Teens Face Child Porn Charges... For Taking Nude Photos Of Themselves
from the victimizing-themselves dept
There was just that report noting that 20% of teens admitted to sending around sexually explicit photos of themselves -- and now, six high school students in Pennsylvania are facing child porn charges because the three girls took naked photos of themselves and sent them to some boys (thanks to everyone who sent this in). The girls are charged with manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography, while the boys who received the photos are charged with possession. Now, it's pretty clear that the girls did something dumb here -- but teens do an awful lot of dumb things. It's part of growing up. Getting charged with child porn for taking photos of yourself and then being labeled a sex offender for the rest of your life seems... a bit extreme. This is why we've pointed out that laws, like the one in Georgia, that require sex offenders to hand over not just their emails, but passwords to all their accounts, are so ridiculous. If someone is actually found to be dealing in child porn, that's one thing -- but casting such a wide net is clearly overkill.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: child porn, teens
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As another thought
According to another article I read, the school has a policy against using electronic devices (phones, MP3 players, etc) during school, and some of the images were sent during class. When the school staff member confiscated the phone they saw the pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: the teached should be charged with posession of child porn as well.
An the school officials will know better next time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
> school staff member confiscated the phone they saw the pictures.
Shouldn't the school staff member be charged with possession now?
Geez. This is utter idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
While I understand societies position it is a lost cause, One or two kids managable 50 or 100 kids doing it Lost cause
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
we all do silly things when we are young, its how we learn about the world, sure its not smart but to go this far with punishing them is just crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
Do you have ANY idea what kind of impact it has on a child to realize that they have no privacy and no rights? Most of the teens I've seen from families like that are either extremely rebellious or they have HUGE self esteem problems.
Your ass must be so tight you could turn coal into diamonds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: As another thought
Any privacy you have ends when you enter the public sphere. The school would certainly have no right to go to the girl's bedroom and search for materials there. (The state could with due process.)
However, once she leaves the privacy of her bedroom and brings her private materials into a public school, and shares those private materials with others, the girl gave up any privacy rights she had.
To summarize, you have a right to privacy. However, once you give up your privacy and enter the public sphere, your privacy is gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As another thought
I agree with you that once you leave a certain area, your right to privacy is reduced, but I do not think it is eliminated. I also believe that schools routinely abuse the amount of authority they exercise over the student body.
However, this belief is not as you allege; I do not suggest total privacy, nor the lack thereof, but actually something in between, and a lot closer to a lack than you might initially assume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: As another thought
While I agree with some of what has been said, I think that at times it goes too far and becomes detrimental.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
While I'm not a fan of cell phones in schools, I find calls to legislate away the rights of parents particularly disturbing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
I can understand your frustration with parents not doing there jobs as parents, but unfortunately that is a fact of life, one that a school can't fix.
If a teacher ever treats my kids in a manner that i wouldn't accept myself, I will be slapping law suits on them until the end of time!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
> the phone. At that age kids do not and should
> not have a right to privacy
Well, if that's the case, I'd just password-protect my phone to defend against school intrusion.
(And if the school officials tried to hack the password, they'd be committing a felony themselves, as there's no exception to federal law for school officials checking up on kids.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As another thought
Simplest explanations are usually the correct ones.
On topic though, this is just damn stupid. I can see if they sent a picture to a 40 year old and he had it with him getting charged with child porn. The fact that these kids are THE SAME AGE seems to make the charges entirely retarded.
I don't know about Georgia, but in Washington if you are 16 you can legally have sex and be married (with parental consent). The consenting age limit is something like within 2 years of age, and I believe 16 is the lower limit.
In Washington these kids would be in the age of consent for one another and can have all the wild sex they want with the only possible punishment being A) whatever their parents do about it (probably a grounding) or B) teen pregnancy (provided they aren't on birth control and don't use a condom; all of which is free at a Planned Parenthood Clinic).
What crime was committed here? You have to have a victim to have a crime. It can't be a crime against the community since it was a private matter. The subjects of the photos took them themselves and weren't coerced to do so. The boys sure as hell probably didn't mind receiving them either.
So aside from the shocked parents, what the bloody hell is the real problem here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
When I was in school, it was Polaroids rather than cell phone pics, but it still happened.
As long as the person receiving/possessing the images is within the same immediate age range as the subject of the photos, where's the crime?
At worst, I see a detention/suspension for inappropriate behavior on campus, but nothing more. Unless the parents choose to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: As another thought
You must be new here*.
* "here" meaning the United States
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: As another thought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't make sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't make sense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Head exploded
This... is ... a... masterpiece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
we call that a "victim"
in this case, there is no victim
BUT
The laws in the US clearly do not recognize consensual "crimes". The government has a history of playing "parent" to us. So, with that in mind, you are entirely accurate in your logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Oh ok you keep telling yourself that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is true. Not because they were all saints though, just because the technology didn't exist. For me, in High School in the 80s, it was Polaroids.
I abhor the thought of government coming in to "parent" our kids. They cannot even manage their own affairs. And to the chastity belts, I don't even know where to start with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't be ridiculous, kids absolutely did things like this back in the 50's. It's just that people didn't talk about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's next
America the Puritannical, get over it! Teens do sexual things!! The world doesn't come to an end over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What's next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The essence of child porn laws are to protect powerless individuals from exploitation. This assumes that all minors are not sexually active, which is not the case. The average age of this new generation's first sexual encounter is something like 15 years old (which, ironically, is the age I lost my virginity at).
