"Sexting". Minors are being prosecuted for child porn, for distributing pictures of themselves.

[Smith_3]

WTF is wrong with our judicial system?? We need some serious de-nazification.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0508/520195.html

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=78015&catid=158


More and more police departments across the country are starting to invest more resources in investigating "sexting" because it's illegal to possess, distribute or manufacture pornography involving anyone under the age of 18.

[jus_the_facts]

1. "...because it's illegal to possess, distribute, or manufacture pornography involving ANYONE....

....under the age of 18."

What's so difficult to understand...it specifically states the reason regardless of your own personal opinion. The pictures can be passed along to adults or happen to be in the possession of an adult...say if they take their childs phone away from them...therefore THEY could be charged as well. A line MUST be drawn somewhere.

[Juche]

24. That sound silly though

By that logic anyone under 18 who masturbates is a pedophile and child rapist.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

89. So you're saying...

...that if I'm seventeen and I make a video of myself jerking off and send it to my girlfriend (and don't tell me this isn't exactly the kind of stupid shit seventeen year old men do) then I ought to go to jail?

[Occulus]

115. You better prosecute my mom, then

Waaaaay back when I was five, my mom took a picture of me standing buck naked at the back door of the house.

There's another one of me running around in my birthday suit in my neighbor's pool while they were filling it for the first time. We laugh about them to this day.

I'm 33.

[seabeyond]

160. i never put clothes on boys in back yard during summer. the freedom of it all

i was always taking pictures too.

finally my mother in law asked if i couldnt raise the camera a tad when i take a picutre. oh shit.... lol.

i hear ya. could have gotten in lots of trouble without a thought taking that film in.

[teenagebambam]

2. Um, I hate to sound like a spoilsport

but WTF is wrong with our children that they're sending out nude photos of themselves?

[PassingFair]

4. Because they can...

and because kids are stupid.

They shouldn't be facing child pornography
charges if they do, but adults obtaining
the images should.

[lightningandsnow]

7. Teenagers are sexual beings.

Yes, sending naked pictures of oneself is definitely poor judgement. But teenagers do have a sexuality - and there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they're fairly responsible.

[NashVegas]

11. Considering What Winds Up On Facebook ...

One must question the definition of 'responsible' these days.

These kids have no idea how much they're helping the coming crackdown.

[Deja Q]

72. I entirely... Humans are sexual beings.

Do too much sex and with the wrong person, or people, and the repercussions are far more tragic.

There is far more to life than just sex.

And these "sexual beings" might be hoodwinked by somebody they will regret.

Does "responsible" mean anything anymore? For anything?

This is one crackdown I don't mind. The kids, trying to be macho and independent with their attitudes, just don't realize... :(

Whoops, there I go thinking of the children again. Damn me to hell. Whatever.

[NashVegas]

76. I Try To Look At It From Less of a Scare POV

And more of a, 'yeah, it is great, but if you're grown up enough to want to send nude pics of yourself, you're grown up enough to start acting like an adult.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/health/13klas.html?em

It’s always popular — and easy — to bewail the deterioration of manners; there is an often quoted (and often disputed) story about Socrates’ complaining that the young Athenians have “bad manners, contempt for authority.” Sure, certain social rubrics have broken down or blurred, and sure, electronic communication seems to have given adults as well as children new ways to be rude. But the age-old parental job remains.

And that job is to start with a being who has no thought for the feelings of others, no code of behavior beyond its own needs and comforts — and, guided by love and duty, to do your best to transform that being into what your grandmother (or Socrates) might call a mensch. To use a term that has fallen out of favor, your assignment is to “civilize” the object of your affections.

I feel like a good proportion of today's parents have given up altogether.

[seabeyond]

77. look at the razin' i got cause i actually believe....

that if the "child" is playing in the adult world they take on their responsibility.

i am a bad parent

almost 14 yr old son and i were talking about some of the "hard" girls at school. 8th grade. it was a particular girl we saw and her behavior that started the subject. more to the story.

i told son that there is a reason a child,... at 13, i still see them as children, is behaving like that. so many children are being abused and molested and then later behavior reflects. we were talking about how these girls set themselves up in situations where she will take on a handful of guys in a house without parents. that she is trying to be accepted. she thinks this will make her liked, popular. but instead, she will be disrespected and worse.

the girl is a whole other story, i told son.

but for those boys to take advantage of that girl, regardless of what was offered, shame on them. and with sons upbringing, knowing better, to abuse in that manner, says a hell of a lot about who he is.

i expect more.

we also talk about the exploration of sexuality at their age too. and how that has a place, BUT there are responsibilities with his choices. and self does not come before hurting others. even if others dont know better. he does.

[JHB]

95. So you want to prosecute those kids for child porn?

yep, that'll get them on track. Damn the rest of us for not wanting to save them.
:sarcasm:

[arcadian]

13. You never played, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"...

when you were a kid?

[Ghost in the Machine]

60. Did you do it with grownups present?

There's a big difference between teenagers doing something in person in the privacy of their bedroom, or anywhere else, and sending photos to a cell phone or another computer.

BIG difference.

Do you not understand that difference?

[anigbrowl]

14. They want to get frisky with other teenagers?

I find nothing particularly surprising about this.

