Although I’d prefer to have better choices, I think that if I had a daughter and my only choices were promiscuity or prison, I’d prefer promiscuity. At least she could stop that whenever she wanted. Prison doesn’t offer the choice.

Pete, good point. I didn’t catch that.

What does it say about my readership that I basically oppose a prosecution for sending out pictures of a naked underage girl, and the first two commenters offer additional points in the defendant’s favor? I think it means I’ve got readers who are deeply suspicious of our governments.

Many families are nudists and naked children are no big deal. And you can legally purchase the photography of Jock Sturges, Sally Mann, Nan Goldin, et al

This appears to be specifically an Ohio law that has nothing to do with child pornography, but is an attempt to criminalize mere nudity — something that may, in fact, not survive a Constitutional challenge.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether or not it was a good or bad idea for the girl to distribute photos of herself. Or whether her parent’s should have done something. The question is whether it was any business of the government’s. And I say emphatically, no.

The prosecutor has discretion and isn’t required to prosecute everything under the sun that comes down the pipe. If his motive was to get this girl some help, those options were available. Prosecution isn’t the type of help that this girl needs, nor that society asks for.

This girls problems now have been compounded several times over. She now has problems that therapy & a positive, nurturing environment alone can’t address.