[bots]

More than 1,000 young people have been charged by police in Denmark with distributing sexually explicit material.

They are accused of using Facebook Messenger to share indecent video clips of two 15-year-olds having sex.

Police said it could amount to distribution of indecent images of children, as the two people filmed are under 18.

Facebook tipped off the US authorities, who notified police in Denmark.

One thousand and four young people from across the country are facing charges after allegedly circulating the material via the messaging app in autumn last year.

Some suspects are over 18 and were called to police stations to be interviewed.

Suspects under 18 were contacted through their parents.

A Danish police superintendent said the charges come as a warning to young people never to share sex videos.

Anyone found guilty of these charges faces a possible conditional prison sentence of about 20 days.

If found guilty of distributing indecent images of children, they would be listed for ten years on a register of child pornography offenders.

There have been calls in Denmark for more to be done to prevent so-called revenge porn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42694218

------

Glad to see action being taken

[Toy Soldier]

It's a very risky area for teens. A friend of my sister in law (she's 10 years younger than us) was very nearly put on the sex offender's register a few years ago because he (then aged 18) showed a nude picture of his ex-girlfriend (then aged 17) to some of his friends. She found out, contacted the police, who seized his phone which had several pictures of her on it that she had sent to him herself... and, technically, any nude picture of someone under 18 is child porn. Even though it was perfectly legal for them to actually be having sex, and he was only 7 months older than her.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's a very risky area for teens. A friend of my sister in law (she's 10 years younger than us) was very nearly put on the sex offender's register a few years ago because he (then aged 18) showed a nude picture of his ex-girlfriend (then aged 17) to some of his friends. She found out, contacted the police, who seized his phone which had several pictures of her on it that she had sent to him herself... and, technically, any nude picture of someone under 18 is child porn. Even though it was perfectly legal for them to actually be having sex, and he was only 7 months older than her.

Good for her, I'm glad she did it and I hope it served as a lesson for him not to be so damn sleezy with pictures intended to be private.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Good for her, I'm glad she did it and I hope it served as a lesson for him not to be so damn sleezy with pictures intended to be private.

I agree that it's a sh*t thing to do but it hardly justifies being branded a paedophile .

[Kizzy]

Fair play, it's odd that the age of consent is 17 you can get married at 17 and yet your partner or ex partner face conviction for sharing your picture between 16-18 :/
personally I feel anyone who shares picture of anyone of any age without consent is a sex offender.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree that it's a sh*t thing to do but it hardly justifies being branded a paedophile .

It is a sh*t thing to do, but I reckon people will only back off from screaming "PAEDO!" when someone close to them has their life ruined by making a stupid mistake. Maybe the argument won't be so hysterical.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Livia

It is a sh*t thing to do, but I reckon people will only back off from screaming "PAEDO!" when someone close to them has their life ruined by making a stupid mistake. Maybe the argument won't be so hysterical.

Are you suggesting to law of the land is hysterical or my reaction to the given scenario?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Are you suggesting to law of the land is hysterical or my reaction to the given scenario?

I'm suggesting that there has been an overreaction. I wasn't responding to your post.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I agree that it's a sh*t thing to do but it hardly justifies being branded a paedophile .

Why would he be branded a paedophile? Surely he'd potentially be branded a sex offender?

[Kizzy]

I don't think it is an overreaction to clamp down on the distribution of what is essentially child porn. You have to be accountable for doing that no matter how innocent you think it is.