[McCamy Taylor]

Why shouldn't they? What is wrong with the US? These are their bodies.

Why are Americans so hung up about nudity. If people want to be nude, why does anyone else care. The issue is cultural. Go to other parts of the world, and it would be no big deal.

Americans are weird. You can't take your clothes off but you can put bags of water in your breasts that make them feel like grapefruits. Yuck! We are a very messed up culture.

[Gwendolyn]

61. What you say is true.

Completely messed up society when it comes to nudity, and turning women into cartoon figures as they fork over money to go under the knife to implant saline devices into their bodies.

But I think what's made this an issue is not girls 'n boys sending pics back and forth to their ha skool sig other. It's that these pics get out, sent to an entire student body on some occasions, then to the world at large. There's something wrong with that. Severely wrong. And believe it goes back to the terrible taboo on nudity to begin. with. It's meant to hurt, and is just another form of bullying. If people were okay with naked bodies, it wouldn't be used as a tool to hurt.

[knixphan]

64. LOL - spot on!

[Edweird]

74. Meh. When I was in High School (80's) they (we) used Polaroid Instamatics. This is nothing new....

[sniffa]

75. The only reason we didn't do it is because we didn't have the technology

We just met up at that corner of the graveyard to expose ourselves.

[cliffordu]

88. Now I remember you...

How ya been, Tiny??



:rofl:

[JackRiddler]

87. Good thing they're not all your children...

How come strangers never use the first-person plural to take metaphorical possession of bad social categories? It's always, "our children," "our seniors," "our troops," never "our rapists," "our torturers," "our war criminals."

Anyway, to answer, what the fuck is going on with "our" children is little different than what children were doing all those centuries playing doctor or otherwise violating their parents' rules when they thought their activities were hidden. If things are more vulgar now, which is questionable, you can definitely and rightly blame media, advertising and a lot of other socially approved brainwashing commerce directed at children and teenagers. WTF is wrong with Disney-ABC-TimeWarner-Newscorp-Sony-ETC that they never stop reinforcing pornographic messages alongside consumerism and false patriotism?

[Regret My New Name]

90. How long has it been since you've been a teenager?

[Rebubula]

100. Glad...

...that we did not have this technology back in my younger days.

[AndrewP]

111. It's amazing isn't it? WTF?

[eowyn_of_rohan]

139. partly because of easy access internet porn

now THEY can be porn "stars" too!

[FLAprogressive]

3. So ridiculous. I hate when laws are abused and twisted.....

The child porn law is designed to prosecute pedophiles, not fellow teens & children.

*I do not encourage teens to do this...but they should not be arrested for it.

[bunnies]

6. word. nt

[MajorChode]

15. What about a 17yr old sending your 10 yr old daughter a pic of his dong?

I can see some situations when such behavior can and should rise to the level of criminality. I don't think it should fall under the same charges as an adult pervert that takes and distributes child porn, but there should be laws that cover some of this behavior.

[gollygee]

16. That would be a sexual abuse issue, not a child pornography issue

There are already crimes that cover the problem of teenagers behaving sexually with/exposing themselves to much younger children.

[MajorChode]

19. So prosecute the kids under those laws if that's the case

[TWiley]

26. What is a dong? Got a pic?

[MajorChode]

28. Sure

[helderheid]

20. what you said.

[MADem]

5. Why do twelve year olds "need" camera phones?

They ought to give the little farts "Jitterbugs" for emergencies, and that's that.

I don't know too many parents who would be thrilled at the idea of their teen kids sending out naked pictures that wind up distributed around the world.

I feel sorry for parents of teens, nowadays.

I think the focus of the police is, or should be, more on the perverts who troll around looking for these sorts of pictures that end up in cyberspace.

[MajorChode]

18. Many times kids just get hand me down phones

It's hard to get a phone nowdays that doesn't have a camera. There's also a lot of utility that comes with having a camera phone. I'm not so sure it's a great idea to deprive all children of having one just for the very small minority that do stupid shit. Kids can use a digital camera and an email account to do the same thing if they are that determined.

[MADem]

23. Get 'em TRACFONES!!

I've got one--so do two of my family members! No cameras, unless you WANT them and will pay extra! Cheap, too, for people like me who don't spend all day gassing on a cellphone. We use them to communicate sparingly--coordinating pick up times, for example, or calling someone who is out shopping to remind them to pick up "X." No long, angst-ridden diatribes on the cell phone....save that for the land lines.

The one I have cost me less than thirty bucks (and came with seventy units), is TINY, and has the best loudspeaker I've ever used on any phone. I can push the loudspeaker button on the phone, toss the phone on the car seat beside me, and have a clear conversation. I've had it for three years, dropped it in water (and it survived), and for my purposes--which don't include a lot of yak-yak-yakking--it's just the ticket.

I know a lot of people use the cellphone as their ONLY means of communication, but I like my landline. We had a pretty large power outage once where there was no cellphone service available over a wide area-the landline worked just fine, though.

