Teen "Asshat" Posts Pictures of Nude Girlfriend on MySpace

[gonzo]

WWW- [Salon.com] Here's the low-down on the alleged asshat, Alex Phillips. Phillips a 17-year-old in Wisconsin, was, for a time, dating -- well, that's probably a nice way to put it -- a 16-year-old girl (whose name hasn't been made public).

The pair were apparently quite close, so close that she, as teens these days do, gave him two cell phone-captured pictures of herself.

One picture showed the girl naked, full-frontal; the other, to quote police, displayed her "buttocks, anus and vagina."

Ah, young love.

But then the relationship inexplicably turned sour. Mr. Phillips was apparently quite angry about this turn of events, and he responded in a most unadvisable manner. He posted the nude pictures on his MySpace page.

Quite the poet, he captioned them:

Yo tell me this bitch desurves this!!!!!!! This is HLK yall! Yo, U see how big her hole is! Its from me! TF gets my leftover's to bad she fucked.

Adding insult to idiocy, when a police officer called Phillips to inform him that he'd face charges if he didn't remove the photos, Einstein is said to have responded, "Fuck that, I am keeping them up."

After mulling over his proposal, the authorities countered, Fuck that, we're charging you with child porn.

On Tuesday, Phillips was charged with possession of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child, and defamation. If convicted, he can face a maximum penalty of 16 years in prison.

Seriously? Child porn? I understand this kid's a doofus, but does it really make him a sex-offender? Like Nick Douglas over at Gawker, I think the punishment's a tad severe.

The police report makes clear that the girl in question was "very upset" about her nude photos going online; surely Phillips defamed her. It seems much harder to prove, though, that he "sexually exploited" her -- especially since she snapped the pictures of herself.

On the other hand, if this case deters other dumped teen boys from getting nudie MySpace revenge on their exes, perhaps it's for the best.

[Hammer]

I don't see how the punishment is severe. First of all anyone should be arrested for uploading photos or photos of anyone without their permission but when the girl is 16 he deserves everything he gets.

There are no qualifiers needed when it comes to child porn. You post a nude photo of an underage person and that's child porn.

[MRock]

It was only a matter of time before it ( the cp mania hunt ) hit the mainstream public ... now about that copyright infringement ...

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

I don't see how the punishment is severe. First of all anyone should be arrested for uploading photos or photos of anyone without their permission but when the girl is 16 he deserves everything he gets.

There are no qualifiers needed when it comes to child porn. You post a nude photo of an underage person and that's child porn.

They are both underage. Not exactly child porn. Not sure if naked people are pornographic anyway.

[DannyCox]

Nudity isn't considered Pornographic. Even pictures of children of any age nude is perfectly legal, as long as there isn't a sexual component involved.

Just last week, we had the uncut version of Pretty Baby on a basic cable television network here in Canada. Full frontal nudity with a 12 year old prepubescent Brooke Shields!

The case that Gonzo mentioned seems a bit suspect. I highly doubt the 17 year old was really charged, but that the threat was just used to scare him.

[pam]

He was charged http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive...1myspace1.html

[DannyCox]

Your tax dollars at work in Wisconsin.

This thing will never see the inside of a court room. The most he can get of the 3 is the defamation, and even then, with him being 17, that'll just go away.

[Hammer]

If the photos of the minor are obviously displayed to appeal to prurient interests, I'm pretty sure it will qualify as CP and based on the descriptions I doubt they were innocent photos of a nude girl but rather the girl posing provocatively for her boyfriend.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hammer

If the photos of the minor are obviously displayed to appeal to prurient interests, I'm pretty sure it will qualify as CP and based on the descriptions I doubt they were innocent photos of a nude girl but rather the girl posing provocatively for her boyfriend.

so you are agreeing with me on the subjectivity of the porn or art debate. Hammer, a 17 year old kid with pics of a 16 year old is hardly grounds for a kiddy porn charge. Only in America.

[sarettah]

Seems to me they need to charge her with something for producing cp if they are going to hit him with possession.

Only fair.


Such bullshit. Yeah, he was an idiot to put them up there. An idiot to wise off to the cops.

But I don't think he was a felonys worth of an idiot.

[RawAlex]

He was charged and the charge is valid for one simple reason: He shared images on a minor nude (and likely showing all parts) to the general public. That is distribution of CP. Posession isn't the issue, posting them in public and making them available to anyone and everyone (including a few pedos, i am sure) is grounds enough.

If it was just pics he had on his cell phone, then fuck no. Putting them in public is where the line was crossed.

[sarettah]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

If it was just pics he had on his cell phone, then fuck no. Putting them in public is where the line was crossed.