If you remove the exploitation factor, then things get a lot more fuzzy. This is an example of where the teen is clearly not being exploited by someone else. I think most (rational!) people would realize that taking a picture of yourself, even a sexually suggestive one, isn't a problem.
But what happens if you make a porno from when you were a minor (with your partner a minor as well) and you hold on to it for posterity? This is a little less fuzzy, but remember that no one was exploited (if they were, rape charges might be in order).
Then we get to your suggestion; what happens if a minor decides to sell their porn? Or, more generally, when (or can) a minor consent to the distribution of their own porn. Minus any exploitation I'm not sure I think even that should be criminal, but unfortunately this one is sitting on a big fat gray line and I will admit that some people will try to use this "didn't-exploit-them" idea to avoid getting convicted when they deserve it.
In the end, I don't think using ages to define the cut-off is a good idea. Perhaps as a hard lower bound (like, 12 or something), but the law should take into account how sexual the individual in question actually is, and whether there was any misuse of power or authority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As a society, we either promote or prohibit certain behaviors. How do porn pictures of children advance our culture?
Laws about majority were written because the brain does not finish developing until the early 20s. We held 21 to be the age of majority until the 70's when it was lowered to 18 (which I think was done to recruit more for the military). These children are making decisions that will last a lifetime without full thought of the repercussions. How many movie stars today have nude photos show up to embarrass them years later? And what is the useful life of a picture in today's world? These pictures will be around forever. They will be used to exploit, regardless of how they were obtained. I find the argument that nobody is a victim here to be not well thought-out. ANd I don't think these teens are doing any thinking at all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Notice how I said "something like 12" - you could just say if they haven't hit puberty yet. It's kind of difficult to be sexually active if your body isn't ready to be sexual.
As a society, we either promote or prohibit certain behaviors. How do porn pictures of children advance our culture?
First, clever use of 'children' when in fact we are dealing with adolescent teenagers who are in fact sexually mature and probably not even virgins anymore.
Second, how does porn of any kind advance our culture? How does World of Warcraft advance our culture? How does NASCAR, football, baseball, golf, or bridge advance our culture?
These children are making decisions that will last a lifetime without full thought of the repercussions.
First, what about being 18 magically changes the ability of a minor to consider repercussions? I'm sure there are some people over 18 who didn't consider them, either. Second, you don't know that they didn't consider the repercussions; they just might have not cared Third, I imagine that being charged as a sex offender will do more to ruin that person's life than a naked picture.
I don't think these teens are doing any thinking at all...
By your logic, anybody of any age who takes nude photos isn't doing any thinking at all, except maybe old people because they have less of a life time to ruin (ew, gross).
We all know what a human body looks like. Why is it embarrassing to be naked? I think, as an older person, I would like to remember what I looked like when I was younger. The existence of embarrassment at the thought of nudity says less about the one who is naked than it does about those who view it.
http://xkcd.com/194/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am sorry but destroying a life to "set and example" is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are some Israelis who disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Didn't realize we had so many antisemites on this site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just think for a second about how far you would go if you were actually a Palestinian living in Gaza. It's not to say they are right to go to shoot rockets; they aren't.
But let's get one thing straight. Condemning Israel for their violent and flagrantly excessive attack on the residents of Gaza because terrorists live among them IS NOT THE SAME AS supporting or sympathizing with Hamas. Throw all the names you want at me, but in my heart I know what is right and just, and your petty ad-hominems can't change that. Both sides are clearly terrorizing each other and if you don't see it then you must be pushing someone's agenda.
And, in a similar manner, defending the poor teenagers who are figuring out life DOES NOT MEAN you are a pedophile. When I was a teen, I was allowed to make mistakes, and you know what? I learned what's good and what's bad, and now I'm a productive member of society. And I see so many of my peers whose parents protected them, and guess what happened when they went to college and found out that they were completely unprepared to handle the real world and its associated stress and difficulties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OH for the IT ILLEGAL crowd, damn kids do stupid shit, you did too and yes the LAW and JUDGES usually turn a blind eye or a slap on the wrist to it! Its called Growing UP.
Final Thought (one for what ever reason most of you i think missed)!
the school should have suspended them if it must or what ever the school rules say should be done and tell their parents its the parents JOB... NOT THE GOVERNMENT...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No we don't remove age laws.
If we do, we must remove them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
its clearly illegal for an adult to have sex with a 17 year old no one will argue with that (most of us in this scenario imagine the adult to be 40 years old) clear case of statutory rape (thats in the best case scenario).
But lets pause for a second and think about this kid who just turned 18 is he supposed to break up with his 17 year old girlfriend at least untill her 18th Bday?
i think (but im not sure about this, and im too lazy to double check) in canada as far as statutory rape goes there is an age difference limit, of 2 or maybe 3 years.
so its ok for a 19 year old to be with a 17 year old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you take the age of the older person on the relationship, divide it by two and add 5. if the younger person's age is equal to or less than the resulting number, the relationship is creepy.
so if you are 20 and your mate is an age that is greater than 15, not creepy.
if you are 50 and your mate is an age that is greater than 30, not creepy.
if you are 70 and your mate is less than 41, you are creepy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I like it.
Starts looking at 23 year olds in a new light.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
partner_age = your_age / 2 + 7
For example, if you're 30, 22 should be the lowest age for your partner (and 46 should be the highest age).
