Fined for posting porn on girlfriend’s page
p2pnet news | P2P:- A 15-year-old boy in Sweden has been fined about $1,186 for posting a doctored pornographic picture on his ex-girlfriend’s social networking page.
Knowing his girlfriend’s password —- she was then 14 —- he, “uploaded a pornographic picture of a naked woman without her knowledge,” says The Local, going on:
“He even manipulated the picture to make its content more explicit.”
When the girl discovered her boyfriend was behind the embarrassing picture, she reported him and took the matter to court, says the story, adding:
“Emma-Lena Wennerberg at the Swedish Association for Victim Support in Gävle, eastern Sweden, told the Arbetarbladet newspaper that there has been an incredible rise in similar online offences. However, most of them are not reported to the police and do not reach court.”
.
.Stumble It!
The Local – Teen fined for online porn pic, May 23, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
May 24th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
In the united states, he would have been a sex offender.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
How would living in the US make him a sex offender? Is it illegal to photoshop a pic of someone? I mean Ive seen photos of people faces on the bodies of naked people. Is putting a underage face on an adult nude picture illegal??
May 24th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
If the subjects underage, then yes.
May 25th, 2008 at 12:31 am
But if the subject’s face is the only thing that is shown. And the nude part is that of an adult?
May 25th, 2008 at 12:39 am
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080225.wgtdigitalpics0225/BNStory/Technology/home
“Child pornography is illegal in the United States, but the Supreme Court in 2002 struck down on free-speech grounds a 1996 federal ban on material that “appears to be” a child in a sexually explicit situation. That ruling covers computer-generated images, though morphing â such as the grafting of a child’s school picture onto a naked body â remains illegal.”
May 25th, 2008 at 11:39 am
I can see how that would be defamatory or slanderous—and since the subject in question is a minor, a more serious offense—-but I hardly see how they could consider it child pornography.
May 25th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
its teh kidz! gotta protect the kidz!
May 26th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Use the words “minor” and “porn” in the same sentence and all common sense goes out the window.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Jay, the court just overturned that ruling in the last month, I think.
May 27th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Rekrul, you mean and people forget that Enlightenment Sheep Mentality and return to being human because we can’t maintain the debilitating pretense of what we call rationality in the face of something that calls up our true humanity from the depths of layered sophistry? Cool.