Ok. I understand that sending nude pictures of yourself is a bad thing, especially if you are that young.

But honestly, being arrested?! And I love how the 17 year old is the adult. That's just hysterical! Let's remember back to high school everyone. Were you an adult at 17? I know that I sure wasn't.

Again, don't misunderstand me. A 16 year old should not be sending a topless picture of herself on her cell phone and other students should not send it around. But let's join reality for a second. If you are going to arrest someone for distributing a topless picture, then shouldn't the one who took the picture also be arrested for distributing the image. Correct me if I'm wrong, but where exactly is the victim in this case? She sent a topless picture of herself and then her parents, school officials, or whomever, were upset that people saw it and passed it on?

When did things like this go from being inappropriate and in poor taste to a criminal act?!

Hmm...about the time they made it criminal to paddle your kids butt, like my dad would have, for doing something like this. they take the disipline away from school and the parents..so they have to arrest someone. They will probably have the whole school have counseling, and pay to do a study on topless cell phone photos.

Actually it's not against the law for parents to spank their kids thank God! But people are so afraid of doing it, that kids just get by with everything. This girl needs a good paddling not arrested.

the legal issue is child pornography. By law a nude picture of minor can be considered child porn. If a teen receives a picture of another teen, they are in possision of child pornagraphy and if they send it to someone else they are then distributing child porn.

This is a talk parents need to be having with their kids.

The happens to be 'distribution child pornography' and that is a criminal offense. The girl should be arrested for sending it in the first place. If someone else had taken the picture and distributed it they would be in jail already.

She is certainly old enough to know better. this girl needs a major lesson in modesty and dignity.

Where were these girls when I was growing up?

Dale,

Those girls were hanging with me at the Twin Bridges. The Prom Queens and the Class Favorites were dragging the Belt Highway, but the kind of girl that would send you personal pictures on a cell phone, although such things obviously didn’t exist at the time, were jumping off the bridges!

Henry:

I spent a lot of time at twin bridges too.

I must have been drunk and passed out when the girls were doing their thing.

Have we all forgotten we was 16 once? I understand child pornography is bad and there needs to be laws about it. The girl is 16 she took the picture it was her choice, her body she sent it to someone who is only 17, to me this should be handled by the parents not the law. We have way to many laws and not enough freedom anymore.

I don't see how this is "child porn" when the 16 year old was the one taking a topless photo of herself and sending it on. It's just stupid teenager stuff. If anything, the girl is probably punished enough by the embarassment of her photo circulating.

I'm usually all for throwing the book at sex offenders, but I really hope in this case, no one is deemed a sex offender for life. Think back to when you were a teenager... I bet a lot of us would have our lights off on Halloween if we had laws like this back in our days.

(2) "Child pornography":

(a) Any obscene material or performance depicting sexual conduct, sexual contact, or a sexual performance, as these terms are defined in section 556.061, RSMo, and which has as one of its participants or portrays as an observer of such conduct, contact, or performance a minor under the age of eighteen; or

(b) Any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct where:

a. The production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

b. Such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

c. Such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to show that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct;

meow i agree with you.It was a stupid teenage idea. This should be left up to the parents,not the law. I also hope no one has any kind of charges on their record. To many laws these kids are not sex offenders and shouldn't be charged as such.

ufc - law is the law - parents need to talk to their kids regarding this issue. Yes it's teens doing dumb things, problem is dumb teen things can turn into a critical problem. Digital photos can show up anywhere on the internet, some sicko might see it and try to find her, she may apply for a job and it may come back to haunt her.

Also you say its a parent thing, and who takes care of this if she comes from a broken home.

Maybe Scroggins should read this:

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/03/31/federal-court-enjoins-pennsylvania-prosecutor-from-charging-teens-in-sexting-case/

Did you read the column? This prosecutor went off the edge and a federal judge called him down. In this story we have two kids in juvenile custody without charges filed and nothing that indicates a law was broken. The juvenile justice system is a joke. These kids appear to have broken no laws so why are they held?