This model actually works *much* better than the other for younger ages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am 35, it is illegal with me to have sex, consensual or otherwise, with a 16 year old. But it is legal for two 16 year olds to have consensual sex. Many laws are put in place to "protect the children" from predation by older, sneakier, and more perverted people. But in most cases those laws recognize that teenagers will do what teenagers have been doing with each other for millions of years.
It is (generally) not illegal for two teenagers to see each other naked or have sexual relations. But if you decide to memorialize the moment with a picture, it is illegal. The problem is that there is either an assumption inherent in these laws that kids wouldn't want to take explicit pictures of themselves, or the lawmakers don't care in the interest of "protecting the children." Unfortunately, in America we are so paranoid about child molesters that we have written draconian sex offender laws in the interest of "protecting the children," and now children are going to be hurt by the very laws that should be protecting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not so in many states. In fact, there was a case in Florida where a sixteen-year-old boy was charged AS AN ADULT for statutory rape for having sex with his sixteen-year-old girlfriend. Here in Kansas, any pregnancy under the age of sixteen must be reported to the police, and the father, no matter what the age, can be charged with rape.
On the other hand, there are also states like Nebraska that have the "two-year grace," so to speak. As long as the age gap is less than two years, there is no crime. Also, with parental consent, 16 becomes a legal age for a live-in relationship. My step-mother found this out when trying to get the police to investigate a 30+ year-old who had one of her 16-year-old students living with him.
My wife an I met in high school and dated for over four years before we married. (We never lived together prior to the wedding, though.) There are 2 years and 2 months between us, so, yeah, there was an awkward period when I turned 19 (the age of majority in Nebraska).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which is why I started the post with the comment that laws vary from state to state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Statutory Rape
> sixteen-year-old boy was charged AS AN ADULT
> for statutory rape for having sex with his
> sixteen-year-old girlfriend.
My question in cases like this is always, "Why wasn't the girl charged with statutory rape also?" She had sex with minor, too. She committed the same offense. But for some reason, only the male is ever charged with a crime in these situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's different because of the INTENT of the law. The intent of these laws is to prevent adults from exploiting minors. The problem is that many judges are forgetting that they should be interpreting law based on the intent as well as letter, not just letter. Obviously, these laws were not intended to punish and villanize the very demographic they are setup to protect.
These laws are going well beyond their intended focus. They are stepping from the realm of helping protect the weaker members of society from predators and starting to attempt to protect them from themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The adult is found guilty of possession of child pornography. The teen is found guilty of nothing, because the law has been written to take into account that giving out nude pictures is a dumb thing that teens do for which they should not be punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the relevant case, however, it does not seem like the teens are profiting so there should be no crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if something is illegal for an adult to do why wouldn't it be illegal for a kid to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If two people (under the age of consent) have sex, should you be able to charge each of them with statutory rape? This is equivalent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's simply a case of like for like, adults perving at naked pictures of children is wrong. Adults perving at naked pictures of adults is ok. Kids perving at other kids is OK - well except if they get caught, then it's wrong.
When an enterprising young teen entices an adult to break the law then surely the adult should know well enough to not break it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What if a teenage boy had pornography? Assuming it is of people over the age of 18...would you track them down and charge them with sending pornography of themselves to a minor?
Of course not, so why twist it all around here? If people are afraid of their children becoming sexual then they need to go to therapy and try and discover why this is and find some kind of coping mechanism so they don't turn their children into criminals and make them feel ashamed for having natural human feelings and doing stupid things with other teens that do not affect anyone but them.
This isn't so much directed at you but to the people who charged them. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not kids who are taking small steps into becoming adults and learnign about the human anatomy themselfs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Obviously laws vary from state to state, but in many states the whole "juvenile record being sealed" does not apply to sex offender registration. Some states require offenders to register for 10 years, in other states it is a lifetime registration. In some states the registry lists the offense but not the circumstance, in others they don't tell you anything about the crime they were convicted of. Because of the fear mongering "protect the children" attitude in America, many states have mandatory conviction, sentencing, and registration guidelines for "sex offenders". If the point is to make an example of these kids rather than ruin their lives, then why charge them at all. Why not just lock them up overnight and let them have a meeting with the prosecutor where the potential consequences are explained?
We have a registered sex offender in our neighborhood. Every few months the sheriff's office sends out a postcard with his picture, name, age and address, but no indication of why he's an offender. Does he molest small children? Was he on the losing side of a date rape he-said/she-said situation? Was he 18 years old and got caught having sex with a 16 year old girlfriend by her parents? How the hell should I know, but my wife won't walk down the sidewalk in front of his house now.
These kids may be labeled as sex offenders for life, or labeled as child porn peddlers for life. Can you imagine one of these boys at 50 years old being the neighborhood pariah or even unable to apply for certain jobs because when he was in high school his girlfriend sent him a nude picture of herself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: sex offender
I think this is a big problem with the sex offender registry. It's not considered a punishment (part of the sentence) but instead thought of as part of the process. So the kids would end up in the registry probably regardless of whether a judge/jury decides they should spend time in jail. Unfortunately, it IS a punishment, and like you mentioned, in several cases it doesn't fit the crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, but in most, if not all states, the sex offender registry defaults to forever. Some states do have provisions for getting off of it, but you have to jump through ridiculous hoops like getting a judge to review your case. Even then, there is usually a minimum time that must have passed since your release, like ten or twenty years. So, in Georgia, these kids would be on the offender registry for at least ten years, during which they would be restricted from living any place where kids regularly gather, such as a day care. Should make going to college really interesting!
