We hear of cases like this too often and the only thing that distinguishes this one from most in my mind is that it's from Canada, a country that I somehow am inclined to see as more rational, less hysterical than the United States. Perhaps I'm wrong, but if a 16 year old girl sends 'explicit' JPEGs of her 17 year old boyfriend's ex-girlfriend to a few of her acquaintances via cell phone it isn't the kind of "child pornography" we pass draconian laws to suppress. It's perhaps more of an example of adolescent lack of control and the kind of hurt that young people are likely to feel at rejection.
Canadian courts have none the less found her guilty of distributing child pornography and she is awaiting sentencing.
Somehow I agree with her attorney that although the deed was inappropriate and
perhaps actionable in some way, the kid isn't a "child pornographer" and
that the laws in Canada and the US weren't designed to punish such
childish acts with huge prison sentences.
really a "law" of unintended consequences? I have no idea, but there's a
strong tendency to write bad law in proportion to the ire of the
zealots and activists that draft them. There's a strong connection
between "zero tolerance" for misdeeds and zero forethought. There's a
strong tendency to force events into the scenarios provided by our own
fears and loathings and anger and it applies not only to failing to
discriminate between people who prey on children and children doing
childish things. The six year old who plants a kiss on another six year
old isn't a rapist and doesn't deserve to be branded as one. The 12
year old who takes a picture of herself, of another kid isn't a
pornographer and deserving of our pious rage and punishment.
sometimes our own best motivations make us blind, stupid, pompous and