Photos of Grandville teens in apparent sex act go viral; police investigating

[AngryAmish]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/09/photos_of_grandville_teens_in.html

photographs of Grandville teens involved in an apparent sex act that have been shared repeatedly on social media.

Police say those who share the photos face possible charges for distributing child pornography, because one or more of the teens in the photos are minors.

Grandville Police were alerted about the photos and contacted Wyoming Police because the photos were believed to have been taken in neighboring Wyoming.

In one of the photos, four teens – three male, one female – are watching what appears to be a sex act."

This is slut shaming.

[TorchTheWitch]

1. How is this "slut shamming"?

At least one of the participants in the act is a minor, and filming or distributing photos or videos of the act is child abuse. Seeing as the participants were three males and one female I have to question whether or not it was consensual. I also question whether or not the participants knew or approved of their being filmed or what was done with the photos.

Incidentally, I REALLY hate that "slut shamming" label. It still identifies a woman who has sex is somehow a "slut".

[seabeyond]

12. +1. on both points. well, all three. nt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

2. Wait, the teens in the photo were "watching" a sex act?

I'm lost.

[TorchTheWitch]

3. read the article

There were photos of a sex act involving teens. Some people took photos and distributed them, but because at least one of the teens involved in the sex act is a minor the photos and the distribution of them is child sex abuse. The act itself with the minor teen may also be child sex abuse - depends on the ages.

One of the photos apparently shows the males and one female watching the sex act. Why they mentioned that I have no idea unless it has something to do with their participation in watching it, how old they are and whether or not they took photos or distributed them.

The point of the story is that the sex act involved at least one minor, none of the participants may have known or approved of the taking of photos or their distribution (which still would be a crime even if they were all adults).

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

4. Oh, I read it

It's not very well written.

In one of the photos, four teens – three male, one female – are watching what appears to be a sex act.

This statement is made about four paragraphs in, after which point I thought we had firmly established there was a photographed teen sex act. Now, there's apparently other teens watching "what appears to be" a sex act?

I'm just wondering if teens watching two people having sex who are not teens is considered child porn as well. I mean, I guess it is.

[jberryhill]

6. Agree on the way it is written

It is written that way to avoid the problem of the reporter saying, "Oh, yeah, I got a copy of a child porn image."

I read it the same way you did - i.e. there was a picture of people watching other people having sex. If one of them was a child, what you would have is evidence of some sort of corruption of minors charge against the people engaged in the sex they were watching.

I think the copy went through their office of legal counsel and came out ambiguous because the lawyers liked it that way.

[TorchTheWitch]

9. I agree that it's poorly written

I'm not seeing why they added anything about the one photo that mentions other teens watching or their genders. It's not the issue. I also have no idea why they call it an apparent or alleged sex act... either it was or it wasn't. If the police are saying not to distribute the photos because one or more of the teens is a minor than we already know it's an actual sex act not an apparent one.

[Xithras]

8. To clarify one point...

none of the participants may have known or approved of the taking of photos or their distribution (which still would be a crime even if they were all adults).

That largely depends on where the sex act took place. If you are having sex in a public place, there is no legal expectation of privacy. Unless the subjects can establish that legal expectation of privacy, then there is nothing illegal about taking their photos, texting them to people, or posting them on the Internet. If I see two people going at it at the local park, I can take their photo and Instagram it to the world without any criminal consequence, even if they're unaware of my presence or that I was photographing them.

The fact that the photos apparently show bystanders and spectators to the sex act indicates that it took place at a party, in a public area, or in some other "non-private" venue. Unless they were in an orgy in a private bedroom, it would be tough to argue that any expectation of privacy existed, and therefore that any crime was committed in photographing them.

Photographing teens having sex is ALWAYS a crime, as is distributing the photos after the fact, but it's a crime defined by the age of the subjects, and not the action itself.

[TorchTheWitch]

10. you seem to think this sex was some free public entertainment at a party

I don't. But I said none of them "may have known" for that very reason. Plenty of people have sex at parties but off in another room not intended for the use of party-goers where they would have an expectation of privacy and wouldn't have wanted their photos taken during the act nor distributed. Just because someone has a party at their home doesn't mean that the party is open to every place in the home. That's why people go off to the non-party rooms to have sex.

[Xithras]

11. It sounds like they were having sex in front of onlookers.

If that's the case, then I can't imagine any court saying that they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. If people just barged in and started gawking, you may be right, but that's not the scenario indicated by the story.

I suppose it's a matter of perspective. At the parties I went to when I was younger, it wasn't that unusual for people to start having sex in front of other people. Do a bit of coke, do a bit of dancing, get into the music, one thing would lead to another... Nobody cared. When I read the story, that's the way my mind pictured it.

I'm just happy that there was no Internet when I was a teenager.

[951-Riverside]

5. What a sick degenerate society we've becoming.

There was a time when people did this behind closed doors or in the woods without the world knowing but now everyone wants to become the next big thing so they put their entire sordid lives out for the world to see.

The photos have drawn numerous comments as they have been shared on social media.

One said: “looking great in Grandville!” “Grandville putting itself on the map woohoo you go Grandville,” another said.

Pathetic drooling brain dead morons,

[jberryhill]

7. "There was a time when people did this behind closed doors"

At which point, excepting the involvement of a minor here of course, you have to go back to whether it is "degenerate" to maintain a hypocritical facade of "non-degeneracy".

Indeed, people have long enjoyed showing their genitals to one another. Provided they are all consenting adults, that's all okay. But in a very rapid period of time, damn near everyone has been handed this technological marvel that allows them various new and intriguing ways to show their genitals to one another. When it was a polaroid tucked away in a secure place, that still wasn't much of a problem, but digital image files have a way of getting loose.

What we haven't addressed - and I'm not talking about this particular episode which is off the charts awful for reasons catalogued above in the thread - is that kids who, years ago, would engage in the classic "show me yours and I'll show you mine" thing, are doing it with cell phone cameras. And, again for emphasis, that's not what this incident was about.

If mine were not all adults, I think I'd be inclined to go at the cameras in their phones with an ice pick before sending the kids off with them.