The sex offender registry is broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, this could affect them until their mid-20's. I was wondering if this kind of case goes before a jury. If so couldn't the call for a jury nullification? I mean if there is a reason this, is a time to use it...lol. Not too many jurors are aware of that power though since they don't like to mention it much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so...
It's a stupid abuse of the law. Surely, there were other, less fierce, statutes that could've been applied.
And I wasn't aware that RECEIVING something sent you -- as opposed to seeking it out -- would/could set one up for a childporn case.
Now, I just need to find some to anonymously email to that guy I hate and he's in the clink!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kids
to use such a large stick is way over the top. why did the school go through the phone in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comment in the source: Welcome to Government Control, #425876
Strong message? More like strong dictatorship. I don't think this detective has any damn clue how teenagers communicate today. I'd be shocked if this complete moron would know what texting is.
Saranko, you imbecile, this message isn't going to stop teens. If anything, it'll push them to do it moreso in defiance that this charge was even placed on the group of 6 to begin with.
If I had your cell number, I'd send a nude picture of myself to you beggin you charge me with indecent exposure.
Get a clue, and drop the charges. You have no case here, despite your prosecutor's ability to ignore this fact.
While you're spending your damn time with this case, I'm sure the girls being abused now thank you for your time in their case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Statutory Rape
The problem is that both parties have to be charged, or none.
This is what happened to me so many years ago. The mother of the girl I was dating (both of us 17) "found out" we were having sex. She called the police and told them she wanted me arrested and to press charges.
They police said it wasn't a problem, but they would need to arrest the girl too...after all she had committed the same crime.
I still remember quite vividly the shade of purple that woman turned as she started arguing with the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Statutory Rape
In some states, being below age of consent doesn't matter if within a certain range. One comment said PA's was 4 years. When I learned about such issues for WA state, it was 48 months (2001). At age of consent, it doesn't matter.
They are well inside that window to be having sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DO NOT GIVE A CELL PHONE TO A MINOR UNLESS YOU BLOCK ALL PICTURES AND TEXTING. They don't need it anyway!
GOOD GRIEF! What a waste of an article!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LAWL!
According to statistics, they did this more back then. You just never heard about it because it was taboo to even talk about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About the 50s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kids Will Be Kids
Kids have been curious about their own sexuality since the age of time. I dare say that there is anyone who as a kid who has not done some form of peeking, touching or other inquisitive action when it comes to the opposite sex.
There have been incidences "behind the outhouse" in the tree house, under the blankets, when kids play doctor, or "husband and wife".
This stuff went on back then and will continue to go on, regardless of the outcome of this case.
The only difference between what these kids are doing now and what happened back in the 50's (as Bob puts it) is the medium that is used, i.e. cell phone photos, versus drawing/taking pictures or even an actual sneek peek.
No matter how you raise your kids - and we all want to think we are doing our best - there are going to be inquisitve and do things at times that are dumb with the consequences not fully thought out.
If these kids were to think for one minute that their phones and the pictures therein would be confisticated, I am pretty sure that they would not do stuff like this.
I for one take my kids phones at random times, with them watching me, and I go through the phone to see what music they listen to, what text messages they may forgot to delete, and what kind of pictures that they have taken with the phones.
I have a standing rule, if the phone is taken by the school because they were caught using it during the day, in a non-emergency situation, then that phone will not be returned for the rest of the semester.
It is called good parenting, being proactive instead of re-active.
My kids school administators know us so well that if anything like this should happen, they have no reason to take it any farther, because they know we will take corrective actions ourselves.
Mayhaps this thing got as far as it did, is because we are dealing with possible bad and disruptive kids, who may have been a source of misconduct in the pass?
Perhaps the parents are not being parents and blame the school instead of the kids?
I say, lock them and the parents up, scare the mess out of the kids, and embarass the parents with the lock up.
If that does not get them to at least try to be better stewards of their kids, and the if the kids continue to act the fool or get caught doing stuff like this again, then go the extra mile and bring out the big stick.
Mess up once, shame on you, mess up twice, shame on me (the parent).
There should be a progression here, and not just a one size fit all solution.
The prosecutor cannot be that busy where he/she can't look at the individual aspect of this case and act accordingly.
Maybe they have either forgotten what it is like to be a kid or don't even have kids of their own.
- Nuf Said.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kids Will Be Kids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, child porn is per se illegal.
Second, if an adult male takes pictures of an underage girl and distributes it, he's a child pornographer. That fact does not change merely because the pornographer is taking pictures of herself or is underage. If child porn is per se illegal, which we already established is true, then the age of the pornographer is irrelevant.
A good analogy to this is the drug trade. Meth is per se illegal. Thus, it simply does not matter if a 17 year old is manufacturing and selling meth or a 21 year old is manufacturing and selling meth. It's illegal regardless of the age of the perpetrator.
Now, certainly the age of the perp will be considered at sentencing. But the conviction will be the same regardless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pornographer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So a teenager sees another teenager naked in person and there's no problem, but if it's via a photo, there is?
What about parents who take pictures of their kids running around naked or in the bathtub? In this case, the child isn't even making the choice; the parents are. Is this still punishable, in your mind?