I do think fancy phones make targets out of little kids, who can get beaten up and their phone stolen. It is a REAL problem in my area. A "little kid's phone" that is simple, basic, with a limited number of available numbers to call and features might be a better bet.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2009_01_14_Boston_cops_zero_in_on_stores_selling_stolen_cell_phones:_We_ve_got_your_number/srvc=home&position=recent
Boston police have launched an unprecedented crackdown on the Hub’s epidemic of cell phone thefts - hauling businesses that buy the stolen phones into court and unleashing a series of stings over the past week that have led to the seizure of dozens of stolen phones.

Two stores - Cellular Paging at 320 Geneva Ave., and G&M Electronics Wireless at 7 Blue Hill Ave., are accused of purchasing and reselling stolen cell phones, police said. Both allegedly took the bait of undercover operatives who sold and bought the phones as part of Operation Sidekick, a sting led by detectives at District B-2.

Sidekick phones - a trendy, wide-screen phone popular among teens - are the number one item stolen in Hub robberies right now, said Boston Police Deputy Superintendent Thomas Lee.

The Herald reported last month that violent cell phone thefts among teenagers were sweeping the Hub, putting kids at risk of robbery if they openly talk or text on their wireless devices. And a nascent group of used cell phone stores that provide a market for the thefts are popping up around the city at the same time....Last year, more than 300 Sidekicks were pilfered, up 200 percent from last year, said Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis. Most victims were hit before or after school, commonly near Madison Park High School, throughout Roxbury Crossing and Columbia Road.

[crimsonblue]

38. webcams are what most teenagers are using nowadays

but then you run into the problem of the other person recording it and uploading it to pornhub or something.

[FLAprogressive]

8. Also...what happens if you are sent one of these pictures without your consent? Can you get arrested

[ManiacJoe]

122. Yes, if you keep the picture.

That would fall under the definition of possession.

[gollygee]

9. I don't believe someone should be able to be both the victim and the assailant of the same crime

Do we charge kids who masturbate with sexual abuse? It's ridiculous. If a minor sends nude pictures of him/herself, then the minor should be just let off the hook. Really. Maybe get some counseling depending on the specific circumstances, but really I think it's usually just sexual experimentation that is typical for teenagers. They have more technology available so the experimentation takes on some different forms than it used to, but I don't think it's something to be arresting kids for at all. The parents can take away cell phone privileges or something.

[FLAprogressive]

10. exactly.

[lightningandsnow]

12. Yeah.

I don't masturbate and then think "oops, I just violated myself!"

[High Plains]

17. No, think about our drug possession laws.

The cops will arrest you for victimizing yourself by smoking a joint.

Too goddamned many laws. Too goddamn many cops. Too goddamned many prosecutors. Too goddamned many prosecutors. That's how we get stupid shit like this.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. You forgot: "Too many 'tough on crime' voters"

If 'Murkins weren't so screwed up, we wouldn't keep re-electing the POS politicians who promise the largest increases in prison population.

But we keep doing it.

[High Plains]

29. You're right. I'm sitting here in California...

...which is billions of dollars in debt, and the voters in November voted for yet another "tough on crime" measure that will only increase the number of people in the state prison system, already one of the world's largest.

[Oeditpus Rex]

31. Too goddamned many fundies with political influence

who believe anything in the same zip code as sex, especially by teenagers, is the work of the "anti-christ."

[seabeyond]

22. right... cause our children in all their grown up wisdom should be freely

allowed to participate in what the pro porn people insist on the ADULT sex world.

:sarcasm:

[lightningandsnow]

25. There's a difference between a child and a teenager.

Also, wisdom and responsibility don't get magically bestowed upon you on your 18th birthday.

[gollygee]

27. They shouldn't be jailed for sending nude pics to their boyfriends/girlfriends

Though if one of my kids did it, there would be no damn computer or cell phone for a long while.

ALTHOUGH you do raise an interesting issue. If there isn't some legal way to keep them from doing that, what's to keep a porn producer from using this as a legal loophole to get teens in porn flicks.

Oh, the world is so complicated.

[Deja Q]

73. So what happens if ex-____friend takes yon nude pic and gives it to others? (this is good!)

Then the one taking the nude pic will whine and complain. Here's an idea: If one's nude visage means so damn much, don't take nude pics complete with face and send them to anybody in the first place. Especially if the person one is sending them to is under, what, 30?

Want to send nude pics? Keep the face shrouded and let the recipient be happy with what can be seen if you want to do that. Kids, especially rebellious teens, are just not going to care or respect the one sending the pics - most adults ARE, certainly by comparison! And if the kiddie couple breaks up (immaturity being 9/10ths of the law and all), you bet such photos will be put to some naughty use.

[gollygee]

78. I don't think it's good - I just don't think it should be illegal

I don't see why this isn't something that can be handled within families. And I don't think someone should be able to be the victim of the crime and the assailant.

[Smith_3]

32. Seriously. We are talking about child porn charges here.

Would you want your 13 kid to be prosecuted for child porn, face jail time and be registered as a sex offender for the rest of his/her life for sending a nude pic of themself to a buddy? Give me break.

[seabeyond]

35. i am a tough parent. i teach children responsibility. if one choses an action

accept the repercussion. no.... i probably would not have a problem with this. might be a good lesson learned in responsibility. i doubt there will be jail time. if there is jail time then i will get outraged.

behove one to think these things through. we are allowing our children the adult world, we are encouraging them and not setting any boundaries. they insist on living the adult world demanding their right, they can suffer the repercussion with it.