Yeah the picture was not a good idea but at 16 without more it does not appear to be child porn.

Liberty - don't understand your posts, all I said is a law is a law - I didn't say you need more laws, you just can't break what is a law. Law number one in my book, you do stupid things, bad things happen.

A complaint was filed, which means legal action had to be taken.

These are the laws that have been to protect children. Don't forget that and when the laws were being formed most wanted harsher punishments that what we first talked about. Had this picuture had gone to the wrong person Little Susie could end up on the internet and posted onto many websites and been added to the perv sites who trade these witheach other. Do we no longer remember that we need to protect children. What if this picture were of your child would you not be upset and the laws you wanted are in place. The police and court must look at the facts and follow protcol in a matter like this. Just because someone didn't get hurt so to say...,a federal law was broken. The bed has been laid now someone must lie in it. I think above all for us to maintain order, laws must be followed. If you break the law except the results. If we give free passes to people then we say that they don't need to be accountable for their actions and they exempt from the rules. We've all this on time or another........... the same statement applies here.

I read the copy and pasted statute and I don't see where nude or partially nude photos displays sexual conduct or sexual contact, and just showing her breasts is not engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

I'm not saying that little girls should be doing this and that it is appropriate behavior, but it is not sexually explicit. If that is sexually explicit, then the missionary position with the lights on must be deviant sexual intercourse.

Apparently, the problem is that people, including prosecutors, do not know hot to read. Of course that only appears to be part of the statute.

How stupid. give me a break at sixteen you are an adult I meen your body is grown and you mind developed.And for the people saying other wise my grandfather was in the war in the south pacific at 15 years old. And to this day the USA will give you a gun and tell you to kill at 18. So in a 24 month period teens have gone from children to responsible killing machines. Is this what you people think? Get off your high horses and SHUT UP!!

Law is the law,ok then lets see how many dumb laws there is. In Missouri women are only allowed to wear dresses, no jeans,slacks,dresses only.So SJPD start arresting every woman in jeans,the law is the law.As a tax payer and citizen of St. Joe.all city property is owned by all the tax payers am I correct? I read not to long ago the SJPD is told not to arrest illegals unless they have committed a more serious crime. They are trespassing that is a crime arrest every one of them and charge them with that.30 days 1st offense,1 year 2nd and it increases every time then they will not want to come to St. Joe. Leave the legal kids being kids and arrest the ones breaking the law.

I agree with ApparentlySo. This is getting blown out of portion. I was doing much worse when I was 16.

I also agree with ApparentlySo. Kids will be kids,its funny at 17 one is charged as a adult,at 16 a minor.I wonder how close to 17 the girl is? As someone else stated at 18 they are given guns and sent to war to kill or be killed, don't you dare take a picture of yourself and send it to anyone.In America the illegals have more rights anymore.

look out Anne Geddes your next!

or you're

Henry:

Are you the Henry Allison with Jazzie's?

I think its wrong for adults to post on this story they think what happened is okay. What if your kids are reading this, are you not giving approval of such actions by you saying you did worse. Not to say it takes a village, but I do beleive we as adults need to set a better standard here where Im sure teens are reading this story and comments. I did some things as a kid like most, those stories stay with only a few select friends at reunions, not in public boards. Ask yourself, would you want a your daughter sending these pictures out? Would you want people sending these pictures around to everyone of your daughter.

The fact that this went to the police and an arrest made is a bit overboard....I agree with the earlier posters, this girl does not need jail time but a trip over her mother's knee to straighten this out....parents need to parents here...

sense, one issue is the response of those in authority as opposed to the parents.

Dale,

I am not that Henry Allison. When I first imaged what Jazzie’s could be, I thought of a dark room filled with ecdysiast terpsichoreans. Then I realized you probably meant the power chairs.

Henry:

I’m not sure yet what Jazzie’s is. All I know is that it’s a new business here in Johnson County and the owner is listed as Henry Allison.