Ignoring logic and common sense, and going strictly by law, your analogy is still broken for one simple reason: there are two ways of looking at this situation -- one, that anyone taking a naked photo of an underage person is performing an illegal activity; and, two, that it is legal for anyone to take a naked photo of themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But it's not so cut and dried as all that. Laws aren't passed for the sake of passing laws, they are passed because there are intentions behind them. Why are nude pictures of minors illegal and nude pictures of adults not illegal? It's because more often than not, nude pictures of children are the result of predation or exploitation. The laws don't exist because the pictures are bad, the laws exist to protect children from exploitation. In cases where there is no exploitation I think that any sensible person could see that blind enforcement of the law for the law's sake is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think most of you all get it...
The point is, that they are laying down the law on these kids because they were doing something ILLEGAL.
It's NOT ok for someone to OWN nude images of minors PERIOD
So, where do you draw the line? Is it the individual that received the images? Why make that individual Atlas? Why should they burden all the responsibility? Surely he knew that the girl (or boy) in that image was 18? Can ANYONE for CERTAIN tell that when they cruise a site that has nude images of YOUNG people, that they are over 17? No.
How do you reduce the trafficking of that type of material? There's plenty of amateur videos online... can YOU tell the difference between a 17 y/o and a 18 y/o? Again, where do you draw the line?
Just because you get some stupid kid, that sits in front of a webcam and pulls one off, saves the video to the default My Documents folder and doesn't realize that their My Documents folder is shared with Kazaa or some other P2P client.
That kid's life is probably ruined and in no way shape or form are they relieved of their stupidity, even though they didn't INTEND for this to happen.
But... there are plenty of minors who do things like that on PURPOSE and I believe they should be held accountable for their actions.
Just because minors have sex before age 18, does not make it right. It's their own choice and of course it comes down to the fact that teens think they know it all but can't tell sh!t from shinola. When they reach the age when they are supposed to become independent and consider themselves adults, they won't be able to get a job because of all the stupid things they did in High School and College... it's plastered all over Facebook and MySpace.
"But I didn't know...!!!!" will be a response when some Human Resources person tells them they won't get hired because of their incriminating behavior.
But I guess you teens know it all anyways...
Good on the court and their decision! Get rid of more idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think most of you all get it...
Actually, that is a very, very grey area.
Family album shots of kids running around in the nude are generally taken to be okay.
The delineating factor is whether the images portray the minor in a sexual way [clothed or unclothed]. Some things are obvious, others are much more subtle.
From the article, these images sound like they depict minors in a sexualized context, which falls into the 'illegal' area of the spectrum.
If you want to hop in another bit of the controversy, look at or go find some articles on the pay sites of teen and preteen 'models' that tend to feature bikini/bathing suit galleries. A lot of the images are shot provocatively and there has been a TON of debate over the years whether some of the parents/agents are actively looking to make a buck off people getting their jollies [which would be exploitation of a minor, but the proving intent can be the tricky part] or totally oblivious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think most of you all get it...
I just wanted to add to your point. Mike's argument that teens should be given a free ride for illegal activities is complete BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think most of you all get it...
These people are capable of making choices. Whether they realise the future implications or not is irrelevant. You ask if people can tell the difference between a 17-yo and 18-yo, presumably by looking at them. Can *you* tell the difference between a 17-yo and 18-yo by the decisions they make? Hell, I made better decisions when I was 15 than I do now (23). My point? Adults tend to treat teenagers like they're incapable of making good decisions, but, in many cases, this is simply untrue.
Where do you draw the line? If the individual is taking pictures of themselves and not being exploited by someone else, you don't draw the line. Freedom of choice and freedom of expression are both rights enjoyed by citizens of the United States. Why should there be an age limit to enjoying those rights?
Let stupid people be stupid and let them deal with the consequences. It's *not* the responsibility of the government to parent or babysit. As long as the stupid people aren't adversely affecting others, they're well within their rights. Should they be held accountable for their actions? Absolutely, but not in a courtroom.
As for scenarios like this, if there's no exploitation and no profit, there should be no problem. Teen takes pictures of self (no exploitation), teen sends pictures to friends (no profit). Who knows better than the teen does whether he/she is capable of making a decision, with or without fully comprehending future consequences?
The worse part is that they want to charge the friends with possession. The recipients cannot control whether they receive the images or not, only what they do with the images after they are received. They should not be liable for possessing the images.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't think most of you all get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't think most of you all get it...
Sorry if I came off as creepy, as just trying to make a point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I don't think most of you all get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't think most of you all get it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good
Society shouldn't protect anyone from themselves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A sort of Streisand effect
Sure, you could google it, but likely you'll find stories like this, about some court case. If those teens' lives are now ruined because of some naked pics, it will likely be the direct result of the publicity this case has generated. You would never know about these kids and you probably wouldn't even know about Greensburg, Pennsylvania, had it not been for the DA bringing charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A sort of Streisand effect
There are plenty of HR recruiters and companies out there who refuse to hire individuals who behave contradictory to a company's ethical policies.
That's ok though... keep defending your point of view. Maybe some company recruiter will look up your nicknames on whatever sites you post on... then will read this article and your comments and refuse to hire you. :)
Enjoy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A sort of Streisand effect
"Me, me, me, hire me! I've never had a naughty picture taken of me!"
"No, no, me! Hire me! I didn't have sex until I was 25! And I do it for reproductive purposes, with curtains closed and strict missionary position!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A sort of Streisand effect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid is as Stupid does!
