Court rules that 32-year-old man’s sex with 17-year-old was legal… but pictures of it cost him 8 years in prison

Court rules that 32-year-old man’s sex with 17-year-old was legal… but pictures of it were not

 

Although a man who was 32 wasn’t breaking the law by having sex with a 17-year-old girl in 2008, he was by photographing the act, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Marshall Hollins was convicted in Stephenson County of making child pornography and sentenced to 8 years in prison.

Is this not sad? It brings me to tears.

A good black man’s life destroyed, a girl’s boy friend taken away. All to protect her from "abuse". 

Where is Al Sharpton?

Where is President Barack Obama. I know, if he had a son, it would be a street fighting thug like Trayvon Martin. Where are men’s rights activists?

Where are the feminists, for the girl’s rights to have a boy friend, and to have her pictures taken?

 

He admitted he had sex with the girl when she was 17, which is the age of sexual consent in Illinois.

In a 5-2 ruling, the high court said that although the law allows 17-year-olds to consent to sex, they are still minors, making photos or video of such sex child porn.

This is nothing new:

The two dissenting justices said that because the photos don’t show an illegal act, they shouldn’t be illegal.

The dissenting minority has a bit of decency and common sense.

‘There was nothing unlawful about the production of the photographs taken by defendant in this case because the sexual conduct between defendant and (the girl) was entirely legal,’ wrote Justice Anne Burke, who was joined by Justice Charles Freeman.

‘The photographs are therefore not child pornography as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court for purposes of the First Amendment.

Due to voodoo theory and falsified research about the child sex trauma myth (Rind Study), the US supreme court made an EXCEPTION to constitutional rights of the First Amendment.

In the above case, no "*child" has been harmed through an illegal act, so there should be no reason to make an exception to constitutional first amendment rights.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Court rules that 32-year-old man’s sex with 17-year-old was legal… but pictures of it cost him 8 years in prison” »
Court rules that 32-year-old man’s sex with 17-year-old was … » continues here »

Share