[gollygee]

37. Oh, right, yeah. Because I don't teach responsibility.

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

41. my post has nothing to do with what you do as a parent.

i would never question your parenting, choices or decisions. all posts i have read from you golly, i have totally respected and have sat of the opinion that you are very much a hands on parent

you and i are different. what i may chose to do with a child may be different from what you do with a child. doesnt mean one is responsible and one is not, means we are different.

was i responding to your post if i would allow with my child?

i was giving an honest answer. generally, consistently how i handle children with choices they make, good and bad. they get the reward or they suffer repercussion

[gollygee]

44. I think the potential of getting on a sex registry is too big a price to pay

for sending a naked pic to a boyfriend/girlfriend.

[seabeyond]

45. i think losing a chance for college entry, or a job or any number of things is a high price too

because some stupid ass kid doesnt know better about repercussions. best as parents to teach our children putting naked pictures of underage on net is child porn. dont be so stupid as to do it. further... i am using each and everyone of these lessons for my boys at the dinner table so they will be well aware that it isnt just fun. there is responsiblity too.

when i was 16 so many years ago and really stupid i took a couple guys home in my car. i had gotten off work, didnt drink, but they had open container. i was speeding. two cop cars came after me (did i say how stupid i was three decades ago) and i didnt want to get in trouble for open container, especially as i was a "good kid" and never did anything wrong cause i was so afraid of getting in trouble.

ran from cops, parked in neighborhood and we hid in bushes.

tell kids today, .... NOT allowed to be as stupid as we were. we were given breaks, easier to get away with stuff. not today.

different world.

[gollygee]

46. If they get arrested and on a sex offender list, they're much less likely

to get a job and much more likely to be denied college entry.

[seabeyond]

48. college, jobs ect are sticking names into internet to see how stupid the kid is....

IF these kids get jail and/or on sex offender list i will be outraged with you. my hope is this gets out, kids take it seriously and they get scared, slap on wrist and learn there are repercussions for their action. they are responsible for the choices they make.

just gave it to my two boys, right now.... IF they chose to be so stupid, they can pay the price.

[Gwendolyn]

65. You know what you are talking about. You are right in telling your kids what you do.

[seabeyond]

67. i dont always give specifics. i dont LIE. i talk age appropriate and there are times

i will say, i cannot tell you the story now, but i will when you get older.

i will not pretend that i wasnt a kid or teen. that is just not believable to kids. one of the things we have talked about as they have drug and sex and cig lectures is schools take it to fear to make the children do right and i give them the facts along with providing a foundation and the choice is theirs.... they will pay price, good or bad. i cant do anything else. and they are going to trip and misstep so they need the facts to land softly as they can.

[anigbrowl]

50. Translation (what kids hear): 'I got away with shit, so can you'.

You were a good kid who never did anything wrong...apart from speeding. What you mean is you never got caught doing anything wrong. Telling stories about 'stupid shit I managed to get away with' only increases kids' desire to try stuff.

[seabeyond]

54. again, you dont really know anything about me and the time and attention

i have given my kids. so again, you are not even kinda close to understanding the lessons my boys learned.... but then it wouldnt be a single second in a lifetime that teaches the child, now would it.

[anigbrowl]

55. You posted it, so expect to get it critiqued

You don't want a reaction, don't post it.

[seabeyond]

58. you can critique it all you want. doesnt mean you arent wrong from lack of info

i find it helpful to know what i am talking about when i put out an opinion. i know many dont need info to put out their opinion. just makes them look like an ass at the very least. but if you like going around spouting an opinion, lacking information, .....

dont be surprised if you are called on being full of sh*t

[seabeyond]

56. btw...

talk about reading literacy... no where in that post did i say i told kids that story. i was giving an example to poster that even in me being a good kid, i understand we do stupid things when we are young.

knowing that

and what it is today

and the many many things my kids see, read and talk about in society today

i have told them, that what we got away with in past, cannot get away with today. and we have talked about this for years.

especially over the bush administration and the police abuse with tasering at drop of hate, cutting school, drugs and so many things

and no.... i would not share a story with open container in my car as i have a son approaching drivers license age.

[pipi_k]

83. Oh, I don't know about that...

Both my parents were somewhat silent about their teenaged years. My sisters and I never heard a lot (hardly any, really) of stories about how our parents did stupid shit they got away with...

But that didn't mean we weren't going to get into trouble of our own anyway.

I think kids are going to do what they're going to do regardless of what parents do or don't tell them about their own pasts. A parent could even tell a story about what he did that he didn't get away with, and that caused him to learn a very painful lesson, and you know what? In one ear and right out the other, generally. Unless the kid is wise beyond his/her years. Because most kids are incredibly arrogant and stupid about Life.

:shrug:

[Smith_3]

39. Well, if they are brought up on charges of child porn, then jail times is likely to follow.

It just gets me, because the "victim" in this case is identic with the perp. The whole idea of child porn being outlawed is to protect the victim.