But that doesn't mean the prosecutor can go crazy and do something just as stupid. Ruining these kids lives trying to make a name for himself, having these kids prosecuted under Meagan Law and maybe have to register as sex offenders when the only offending thing they did was to be STUPID. If we had a STUPID LAW there would be so many people in jail there wouldn't be enough jails to hold all the stupid offenders, including housing this prosecutor.
So maybe just maybe the media will look into this guy and we can get rid of another "Nifong No Good". What an idiot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid is as Stupid does!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Give me a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As teens, these children are too old for daycare and babysitters and do have some level of control over their own behaviors. There is also no statement into their actual ages other than they are teens and presumably in high school. I don't know about where you're from, but I can tell you my own children seem to see, learn and hear a lot worse things in school from their peers than they do at home. Which has lead to discussions I would have preferred at a later age, but in the spirit of precaution ended up having earlier.
I do have to agree that charging these children with a crime is absurd and the situation can certainly be handled very differently because it can indeed ruin their entire future. It has already been stated previously by one of our highest courts that the government is a poor parent itself simply because it cannot be one, they are not involved in the day to day activities, and unfortunately, with our society the way it is today, many parents have that option taken away from them also by necessity, not necessarily free will. This is not to say that there are not bad parents, because there are, but it is highly recognized that the parents today have less options, they have less time, they also have less control either out of necessity and also because our society has also become more permissive about other things and other varying factors which we are not always privy to the information to be making immediate judgment calls. Not to mention that teens themselves are at an age where they are exploring some behaviors, these children may have thought it amusing for all any of us know, or perhaps the pictures were taken in the privacy of their own room at home with their parents being home and are assuming their child is simply hanging out in their room doing normal teen things. Unless that teen is quite literally being chained to their parents side 24/7 every second of that time not every thing can be known or even prevented. There are simply too many unknown factors here for anyone to be so quick as to be pointing fingers at anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid kids...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stupid kids...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As far as the cell phone usage by kids is school, see this story and understand why I would take it to the Supreme Court if I had to. http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/28/school.shooting/index.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3 things
Two, most people, the media, and politicians are going to make this out as some kind of decline in the wholesome values of teens. Before camera phones, I seem to recall something called a digital camera that teens did this with. Before a digital camera I remember just the camera. Along with just the camera, I remember it's been popular for ages and there were instant photo cameras. Before that I remember something called a canvas and a brush. So **** anyone stupid enough to assume people of all ages haven't been using these resources for porn creation and distribution.
3, with all the variation of laws for minors and adults, you would think that this case would be immediately dismissed based on legal ambiguity and common sense. In many UNNECESSARY ways, minors play by different rules and get punished in different ways for the same offenses as adults. So with all the ambiguity on law between 17 year olds and 18 year olds, how the **** is a judge going to say the one time it is NECESSARY to treat them differently is the one time they get treated the same?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
missing the real point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gotta pay the price
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teens Face Child Porn Charges. . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issue at hand...
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that most kids dont get it. The fact that what they do, doesn't just affect them, which is very selfish thinking... it affects others. Even if others are unaware of the situation.
Let's say your kids decide to take nude pictures of themselves, with a webcam on your computer. Those files are being shared across the internet via some Peer-to-peer file sharing program. It doesn't matter who downloads them, hell some people don't realize sometimes what they're downloading or for that matter what they're doing by running certain programs. Does this sound very pessimistic of me? No... it's just that most people don't give a crap.
Anyways, so said picture somehow gets found on the internet by someone from the law. Well... said image gets tracked... and guess what YOUR butt is in the sling for possession of child pornography. Let's say that some kid is using his dad's computer, and pulls up that image by mistake. Well... Dad is now responsible for having his arse in a sling. Even though he may not even have known that his son pulled that image up through some P2P program.
The fact of the matter is, this judge decided to nip the situation in the bud... that's it. The charges may seem steep, but the kids should have realized that this is greater than just their "privacy"... this is something that impacts each and every one of us.
It should be even more disturbing that those kids were sending nude images to their friends... what kind of morals or self-respect were instilled in those kids? Not much apparently. If kids have to resort to that type of tactic to get attention, then something is missing out of their lives. I'm not talking a bible or crappy parents... I'm talking just as a generalization, it's probably many things that can make them do something like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issue at hand...
You are a frightening person sniperdoc you sound as if your part of an inquisition or 65 years old. Either way I have no respect for your writing. In fact I have some people that age as "family' that I avoid for a reason. Think for yourself and stop doing what your told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The real issue at hand...
I'm a frightning person why? Because I care about individuals themselves? The fact that I want to see young people grow up respected and with some type of moral standards??? That makes me a frightning individual?
I don't think you understand either...
There's no way this case will end up with the kids stamped as Sex Offenders. It's just not going to happen. But the case does need to get followed through with so people understand that when they screw up, that there are repercussions that follow.
To have some moral values and self-respect should not be something that's overlooked... but it appears all individuals care about in this case is "privacy" of which there isn't any. At least not at that age. Kids are and SHOULD be held accountable. I could take a childs door off its hinges and not give them privacy. Parents are REQUIRED to have two sets of clothes for children. Why don't parents do that... because they understand kids and give them privacy and some sense of belonging without being chastized by only having two outfits. But that doesn't mean children are ENTITLED to anything other than good health, good mental and physical treatment, and no absolutely no abuse.
Obviously the two girls have no self-respect, there's some type of problem that needs to get addressed. The fact that the boys didn't go to mom and dad and say: "Hey, I think someone needs to talk to this girl... that's just not right."
