You're right on all counts: This guy is a moron, the cops are overreacting, and hopefully this will give other brokenhearted teens pause before posting anything in a fit of rage.

That said, can we also hope that this teaches 16-year-old girls that maybe, just maybe, sending nudie self-portraits to boys, regardless of how much "in love" you are, ain't such a hot idea?

Then I don't think they have any choice-- it's 'kiddie porn.'

Man, this guy is gonna set a world record for dumb and obnoxious.

I am shocked i tell you that the police/DA overstepped logic to criminalize the behavior of an asshole. Being an asshole is not a crime in this country yet. From the description of the photos they do not meet any legal definition of child pornography. If the photos do turn out to include more sexually explicit images than the description it should be this girl that is charged with producing child porn, trafficking child porn, FCC volitions, along with being charged with the new law of breaking TOS agreements as there can be no doubt that her cell contract had language either flat out saying no child porn or the service could not be used to commit felonies.

...but it's not working. I agree that the sentence is too much, but part of me really believes that this guy should be removed from the dating pool (and, if possible, the gene pool).

And he is technically quite guilty. He distributed sexual photos of a minor. He was warned that it was illegal. If he had done this for sexual gratification or profit, then few people would be defending him. So, why is it okay to do this for spite? Humiliating the victim publicly should increase the severity of the crime, not decrease it.

Yea, he distributed sexual photos of a minor, but he was also a minor himself, which kind of neutralizes the exploitation factor. Not to mention that 16 is the legal age of consent in many states. It should be treated the same way that such a case between two adults would be treated, with a charge of violation of privacy or something similar.

It is pretty much standard practice in the US to overcharge offenders and thus force them to plea bargain and plead guilty to lesser charges.

Hopefully in this young man's case, conditions of his probation will include attending classes in English as a Foreign Language.

This loser who posted the pictures of his girlfriend... or the girl who thought he was so awesome she sent him the pictures in the first place.

It seems much harder to prove, though, that he "sexually exploited" her -- especially since she snapped the pictures of herself.

And when she did this, she gave him the photos with the expectation that they'd be distributed on the Internet?

Classy, Farhad.

If one cared to read the actual complaint (which can be found on the Smoking Gun's website), one would find that the vindictive fool at the center of this case was charged appropriately:

Count 1: Possession of Child Pornography

The above-named defendant ... did, not having attained the age of 18, knowingly possess photograph(s) of a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct, and knew that the child was under the age of 18 ...

Count 2: Sexual Exploitation of a Child - Filming - By a Person Under 18 Years of Age

The above-named defendant ... did record or display in any way a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct ...

As it now stands, Alex Philips violated the law and should be charged. He was even given a warning, far more lenient treatment than most would have received concerning such a violation, which he failed to heed.

So what precisely is it that you who object to his being charged are objecting to? If you believe that in some cases it should be permissible to display sexually explicit images of children under the age of 18, then you should be lobbying for a change in the law.

If "violation of privacy" is the best that anybody can charge somebody with if they expose humiliating photos of them on the internet, then we need better laws.

This guy is guilty under the law. He knew it was a crime and refused to stop doing it. They gave him his shot when they warned him that he would get in trouble if he left them up - most purveyor's of these kinds of photos don't get that warning. He's lucky he's not also being charged with statuatory rape. Like I said, 16 years is a lot, probably way too much. But he should most definitely be charged with a crime for this.

If the girl had done something illegal, all the people up in arms about the "abuse" of this "child" would be having a fit for her to be tried as a adult.

If you wonder why nobody seems to respect the "justice" system any more, this kind of thing goes a long way towards explaining it.

"On the other hand, if this case deters other dumped teen boys from getting nudie MySpace revenge on their exes, perhaps it's for the best."

Yes. Exactly. And for that reason, the punishment fit the crime.

I didn't say she expected they'd be posted online. I suggested, instead, that his taking plus posting the pictures would be closer to sexual exploitation than simply posting pictures that she took of herself, and gave him freely.

I don't see how this opinion is either classy or not. Maybe you can explain?

...this line had me rolling:

"After mulling over his proposal, the authorities countered, Fuck that, we're charging you with child porn."

Thanks Farhad.

I have no idea if the charges are worthy or not, but don't expect me to feel any sympathy for this half-bright fuckwit.

jebldmm- With just the description of the pictures he did not break any laws dealing with child porn. A picture of a naked minor by itself is protected speech that does not fall under child porn exceptions, there needs to be a clear sexual component. Again going by the available description the full frontal shot is clearly falls on protected speech, the second picture while much more suggestive I have a hard time seeing how this crosses the line from protected speech.

Whispers- That might not be her intent for him to distribute the pictures but that does not make it illegal. If the pictures do cross the line of protected speech it is the girl that sexual exploited a minor, trafficked child porn, and several other laws.

If the girl does not want the pictures to be posted she has tort remedies. She can sue him for misusing her copyrighted work.

Amerigo- Excellent point. This is one of the most serious issues in criminal justice. It is a nice legal fiction that these over charging do not lead to innocent people pleading guilty but in a case like this his PD would be crazy to advise him not to take any deal that does not put him on a sex offender list even if he has to do significant jail time.