[seabeyond]

43. betcha they dont. but that will have to be one we see about. dont know before it

has happened so i am not gonna argue either way.

they are minor, they will likely be treated as such and punished accordingly. if not, i will yell.

[anigbrowl]

47. That doesn't make you a good parent.

Your logic here fails hopelessly.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. You said it's OK to hit children with CHILD PORN charges, which will FUCK THEIR LIVES FOREVER...

...for sending naked pics of themselves, and that you would be OK with that happening with your own kids if they did that.

I am having some difficulty reconciling that statement with "being a good parent."

[seabeyond]

62. it sounded to me like they are going after the kids that are taking someones picture and putting

it up on my space and other avenues on the net. but paint that picture all pretty and pure.

[Smith_3]

63. no. they are going after a kid for sending a pic of itsself. nt

[seabeyond]

66. not nearly the information needed to come to the conclusions so many on this thread are

get some data on what is actually happening, then i will allow my outrage to boil or not. but that one little comment about the police from two article does not say that these kids texting back and forth are being charged with a felon, jail time and sex offender list..... at all.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

68. Nice attempt at backpedalling. But post #35 still says what it says.

And you can't edit it anymore.

It says volumes.

[seabeyond]

69. ya, so. what? i dont think they are giving the kids jail time and sex offender for texting

naked pictures. i said IF they give them jail time, then i will get outraged.

no backpedaling.

then people harping on jail time, sex offender, i read article to see if they were really talking about giving these kids jail time and put on sex offender list. guess what....

NO mention of either of the two

BUT

i did learn in the story they are talking about assholes that get these pictures and put them up on sites unbeknown to the sender for all to see, or sending to porn sites.... ya. that is bothersome. creep. pig. and IF either of my sons did that to a girl, ..... they can pay the price.

no backpedaling from post 35

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

70. Yeah, yeah, you keep telling yourself that. Whatever. -nt

[Smith_3]

79. Being a tough parent for the sake of being a tough parent.

And teaching kids they must follow rules, regardless of how idiotic the rules may be. German psychologists believe this is part of what lead to the third reich. Or as some of phrased it: "The stink of thousand years."

[seabeyond]

80. again, a person that couldnt be more wrong. but not surprising since you

do not know a single thing about me or my children or how i raise them

we are a little different in that i am not a rule follower. i believe that we have a better compass of right and wrong within, than society dictating to us. i teach my boys to trust that and a responsibility and obligation to question and challenge rule of society, religion, govt.

let me ask you

you say follow rules regardless of how idiotic.

these people are taking pictures given to them and handing them out without permission. they are putting them on the net for all to see, without permission from the person that had given them. they are sending them to porn site without permission.

at what point did character, decency, integrity, responsibility become idiotic rules? at what point did we decide that we would not teach our children personal responsibility. that though it was fun, everyone is doing it, that to participate made them less. selling themselves out.

to be trusted with a picture (stupid person that would trust something with that as we are seeing) you dont abuse that persons trust.

and to you

that is idiotic rule following?

[Smith_3]

82. the idiotic rule is not that posting the picture on the is illegal. it should be illegal.

the point is that the rule prohibits someone from giving a picture of themself to someone else in the first place.

[seabeyond]

85. and you tell me in all your wisdom, if a boy sends a picture on phone to a girl

and she is responsible with it..... where in the hell is the going ot be a problem or anyone gonna find out about it

common logic is that the people that will get in trouble, and still i do not see any of these youths in prison time or child molestor role sheets, are the ones that are NOT being responsible with that picture.

[Smith_3]

86. maybe she gets angry at him at some point and decides to tell someone about it?

or someone steals her cellphone. :shrug:

[varkam]

119. Wrong.

They're charging the kids that take pictures of themselves and distribute them.

[seabeyond]

125. are they going to jail? are they put on sex offender role?

please show me ONE event of a child be prosecuted and charged so i will at least know what i am arguing.

[varkam]

129. Here's "ONE":

http://www.bad-news-day.com/sexting-craze-leads-to-child-pornography-charges

[seabeyond]

133. thank you, the first one i saw charged

but i did not see any mention of punishment. so i will wait to see what the punishment is, before i say what the punishment is, cause i dont know.

the second they put underage naked girls on net. that is child porn. they, our children should CLEARLY understand that to put child porn on net is ILLEGAL even for them.

why wouldnt it be

if a group of people can put child porn on net, then ALL people put child porn on net. that simple

he was stupid

[varkam]

134. I agree that there should be consequences, but why have them register as sex offenders?

In theory, the SOR is meant to be a tool to help protect the public so that they know who and where "predators" are in their community. Do these types of defendants strike you as predatory in nature?

[seabeyond]

137. the 6 i am not seeing that they are. the one that put a kids picture on net put

child porn on net, hence sex offender.

the kids had better start thinking and would behoove a parent to connect the dot for their teenager.

[varkam]

138. So you would consider the kid that put the picture online to be a predator?

Would you likewise consider cases of two teenagers having sex with one another a predatory crime deserving of SOR status? I recall one case a few years back where a 12-year-old boy and a 13-year-old girl were both convicted of felony sex abuse of a minor for having sex with one another. Are they predators, as well?