But that didn't happen, there's no sense of morality in this situation... but labeling me as frightning because I CARE? Interesting view
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The real issue at hand...
here are a couple of links to help illuminate the dark recesses of your brain and aid you in rejoining the real world:
A Teen couple had sex and took photos get prosecuted with child pornography
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/20/teen-couple-who-phot.html
Florida Appeals Court ruling stating that Child porn laws do apply to minors.
http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html
the lives of these teenagers are going to be ruined for no reason at all. I'm ashamed to live int he same country where this is taking place. hell I'd be ashamed to live in the same continent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real issue at hand...
There is no S on the word ANYWAY!
We didn't have this problem 20 years ago.
People are getting dumber and dumber.
I hear grown adults say "take a PITCHER" and "LI-BERRY" all the time now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either
I swear, your honor, I never touched her. She became pregnant miraculously by the Holy Spirit!
Yeah, sure. Lock him up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either
Ummm as far as I know marrying a girl and having sex at 14 is not illegal in the Middle East. But, what I'm understanding from your analogy is the following:
We once used rocks and stones as defense, then we made spears, and moved on to Bows and arrows. Then guns...
A progression... the world evolved... am I right? We're supposed to look further and beyond. We went from women being playthings, to wearing bathing suits that covered their whole body, to bikin's and G-strings. So, due to that worldly advance of mankind we're supposed to be OK with CHILDREN sending nude images to friends. That's completely ok with you?
I think you need a morality injection along with a good dose of self-respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either
Anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either
how about the fact that no so many years ago (in the relative sense, obviously) they would be considered old maids if they weren't married soon.
how about the fact that in most states these adolescents would be able to have sex with each other legally but still couldn't take photos of themselves?
Or to make things really simple, how about the sheer ridiculousness at calling a person who is 17 years and 364 days old a child, but the next day they are an adult? The magic number idea is silly no matter how you look at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either
2. We did progress... didn't we? We're not in the Medieval times anymore are we? Renaissance ? But then again.. that's the point that you're trying to make, isn't it... be progressive? Then we'd be stepping back into the Dark Ages again, no?
3. The law is as it is written. That's all I have to say about that. Just because the school found the phone doesn't make them the owners of the photo on the phone. The owner of the phone and creator of the photo are the owners. Just because a police officer finds you have child porn on your computer and takes possession of your computer does not make him prosecutable.
4. Again... this refers back to no.1. They cannot make legal binding decisions until age 18. That's it. Do I agree with it...? It doesn't matter. It's the law. Do I think it's right that kids can go off to war, like myself, at age 18 and can die for their country, but they can't drink? There's plenty of things for me to be upset about... but in the end what matters is the law.
The fact of the matter is that CHILDREN can ruin their own lives and not realize it. There are plenty of times when parents tell kids about situations and how to get themselves out of situation. It's called advice or in better terms... being a parent. But most children choose not to follow their parents advice. They always want to find out for themselves... the hard way.
But then when things happen, and they're in trouble, or brought someone else trouble... it's "I didn't realize" or "I didn't know". Forgive me for being a caring individual and wanting children to succeed in life... there's a reason there are rules and why they not meant to be broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either
I am always amazed at how many people I encounter who have fallen into this fallacious thought process. First of all it Does matter if you agree with it, otherwise laws would never change. It is your (and my) duty to stand up and decry, shout down, and otherwise oppose what we perceive as injustice, this is why we are allowed to protest, and not 40 years ago the average college student had a better grasp of this basic duty than most people do today. I find it shameful that the citizens have become so complacent.
second you state how people 18 years old can join the military (or be drafted) but can't drink, well guess what? People didn't like that and protested, you want to guess what happened? Now people who are in the military (regardless of age) can drink on military bases (and in some areas off of them with a military ID)
Forgive me for being a caring individual and wanting children to succeed in life...
if you want them to succeed in life then why would you want them labeled as a sex offender which will hamper every aspect of their life for at least the next 10 years?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either
Whether children under 18 can make legally binding decisions is irrelevant, they are still capable of making decisions. They can't ruin their lives any more than adults who make bad decisions. Should we have laws protecting adults from making bad decisions too? Let alone that some children are more mature mentally than adults and vice versa.
If children get in trouble, they get in trouble. I, for one, am not arguing that children are immune to the law. I am arguing that children should be treated as equals to and should enjoy the same rights as adults.
Sometimes the law is wrong. And high-profile cases are a good chance to have the law changed to something more acceptable and contemporary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
United States of Retards
There are cases of parents being charged with child pornography in the US because their children played naked in the backyard.
Quite frankly, I don't know if there is a term for the medical condition of the US. This is worse than in Iran.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've already caught one of my kids doing this
This at age 16. Now all the kids are over 18 and I can sigh a big relief that I don't have to deal with that anymore.
And yes, there's a problem when you're finding a person a perpetrator when they are the victim as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real issue at hand is America's obsession with punishing sexual thoughts as much as possible. You have the legal fiction that turning 18 suddenly makes people mature enough for sex. There's the witch hunt to find and convict anyone even thought to be trying to look at child porn (even if it isn't really child porn). The nation-wide (except for Nevada) war on prostitution, even though it doesn't harm anyone and legallizing it would improve conditions for prostitutes and earn money for cities. Campaigns in various cities to get rid of any kind of adult store (an adult video store was forced out of this area even though they weren't hurting anyone). Legal campaigns to close down adult web sites by bringing the charges in much more conservative areas than the web site is actually located in. The FCC trying to fine TV networks for showing images that wouldn't even get a second glance in Europe.
