This was the threat:
"Once he had coerced Alice into sending intimate images, Fordyce convinced her that she was complicit in making and sharing child sexual abuse material. Fearing arrest, she kept everything secret from her family and friends."
Punishing minors for "distributing child pornography" over content of themselves sent in private is completely outrageous. Had you not linked those sources there's no way I'd believe our justice system would be so absurdly inept.
If the guy was in another country, it's hard for me to imagine how she became a "digital sex slave" (how the article refers it) instead of just blocking the guy. Naturally I'd imagine there was some kind of blackmail for her to comply, but the article doesn't mention anything like that.
It's hard for you to imagine, and I'm going out on a bit of a limb here, because you're not a ten year old girl.
I've been the parent of a ten year old girl, and can say with confidence that it's within the realm of possibility that an adult could manipulate a child in ways that ultimately would make that child afraid, if not utterly terrified, to be disobedient.
You scraping and digging through the comments here imploring to know about how she was coerced suggests to me that what you're really looking for is a justification to blame the ten year old girl. "coercion implies a threat" implies that with no evidence of a threat, the girl must have played along. She must have liked it. That's the vibe you give as you dig in and keep demanding people prove there was a threat. I sincerely hope I'm wrong about that vibe.
I apologize that you felt that it was an accusation. I could have been more tactful in expressing what my impressions were of your probing. I'm happy to be wrong.
The blackmail was threatening her into thinking she'd be in legal trouble too. That's not true, but a terrified child isn't exactly running an optimal risk calculus. Even without that the content itself is blackmail material.
How was she coerced? Who knows. I'll take a guess and say she was probably tricked at first into thinking he was someone else. Threatened after that.
(EDIT: and for chrissakes get identifiable information out of your user profile if you're going to argue this hard about something like this! Internet 101, man!)
Asking for an explanation as to which part made it "coercion" means I "need a playbook for the sexual exploitation of children?" Wtf kind of leap of logic is that? The article didn't provide any explanation as to how it was coercion, hence the question, which you never answered.
So if I'm reading an article about a crime case and the article lacks details, that means I'm "looking for a playbook to commit that crime?" Give me a break.
Maybe you're a pedophile trying to hide your playbook for sexual exploitation of children? See how easy it is to make insulting, baseless accusations?
Yeah no this is a terrible take. She was coerced by being an 11 year old talking to a grown adult. How do you think she was coerced?