Why are you cons incapable of listening? Geez. Its up to the JUDGE to JUDGE, what does the evidence say was the intent and were these images used in a manner that was abusive. Man its like talking to a very poor AI bot.
Supreme Court striking down 1-year mandatory sentence for child porn possession
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
Judges are there to APPLY THE LAW.
LEGISLATORS CREATE IT. Elected legislatures. Who are voted in.
So judges are only there to apply the will of the people. If a majority want mandatory sentences, that is the law.
I have never moved the goal post, I've always stuck to the same statement, you on the other hand, move the goal post and jump the shark as highlighted below.
Yes, teens can consent to filming one another, taking nude pics, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL among consenting teens.
It is illegal to send it. To anyone not directly involved.
Look it up. And that is the whole point I've been making. If you make a nude, and send it. It's illegal. The other party has to be in it, or take the picture.
Understanding-Sexting-.pdf https://share.google/xGCZXXOEzymC6UCnw
Right there in black and white.
Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Images - Cyberbullying and the Non-consensual Distribution of Intimate Images https://share.google/x2nWO6UQ1buSouYcL
And here are the after consequences of break up. Or other distribution. Even just showing it to a friend.
Intimate Images: Legal Information for Youth - The Journey Project https://share.google/jxL7OYOPD7k3rYq8W
More here. Any sending is illegal. Implied consent is not consent. You must get permission every time. S sending a random nude can at any time be a chargeable offense.
Yes and the law has sentencing guidelines depending on the circumstances each crime. The supreme court decides if the law is constitutional. If the decide its not, then it is no longer the law.
You pretty much missed the lesson in Civics class about the Constitution and how it works, huh?
Let's take an example. The State of Virginia had a law stating that it was a felony for a Black man to marry a White woman. The USSC struck that law down as unconstitutional in 1967.
You say that the USSC was wrong to do that and "So judges are only there to apply the will of the people. If a majority want mandatory sentences, that is the law."
Because the Virginia voters - at least the white ones, because the Black ones got lynched if they tried to vote - sure as fuck wanted that law to stay on the Books. You'd be there cheering them on.
So in other words, I WAS RIGHT!! IT specifies NON CONSENUAL, which I've always maintained it must be consensual and between teens with NO ADULTS involved, or that adult will be charged. Now if it's an 18 year old, a judge would have discretion today to make sure an 18 year old wouldn't fall in a ridiculous net.
In your world, our parents who took nudes of us with their new Polaroid fancy camera as babies in a bathtub would be charged and spend one year in prison today. LMFAO
Somehow the right wingers backing the deep state pedo to the south of us think they are the protectors of women and children.
Firstly, you confuse "will of the people" with laws.
There are laws legislators make, that are often or atleast sometimes unconstitutional, that are routinely challenged in court and struck down.
Secondly, you oversimplify what judges do.
Judges interpret laws, resolve ambiguities while ensuring laws conform to the charter.
They don't just blindly "apply the law".
Argumentum ad Populum.
Nope.
Majoritarianism is not democracy and majority opinion doesn’t automatically make something just or constitutional, and therefore never implemented.
Example: If a majority “wanted” to ban a religion or strip rights from an accused person, your argument would justify doing so. However that would violate charter rights and the courts would rule otherwise.
Non consensual is broadly defined as not having given permission "Every time" which means any transmission or showing is liable.
Basically unless they ASK for a picture, or the person asks for permission first, the transmission is illegal. They can be no involved consent. Even accidents are considered transmission.
The difference between 30 years ago and today is digital transmission capability. So yes the rules need to change as well. Don't post nudes of kids on Facebook either. Even in private chat.
You are still living in the 80's.
No you were NOT RIGHT. You are almost NEVER right.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-163.1.html
I don't know, but the supreme court judges saw the risk, clearly dealt with it .AFIK based on what the petitioner was accused of, I think the min sentence was TOO LENIENT.
Another issue I have with this is if one is in possession of photos how do you know if the girl is a minor. Now if you are some sicko that has pix of 7 and 8 year olds that is not quite the same as accidently having a picture of a well developed 17 year old and not knowing it. You cannot really claim you did not know a child was underaged but teenagers can vary greatly.
Tell the full truth.
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 on the issue. An issue, that can't even be back up with a real life instance.
And now because of a fake situation that isn't relevant to real cases, the door is now unlocked for pedos to serve lighter sentences instead of a guaranteed 1 year.
I don't get people like you, man.
I'm not a lawyer, but could this not be a defence for a GF or BF with the consensual pics? I'm not really asking you; I'd rather have someone in the lawyering biz answer it.No you were NOT RIGHT. You are almost NEVER right.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-163.1.html
Defence
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence
- (a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and
- (b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.