This country is so uptight about sex that you could stick lumps of coal up its collective asses and get diamonds...
So, this could affect them until their mid-20's. I was wondering if this kind of case goes before a jury. If so couldn't the call for a jury nullification? I mean if there is a reason this, is a time to use it...lol. Not too many jurors are aware of that power though since they don't like to mention it much.
Don't like to mention it much??? It's practically illegal to even hint to a jury that they have this power. Judges have the absolute authority to decide if a jury can be told about jury nullification and absolutely 100% of them say no. Potential jurors will be dismissed if the judge or prosecutor even suspects that they know about jury nullification or that they might not follow the judge's instructions to convict the person. If the defense attorney gets too close to suggesting that the jury can ignore the law and find the defendant not guilty, the judge will declare a mistrial.
In short, unless there's a juror who knows about jury nullification and who is smart enough to keep their mouth shut until it comes to deliberation time, it just doesn't happen. Judges will basically order the jury to find the person guilty and the jury doesn't know that they can defy that order.
There's no way this case will end up with the kids stamped as Sex Offenders. It's just not going to happen. But the case does need to get followed through with so people understand that when they screw up, that there are repercussions that follow.
Name a single repercussion that doesn't depend on America's repressive laws, or people's uptight prudish attitudes.
I'm a frightning person why? Because I care about individuals themselves? The fact that I want to see young people grow up respected and with some type of moral standards??? That makes me a frightning individual?
I guess that means you consider Europe to be completely immoral, since they have a much more lenient attitude toward sex. Nudity on television, nude beaches where kids are allowed, lower ages of consent. Jeez, the place must be a rotting cesspool, huh?
2. We did progress... didn't we? We're not in the Medieval times anymore are we? Renaissance ? But then again.. that's the point that you're trying to make, isn't it... be progressive? Then we'd be stepping back into the Dark Ages again, no?
We ARE slipping back into the dark ages. Back then, an accusation of "witch" or "heretic" was enough to get you dragged into court. Even if you were somehow found innocent of the charges your life would be ruined. Today, an accusation of child porn, or child molestation is enough to get you hauled into court. Even if you're found innocent of the charges (which is highly unlikely if they have any evidence that even looks incriminating), your life will be ruined.
Look what happened with the Connecticut substitute teacher accused of sex crimes against children because the unprotected computer in the classroom started showing explicit popup ads. Even when an expert concluded that it wasn't her fault, the DA still wanted to make an example out of her and send her to prison. Even though she was eventually cleared, she's no longer a teacher and her health has gone downhill. Yeah, that's justice. And for what? Because some teenagers saw some sex pics? Big deal, when I was their age, I was looking for those types of pictures on my own.
The fact of the matter is that CHILDREN can ruin their own lives and not realize it.
Brooke Shields appeared completely nude in the film Pretty Baby at 14, was her life ruined? How about Olivia Hussey who appeared topless in Romeo & Juliet at the age of 17? Or Thora Birch who bared her breasts at 17 for the film American Beauty? Maybe Renee Olstead who appeared topless in a bath scene in the film End of Days when she was just 10? Definitely Rebecca Smart who appeared completely nude, being washed by an equally nude Greta Scacchi in The Coca-Cola Kid at the tender age of 9, right?
Sometimes the law is wrong. And high-profile cases are a good chance to have the law changed to something more acceptable and contemporary.
For that to happen, the case would have to go to trial and the jury would have to find them not guilty, despite what the evidence shows. The chances of that happening are next to zero. Not because the jury won't have any sympathy for them, but because they won't know that they can deliver a not guilty vote.
In all probability, the judge will LIE to them and give them an instruction like "You must set aside your feelings for these teenagers and uphold the law. If you feel the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that they committed the crimes of which they are accused, you MUST find them guilty!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fantastic
Here we have a unique legal paradox where both the victim and the perpetrator of the crime are the same person. And I notice their charging the recipients of the photos as well. Apparently now anyone can send you something, which you have no ability to control, and send you to the slammer on federal child porn charges.
One has to wonder if this extends to other sex crimes beyond photographs as well. If a kid is caught in a moment of solo pleasure, will he or she now be arrested and charged with sexual assault on a minor or statutory rape?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fantastic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupidity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We have religious fanatics shaping our laws. And they are not very bright at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that is good begining!
nudity and even other sexuall activity whether as sexuall explicit or not is good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nude teens is NOT child porn
Ephebophilia is NOT pedophilia!
And who CARES about the "creep factor". Get off your high horses people. No man here can tell me they HONESTLY AREN'T turned on by a nude teen girl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The word pornographic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parents ARE SUPPOSED to be the LEGAL GUARDIANS and are SUPPOSED to be LIABLE for GIVEN their child a phone to begin with!
THAT is SHAMEFUL and corrupt law that puts the child through hell when PARENTS need to be sent to their rooms (solitary confinement) for FAILING to protect their children, selling their children, and ENDANGERING their children, by PARENTAL NEGLECT!!
Whatever happened to RESTRAINING ORDERS being upheld? THEY NEVER ARE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Still me Disgusted
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
catch 22
Can be charged as an adult? If he/she is charged as a adult then he/she is seen as a adult and the photo of a adult is legal?? Or should be legal... If they can change them as an adult. How can the photo of a person charged as an adult still be considered a child???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]