currently only applies to heterosexual sexual encounters. That is because Ohio still has black-letter law that makes all homosexual conduct illegal, regardless of age. However, such laws have been rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, so long as the parties are consenting adults acting only in private settings. Because of this, it is not clear what Ohio’s age of consent is for homosexual conduct, although it may be assumed that it is the same as the age for consent to heterosexual acts.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/ohio-age-of-consent-lawyers.html
If the legal age of consent in Ohio to have sex is 16, then how can that 16 yo be considered a child?
“This is many orders of magnitude beyond absurd.
Totally absurd to put your ex’s explicit photos up on a computer owned by a child porn trafficker who was convicted of having sex with a child
Bill Gates fault — he put the cameras in the damn phones.
Why? Are you getting a little worked up?
“My collection is complete.”
You are aware that this thread is a discussion of child porn collections ...
Our statutes are violating the first amendment’s Free exercise clause at a minimum.
Actually they are completely interfering with things that are nowhere near government's business.
.
You deflected but didn’t deny.
Sign the petitiln to fire Sessions, Rosenstein, and Wray:
Send the link to friends. Post on facebook and twitter. Make it go viral!
Its about statutory and judicial impropriety.
Of course we never expect you to grasp these complex ideas, and you have yet to disappoint!
Try to figure out who you are talking to.
Or maybe you got more problems than sweat, hey?
Short of tissues?
“You could not be more wrong!
Its about statutory and judicial impropriety.”
And where is the impropriety you assert these pedophiles are suffering from?
.
He’s ‘short’ of a lot!
.
A twenty year old taking consensual sexual explicit photos of a seventeen year old girlfriend or boyfriend should never have been classified as child porn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.