[seabeyond]

144. i dont consider many many of the people on the list as predators.

i do consider the kid putting the naked picture of his girlfriend on the net as the legal difinition of child porn. that is against the law. he isnt allowed. a 17 yr old isnt allowed. an 18 yr old (adult) isnt allowed. you are talking about this age back and forth, but with this.... to your advantage. it is what it is

the parents should impress on there kids not to put child porn on net.

i hadnt even considered until reading this thread. now i have told boys

DON'T do it.

it is stupid.

[gollygee]

146. Kids are getting arrested for distributing photos of THEMSELVES

That's the point here. Are you aware that they are being arrested for distributing photos of THEMSELVES? It isn't about distributing photos of other teenagers. That should be illegal. It's about distributing their own photos to their own boyfriends/girlfriends.

[varkam]

152. I posted downthread about this...

and one of the aspects of child pornography is certainly that the subject of it is being abused. In these case, that aspect is no longer present. However, that is not the only reason that it is considered illegal. Once a picture starts changing hands and reaches the net, there is no telling to who will get their hands on it for time in memoriam - a picture on the internet can be replicated endlessly at a 1:1 quality ratio. You'll never be able to delete all the copies.

In addition, some studies have shown that child pornography primes people to abuse children. There have also been many cases where child molesters have used child pornography in order to prime their victims and get them used to the idea.

In sum, while there is the issue of the subject of the child pornography being abused, there are other reasons why it is illegal.

[gollygee]

153. Posession of it should be illegal

But I don't think it should be illegal for someone to distribute a picture of him/herself. Anyone else - yes. Possession - fair game. I just don't agree with that part of it.

[varkam]

154. Ah - but there wouldn't be possession if there were no distrubtion.

Or, at the very least, it would be curtailed significantly. That is one of the goals of prosecuting distributors. Now I agree that in cases like this, the punishment should be tailored to fit the crime (e.g. relatively short-term probationary period, no SOR, no camera-phone, etc) but I do contend that there should still be consequences, though certainly a one-size-fits-all approach (1) doesn't work and (2) isn't fair.

[gollygee]

155. So?

That doesn't mean both need to be illegal.

[varkam]

156. Well, would it make you happier if they charged them with possession instead of distribution?

After all, in order to distribute something you need to possess it first.

[gollygee]

157. No, not possession of a photo of themselves

I don't see why it can't be legal for a kid to have a nude photo of him/herself, but not legal for someone else to have it.

[varkam]

158. That's the problem - it isn't just that they have a nude photo of him or herself.

I would suspect that if a teenage girl were to take a naked photo of herself and keep it to herself, she would never be arrested or prosecuted for anything. The problem comes when they send it out or post it on the internet.

[gollygee]

159. Why?

We're talking about texting in the OP, so this is about a kid taking a photo of him/herself, and sending it to a boyfriend/girlfriend. Why should that be a legal problem? I see it as a family discipline problem - like no more cell phone. But sending a photo of you to someone you want to send it of should not be illegal. If a 40-year-old somewhere somehow gets it and puts it on a porn site, that is different and should be illegal. If I took a photo of my little girl in a swim suit or in the bath and some 40-year-old somehow got it and put it on a porn site, that would also be illegal.

[varkam]

165. The problem, I think, is when the internet gets involved.

Prosecutors have a lot of discretion about when to charge and when not to charge and, on the whole, I think we'd be a lot better off if prosecutors declined to submit these cases to a grand jury. The problem lies with the nature of the internet and child pornography (and how it is viewed under law). As I had written, it of course matters or should matter that the person distributing it is the subject of the photograph. On the other end of the spectrum, however, that is not relevant. That is because the social harm of child pornography is not limited to the abuse that the victim has to endure. If it were, then cases like this would be pretty open and shut - no victim, no abuse, so no crime. It's not that simple, though. Like I had written, once a picture reaches the internet, then it's up for grabs for whoever wants it. At that point, the teen then becomes the sine qua non (without which, not) of the possession defendant. Had it not been for the teens actions, then the child pornography would not be in the posssession of the defendant (which is one of the reasons why that distribution is regarded as a more significant crime under federal law than possession is). Another way to think of distribution is possession multiplied by N, where N is the number of people who do come into possession of it. Under the law, child pornography is a lot like drugs in the respect that it is considered contraband - just having it, regardless what the purpose is, is criminalized. Hell, under Gonzalez's Justice, it became illegal for a defense lawyer to have it even if it was part of the government's case against the lawyer's client.

At any rate, there are arguments out there (some of which I outlined) that the harm of child pornography is that it also incites people to go out and do some of this stuff themselves. Assuming that is true, then it is theoretically possible that because of that teenage girl's actions, some 40-year-old molests a kid because he had gotten ahold of that picture and decided that he wanted to do it himself. I don't know how convincing that argument is, but if you accept the premise that child pornography creates child molesters, then the conclusion seems to follow.

And just as a point of clarification - if you were to take a picture of your child in a swim suit or in a bath and some 40-year-old were to put it up on a website, it would not be illegal unless there was nudity. And, unfortunately, there have been cases of parents being prosecuted and having their children taken away from them after they got photos developed of their kids in a bath (which is fucked up, I agree).

