Student facing child porn charges
By Jay F. Marks
Staff Writer

A Douglass High School student was charged today with manufacturing child pornography for allegedly using his cell phone camera to record a 16-year-old girl performing oral sex on him.


Kylem Lamont Carter, 18, also is charged with distributing child pornography because he allegedly shared the video with a number of other students.

Carter faces up to 20 years in prison on each count if convicted.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

That's retarded. 16 is the age of consent is it not?

And there's no way he filmed that without her knowing.

So it's okay to have sex with your highschool girlfriend, but videotape it and you're looking at 20 years.

-- yeah, that's logical.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

I'm not sure the D.A. should be doing this. If I were the D.A., I'm not sure I'd touch this with a 10 foot pole.

This kind of reminds me of Genarlow Wilson's case. I'm sure that if Jesse Jackson, etc. hear about this, they'll be booking rooms at the Skirvin.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

uh. I don't even know where to start. What kind of a skank ho lets some guy video tape her giving blow jobs? Of course he is going to share it with his buddies! It will probably end up on youtube also. Unless you are looking for a future in the porn industry, probably not a good idea girls.

Stretching it to distributing child pornography sounds like somebody is tired of the liberals and is wanting to make a drastic point. He will most likely be pushing a bill to require abstinence from teenagers and is one of those people that thinks this probably happened because we teach them about sex and give them condoms now. That only encourages them. We all know if we just ignored it and told them to not do anything until they are married they wouldn't!

That's just crazy. A very similar kind of thing will be highlighted on 20/20 tonight at 9:00. Here's a portion of that segment from the 20/20 website:
ABC News 20/20: Sex Offender or Victim?
The video is on the right side. Watch it and you'll see just how far we are going with this. It's a ridiculous story - much like the one Midtowner posted about.

edit - Here's the direct link to the video

Skanky ho? Nah, I don't agree. Quite a few of us were having sex at 16, and I can guarantee that if I (or my girlfriend for that matter) had a phone in my pocket capable of recording the event, I'd have had a storage capacity problem on the SIM card.

It's kids being kids, and this dude is going to get ramrodded for it.

I mean, even though he was a buttnugget for sharing it with friends, it's not even remotely in the realm of "child pornography".

I always knew you were kind of skanky OGTS.

You didn't have to think about things like that when we were kids because the technology wasn't there. But it is a serious problem now and most girls know not to allow things like that to be on video. Guys too! Think about how vindictive teenagers are during break up times. ouch! imagine THAT video posted all over. Never trust anything sexual to be on tape unless money is involved or you have just as much blackmail on the person doing the taping. Life Lesson #426.

Paris Hilton did a sex tape, now every princess out there wants to be just like her.

__________________
It's a friendlier OKCTalk!

The age of consent for sex in Oklahoma is 16. Anything under 16 is considered statutory rape, consent or no consent.

Child pornography is different. The age goes to 18. So, in Oklahoma you can get a 16 year old to have consensual sex with you, but cannot record the act and show it unless the person is 18 or older..

OSCN Found Documentefinitions

Looking at the staute, he has a big problem.

Is the girl in trouble too? After all she was a willing participant no?

Is this because he is an adult and she is a minor?

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

That's funny...Can a "child" be charged with being a "child pornographer"?

I don't mean being charged for that! silly ...

I'm just wondering if she is in any trouble for engaging in a sex act since she was a part of it.

Girls these days start having sex very early and I'm just wondering if they have any consequences?

(other than pregnancy and STD's of course)

__________________
" You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

She's probably the one who suggested he record it.

__________________
Still corrupting young minds

Oral sex doesn't count; just ask Clinton.

Under the statute, assuming the facts are correct, he is not a child. He is 18, she is 16. They can have consensual sex, but he can't record it or it's child pornography since she is 16. I posted the statute above.

IMHO, she has no liability since she can consent to sex. It doesn't matter if she consents to the filming. The boy has a problem. He probably didn't know it at the time. He does now.

Adult and minor is not the issue. The Child Pornography statute describes ages and doen't refer to the term minor or adult. 18, 16.

The term ninor and adult are specifically described in each statute where pertinent. The ages change depending on the statute.

Shoe tapping does, ask Larry Craig.

It is child pornography under our law. I included the statute for you to read. If you don't like it, I wish you the best in trying to soften child pornography laws. That won't happen.

That's irrelevent under the law.

Nobody is arguing with you.

Lighten up Francis.

What? I'm just answering questions here. I'm not trying to argue. I won't even touch the moral/ethical questions in this issue. Just trying to point out the law and why this young man is in trouble. I guess my NO vote has biased some of you.

Cheers.

I agree with smell, it sounds like you have a personal stake in this or something. You seem to be defending this absurdity. It's ridiculous - whether it's the law or not. The 20/20 story last night was much the same kind of silliness. The fine points of the law aside, it's legislation run amuk in an effort to make the people feel 'safer'. The mantra today, on issue after issue is, "Be afraid - be very afraid."

I don't have a personal stake in this at all. Instead of espousing personal opinions based on ethics/morals, I tried to point people to the law as it currently stands. If you disagree with the law, try to change it. As I said before, I'm not going into the moral/ethical issues of the case. Many questions and opinions were stated with full ignorance of what the current law is. Did you read the statute? You can have your opinions, just try to make them based in fact is all I'm saying.

Let's try to separate facts from opinions.