Yea! This will probably prevent a suicide or two. Kids need to know that this is not alright! I hope they don't get the constitutional changes. This has to be stopped cold. And yes, they can trace who sent them.


Sexting teen found guilty of distributing child pornography


A provincial court judge in Victoria, B.C., has found a 16-year-old Saanich girl guilty of distributing child porn for "sexting" pictures of her boyfriend's ex.

The teen was convicted of possessing and distributing child pornography and uttering threats. It is believed to be the first time in Canada a teenager has been convicted of pornography offences related to so-called "sexting."

The case had all the hallmarks of a modern-day teenage drama: a jealous new girlfriend, intimate photos of her boyfriend's former girlfriend and text messaging.

The one-day trial on Thursday focused on 36,000 text messages and 4,000 images that were allegedly shared among the accused, her friend, the boyfriend and the alleged victim.

During the trial the Crown argued the accused, who cannot be publicly identified because of her age, sent nude photos of her boyfriend's former girlfriend to another friend and to the ex-girlfriend. The Crown argued that the accused made threats in text messages to the ex-girlfriend in November of 2012.

The Crown argued the accused possessed and distributed child pornography. But defence lawyer Christopher Mackie argued there is reasonable doubt about who did what.

"Any case of this nature, when we get into these technologies, it does become very difficult to trace who's sending what and how do we know, ultimately, who sent what? So that's part of the burden the court has to try to figure that out."

Mackie also questioned the Crown's decision to only charge his client.

"There seems to be a number of people involved, but there has only been one person charged with an offence," said Mackie.

After the verdict was announced Mackie said he will launch a constitutional challenge, arguing his client should not have been charged

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/sext ... nography-1

I hope the constitutional challenge succeeds.
Charge all those involved or none.

So, the perverted old guy who gets a picture of some little girl and passes it on should only be charged if all the others who got it and passed it around are charged too?

If the cops know who they are and the evidence warrants it they do get charged.

I'm confused oskar. It seems as if the defense attorney is saying his client should NOT have been charged, thus the challenge, even though she was the "originator" of the texted pics. If he had said the his client should not have been the ONLY one charged, I would agree. What am I missing?

After the verdict was announced Mackie said he will launch a constitutional challenge, arguing his client should not have been charged

Should not have been charged for what reason?

I don't know...........but that's why he wants the challenge. Hope they publish more of what happens in this case.

Not always. If it's a multiple user computer, for example, nobody may be charged because they can't show who downloaded the pictures.

Note "and the evidence warrants it".

Let's take the argument out of the sexting context for a moment.

If a cop sees two cars speeding down the highway he can only chase one of them. If the one he chases pulls over, should he be able to get off because the other speeder didn't get pulled over? After all, only one of the speeders was charged.

Fair analogy. Don't prosecutors cut deals all the time in cases with multiple defendents so that they can nail at least one or two? Same sort of thing. No criminal justice system or law enforcement can catch every criminal.

S/he pulls over the one s/he got on radar. That's the evidence.

A great new awareness campaign here:

I don't agree with the statement: "Charge all or none." There may be reasons why others are not charged (e.g., not enough evidence to charge them, etc.).

The fact that someone else has committed a crime and might get away with it doesn't excuse another.