[gollygee]

168. Still not buying this

My little girl is 6. She's not quite able to put up photos of herself up anywhere on the internet, but I bet by 8 she will be -she's pretty good with a computer. She did want to take naked photos of herself at one point. She thinks that sounds funny. Let's say at 8 she takes naked photos of herself because she thinks it's funny (she also thinks saying the words "butt" and "poop" are really funny), and posts them somewhere online. She should be charged with child pornography for that?

I am in possession of the digital camera so this is not going to happen. But young children with no understanding of adult sexuality could get arrested.

Also, the OP isn't about actually putting nude photos online. It's about sending them from one cell phone to another. More like the modern equivalent of giving your boyfriend a nudie polaroid pic.

[varkam]

169. Should she be charged?

No. But there's a difference between should and will. Some states don't allow children that young to be charged, holding that they lack the mental ability to form the requisite mens rea of a crime. Some don't, however. It isn't beyond the realm of possibility that it could happen - though I would think that most DAs would exhibit some discretion and not bring charges in that case.

I'm not saying that these laws are the sanest around - they're not. I remember a case where two young teenagers had sex with one another and both got charged with felony sex abuse (and both caught felonies out of the whole ordeal). A lot of it is the legislature's fault, in that they draft these laws to cast such a wide net that it creates these sort of tragic farces (and such laws are extremely popular with voters, and any politician who could even be construed as "easy on sex offenders" would be ridden out of town on a rail).

I'm not saying that I find a lot of these arguments convincing. Do I think that a kid that posts another child's nude photo to the internet is deserving of some sort of legal consequence? Yes. Do I think that the consequence should be a felony conviction, registration as a sex offender, and possible jail time? Absolutely not.

Also, the OP isn't about actually putting nude photos online. It's about sending them from one cell phone to another. More like the modern equivalent of giving your boyfriend a nudie polaroid pic.

Well, regardless of what the OP was about, we were talking about putting nude pictures online.

[varkam]

150. So then of what utility to you consider the SORs to be?

i do consider the kid putting the naked picture of his girlfriend on the net as the legal difinition of child porn. that is against the law. he isnt allowed. a 17 yr old isnt allowed. an 18 yr old (adult) isnt allowed. you are talking about this age back and forth, but with this.... to your advantage. it is what it is

I agree, it is against the law. It is against the law no matter who does it, and I'm not saying that it isn't. What I am saying is that there is little differentiation within the criminal justice system because so much of it is mandated by statute (e.g. if you violate this statute, then these are the consequences). If the legislature did not include a provision that "sexting" minors should be exempted, then they won't be exempted as that would be an unconstitutional exercise of judicial power.

the parents should impress on there kids not to put child porn on net.

i hadnt even considered until reading this thread. now i have told boys

DON'T do it.

it is stupid.

I agree - but should doing something stupid ruin the rest of your life?

[seabeyond]

161. doing something stupid ruin the rest of your life?,,, should or not, it DOES>

should a kid do something really stupid like not wear a condom, drink and drive... all these things are perfect example of just being stupid and can end their lifes or alter it forever.

should one oooops ruin a kids life? there for the grace of god go i.

but it does.

now... i have yet to see a ruling on an example of kids texting and then sending picture to all the friends. i would hope that parents taught their children enough integrity, the kid had enough character, that they would see the wrong in hurting, humiliating another for their play, ... but obviously parents arent taking the time to teach their children this. i would hope in a court situation the judge will find some means to give the child a lesson.

you say mandatory. i see a lot of leeway in a lot of different ways over my time with judges. is it mandatory? i dont know. i would like to see.

[varkam]

170. So...because something can happen means that it is fair and just?

should a kid do something really stupid like not wear a condom, drink and drive... all these things are perfect example of just being stupid and can end their lifes or alter it forever.

I agree, but many of those things aren't things that we can do anything about via laws. Not so in this situation, as laws can be changed. I am assuming that, if say one of your children got drunk and drove (I know, unimaginable, since your children would never do anything so foolish) and was killed, you would rather them be alive then dead - correct?

should one oooops ruin a kids life? there for the grace of god go i.

but it does.

I agree that it does, but my point is that just because it happens does not make it fair or just.

now... i have yet to see a ruling on an example of kids texting and then sending picture to all the friends. i would hope that parents taught their children enough integrity, the kid had enough character, that they would see the wrong in hurting, humiliating another for their play, ... but obviously parents arent taking the time to teach their children this. i would hope in a court situation the judge will find some means to give the child a lesson.

You seem to be keen on blaming parents for the actions of their children. If that's the case, then why are you so bass-ackwards? Why punish the child for the rest of their lives because they had the shitty luck to be born to crappy parents? Why not punish the parents? Moreover, you seem to overestimate the influence that parents have on their children at that age. A significant influence to teenager's behavior is that of their peer-group.

you say mandatory. i see a lot of leeway in a lot of different ways over my time with judges. is it mandatory? i dont know. i would like to see.

If a statute says that violation of a certain statute results in X punishment, the courts are not free to ignore that. They have to apply the law. Now it can be challenged and they can rule that it is unconstitutional, but if it's just a run-of-the-mill criminal case then that's what they have to do.

