Canadian teen convicted of child pornography after sexting naked pics


A Canadian teenager has been convicted after texting naked photos of her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend to one of her friends.

The girl, who was 16 when the offense took place, was charged with the possession as well as dissemination of child pornography, and judge in Victoria, British Columbia, found her guilty. It didn’t help the girl’s case that her intentions towards the ex seemed to include intimidation as well as humiliation. An indication of this was the fact that she posted one of the pictures on the ex-girlfriend’s Facebook page.

Christopher Mackie, who acted as the girl’s defense, thinks that the conviction of child pornography is out of place. “These child pornography laws were intended to protect children, not to persecute them,” he said to CBC. “There seems to be a number of people involved, but there has only been one person charged with an¬†offence,” he added.

The crown’s prosecutor for the case, Chandra Fisher, on the other hand, sees this as more of a cautionary tale. “Always be careful of what you allow of pictures to be taken, what you send to whom,” she said. “[Teenagers] need to be careful what they send, what they send to each other and where it might end up.”

On this one, I will have to side with the crown. It doesn’t matter your age — if you distribute illicit photos of underaged kids, then you should be help accountable.

[via BBC News, CBC News, CTV News]

Related Posts

  • JMJ

    This court ALMOST got it right. This malicious, privacy-invading, bullying, vicious, mean and spiteful child SHOULD have been arrested and prosecuted for her actions that, no matter what excuse, age or intent, disseminated sexual images of an underage child.

    Then, after her successful prosecution and sentencing, the court should suspend any sentence for a period of six-to-twelve months, at which time, if the child has behaved herself, the sentence should be put aside and the child’s criminal records sealed.

    Children this age should not be held to the same standards as a mature adult. Their brains do not process information the way those same brains will when they are 18, 24 or older. Among many, many other sources, insurance company studies of 16-year-old versus 18-year-old drivers supports this claim.

    Children, even nasty little children like this teen-from-hell, are supposed to be protected even from their own immature *retardation* whenever possible.

  • kevbo

    There is a difference between photos of naked children and child porn. This is nothing more than mission creep within the court system and the steady march toward criminalizing children’s behavior.

    Unfortunately, when the responsibility of disciplining children is lifted from parents, only the courts will have that right: a true nanny state nightmare.

  • I agree with you completely, but the boyfriend must have supplied the photos and should be equally accountable.

  • Mike S.

    Yes, “you should be help accountable.” But this is not child pornography–this is an immature, not-yet-fully-formed adolescent brain, and the system is allowing itself to be used to ruin a life over it. Wouldn’t public service, including to the victim herself, do so much more?