Comment by Powell Gammill (1004)

Entered on: 1/13/2007 9:30:04 AM

So here in Arizona a 14 year old boy is threatened with spending the rest of his life in prison for having 9 photos of underage girls [his contemporaries] in "suggestive" poses (which I assume means they were clothed). [I get those delivers to me every Sunday in the Arizona Republic ... they are called bra ads and bathing suit ads.

And he visited a adult nude soft porn site.

And this was detected how? By Yahoo monitoring chat rooms and accusing a visitor of downloading kiddie porn ... and the evidence found at the house failed to confirm this downloading?

But more importantly, is it kid porn when it is downloaded by a horny 14 year old kid? By law yes. But only because non-thinking knee jerk neaderthals at the legislature said it is ... and now we have the consequences. In Arizona it is statutory rape to sleep with a child under the age of 18. Yet in Arizona adults under the age of 21 are rarely prosecuted (arbitrary) if the girl (rarely boy no matter the age) is over the age of 14. It is just recognised that these rape laws do not apply if the age of the two participants is contemporary. Why shouldn't the sexual interest in looking at pictures (the article is far from clear whether these girls were unclothed) be the same?

And this is still a case because you were placed on their radar, they never err and because ... they can.

Hummmmm, looks like a case for Super-Dary?