No, the line was crossed when they told him to take them down and he told them to fuck off. I would bet that there would have been nothing of consequence done if he had pulled them when they told him what would happen "if he did not remove the pictures"

He wised off to the cops so they decided to charge him.

Never mouth off to a cop, they can fuck you pretty good if they want.

[Toby]

Charges are just that, and only that, charges.

It takes charges, prosecution and conviction to send him to jail and quite often the first two are motivated by political or media pressure rather than the intent of the law.

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

He was charged and the charge is valid for one simple reason: He shared images on a minor nude (and likely showing all parts) to the general public. That is distribution of CP.

Sorry, have to disagree with that one. An image of a minor nude is not considered CP by either the US or Canadian governments, unless there is a sexual component to it. I can still run down to the magazine store in most cities and pick up a copy of H&E, or other naturist publications. Those are full of naked kids either singly or in groups. Those magazines have been around since the late 1950's.

None of us can really comment on what pictures she did take of herself, and how she was posing, other than what we can read on the complaint. But from what was describes, I doubt it would stand up in any court as CP.

Regardless of all that, that 17 year old does need a good beating.

[RawAlex]

Danny... I think "look at how big her hole is" suggests that there was some gyno work here, otherwise who would be able to see the size of her hole?

[DannyCox]

9 out of 10 times that I've seen kids post that kind of stuff, you never really see much. Remember, it's a 17 year old geeky looking kid. But, that's why I said none of us can really comment on the pictures themselves as we haven't seen them.

This will probably be tossed very soon. But then again, the US Prosecutors are quite well known for having little if any common sense in these matters. Remember the 17 year old in Florida who got sent to jail for 10 years for getting oral sex from his 15 year old girlfriend? That conviction was a jaw-dropper around the world!

And we talk about the Middle East being extreme!! I think "Middle America" is quickly catching up!

[DannyCox]

Should have pointed out that the jailed kid was freed late last year after his sentence was overturned. He spent over 2 years in State Prison, and that doesn't include the pre-trial time that he was remanded into custody!

[deviant]

I'm glad he went to jail just for being a 17 year old white kid from Wisconsin who talked like "Yo dis yo B homie nawhatamsayin shizzle shizzle foe rizzle dat hoe yo B" Do they even have black people in Wisconsin? Where did ghetto fresh wonderbread here learn his ebonics?

I better watch my mouth though, he might put on the most gangsta ass cheesehead I ever did see and come blaze me son!

[deviant]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

Remember the 17 year old in Florida who got sent to jail for 10 years for getting oral sex from his 15 year old girlfriend? That conviction was a jaw-dropper around the world!

That's Florida for you, what was it two years ago they charged some middle school student as an adult for hacking because the teacher left the room with a spreadsheet open and he changed his grade on the spreadsheet. Florida has it's own category on fark for a reason. For such a religious state they sure as hell don't believe in redemption.

[Hammer]

Geeky looking 17 year old? ummm... have you see any 17 years olds lately? Remember Tracy Lords? Hardly what I would call geeky.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by deviant

That's Florida for you, what was it two years ago they charged some middle school student as an adult for hacking because the teacher left the room with a spreadsheet open and he changed his grade on the spreadsheet. Florida has it's own category on fark for a reason. For such a religious state they sure as hell don't believe in redemption.

I know a hacker jailed for just accessing records that were wide open.

[ali25extreme]

The kid was given a chance to remove the pics before legal action was taken...now he will have to pay for his stupidity...the term seems unjust but o'well! I do believe that the girl should have some charges as well..she did take the pic in the first place! Where in the hell are the parents at? I would slap my kid upside the head if I thought they might be having sex at such an early age.

[EmporerEJ]

I'm still waiting for the obligatory "Gonzo you violated a copyright" post.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I'm still waiting for the obligatory "Gonzo you violated a copyright" post.

I think hes busy trying to salvage his kinkos lawsuit.

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Geeky looking 17 year old? ummm... have you see any 17 years olds lately? Remember Tracy Lords? Hardly what I would call geeky.

But Traci Lords never looked like this....

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by EmporerEJ

I'm still waiting for the obligatory "Gonzo you violated a copyright" post.

That would be, umm, "lame".

[tony404]

Another reason myspace should be over 18. And they complain about us. lol

[ali25extreme]

Originally Posted by tony404

Another reason myspace should be over 18. And they complain about us. lol

I agree with you on that note! The teens should stick to Nick..

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by tony404

Another reason myspace should be over 18. And they complain about us. lol

Actually, it brings up that whole issue of parental responsibility. Why were the police talking to the 17 year old, rather than addressing the issue to his parent or legal guardian? It would seem to me that the parents of this guy (and the girl for that matter) need a legal bitch slap to remind them that the responsiblity for their children didn't end after 5 minutes of manual labor 18 years ago.