It's odd they're not prosecuting the boys who send the nudes for creating, possessing, and distributing child pornography. These crimes are usually prosecuted under a "strict liability" theory, meaning that there is no defense--if you have the item you're guilty.
With "strict liability", they must proseucte minors. If they didn't minors could take pictures of themselves, send them to people they don't like, and then call the FBI with no repercussions for themselves.
> With "strict liability", they must prosecute minors.
In the US at least, I don't think this is true. "Strict Liability" means they may prosecute regardless of intent. "Prosecutorial Discretion" is orthogonal, and means there is no must about it.
No? Since the minor can still be prosecuted, it's not true that there are "no repercussions". And since the same prosecutorial discretion applies to the recipient, it doesn't mean that they will be arrested.
Mind you, I'm not a fan of selective enforcement, and I think it's something we should try to avoid. But I don't think the particular case you are referring to is likely to suffer from the downside you think is automatic.
Exactly my point! That's why it's important not to have a "child porn" expemption in the law for minors. They must be prosecuted. And selective prosecution is wrong.
With "strict liability", they must proseucte minors. If they didn't minors could take pictures of themselves, send them to people they don't like, and then call the FBI with no repercussions for themselves.