I don't know about the sexting craze, but I am familiar with one case in Maine where an 18-year-old high school student had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend (also a high school student) where he was arrested and convicted of felony sex abuse and placed on the sex offender registry and served time. After he got out, he married his "victim" and they had a baby boy. Shortly thereafter, a Canadian citizen got it in his head that he needed to go kill some sex offenders, so he pulled him up (among others) on the registry, drove to his house, knocked on his door, and shot him in the face in front of his wife and child. Now perhaps you're keen to throw up your hands and go "oh well, that's what happens when you have parents that don't teach you good character", but I'm more inclined to say that results like that are fucked up.

[Regret My New Name]

92. So you wouldn't have a problem with your 14 yr old child being labeled a sex offender because he/she

sent pictures of himself to his 14 year old girlfriend? I understand the desire to not want ones children to do that, but this is something the family should handle, not the law.. Now, if photos such as those get out and an adult downloads/uploads them, they should be held responsible for their actions...

Besides, this is nothing new anyways. It's just now it's easier to take/send/receive photos because of technology. This would be like arresting a kid who took a polaroid of his girlfriend with her shirt off... That is ridiculous.

[seabeyond]

96. and HOW is this kid gonna get in trouble for sending a picture to his girlfriend?

is there gonna be a stop and the cops go thru all the kids phones. then if they see a naked picture they are gonna give him jail time and make him a sex offender?

i am not seeing this happen. the first case this happens, i will be all over the cops ass

what i do see is these pictures being shown in a locker room to all the guys and the coach grabbing the phone and hauling the kid to the office. then i can see the kid is charged, but even with that, i cannot see it going to jail time or sex offender list. again, if it went that far.... too far and i will be after the judicial system.

i can see kids putting it on the net. or sending to porn sites. in this case, we are saying our children are adult enough to play in the adult sex world of porn, YET they are too immature to be responsible to pay the repercussion?

i told my boys last night the possibility from their action. they want to be stupid, then there is the chance they will get in trouble for their stupid. colleges put kids names in to see what stupid they do. i have one child that wants duke, and one child denver university, want to risk it with stupid.... go for it. jobs put name in net to see stupid. want to lose a job over stupid.....?

repercussion. what a kid learns. what we teach them. and it follows them.

[Regret My New Name]

97. I don't think we disagree on this too much...

I agree that there should be repercussions, and that kids passing such photos of themselves should be discouraged. I think we disagree on what would happen to the kids though. If their punishment is simply handled by the school and the parents then that's fine with me. However, based on this articles headline and on its content, I read it that they would be charged with possession and distribution of child porn.... That's a pretty serious crime, and it seems that you agree that it wouldn't be okay to do such a thing. Also, I can recall at least two instances in which minors being charged with such crimes for similar situations.

[gollygee]

101. Why can't the parents teach them instead of the legal system?

Why does EVERYTHING have to be against the law these days? Why do the police have to do EVERYTHING? Can't we as parents take care of any discipline ourselves? I know my child and how to best handle an incident like this with her, should it ever (god forbid) happen.

[seabeyond]

104. how is that working for us? here the problem is and parents know about it

what do you see done with it. parents shrug. give up. say, kids are sexual beings, whatever.

we as parents are suppose to teach our kids. that is our job. there are far greater consequences for kids than this. how about, in all their sexuality they decide to have sex at 15. their right in their own sexuality. not my business. BUT, as a parent i tell them, IF they make this choice they had better damn well be responsible with it. then i lay out all the consequences. IF they chose to have unprotected sex, they suffer adult consequence. preg, death with aids

this is not a new concept in parenting or teens....

chose to drink, chose to drive. you know, you can have a record that follows you forever. further, the teen could be dead

this is what stepping out as a teen is about

so there are consequences. play in adult porn world, .... say hi to the consequences of it.

why on this are we shying from it yet all other things we know it is our job to teach our children?

[gollygee]

105. Kids have always done stupid things and will always do stupid things

It doesn't mean the police have to be involved. Not everything has to involve the police. Having the police involved isn't going to improve everything.

Drunk driving is different because everyone else out on the road is a potential victim, and because the state issues licenses so to get the license taken away, you have to go through the state.

This could be handled by grounding and having the cell phone and computer taken away.

[seabeyond]

108. talking two different things. i dont believe someone sending a picture

is even going to be found out. i believe the point of getting caught someone is abusing in some way. like has a picture and sends it thru the school for all to see. at that point there is an abuse

handle with the parent. do you KNOW how MANY parents do nothing.

sending it on the net. it is porn. it is child porn. adults go to jail, ... but what, we say oh it was a kid putting porn out

kid selling drugs, cause they are a kid they dont get in trouble.

this doesnt make sense

if your argument is that the kid that sends photo to girlfriend is going to jail and on sex reg... i am with you. i am just not buying that is going to happen.

[gollygee]

110. Child porn is a crime because the child involved is a victim

if the child is sending a photo of him/herself, he/she isn't being victimized by someone. Adults CAN put nude photos of themselves on the internet. And yes, any child porn case gets the person on the sex offender list. That's precisely the kind of thing the list is for.

[seabeyond]

113. so.... as long as a ten yr old says they want to be naked on the net.... it is ok? n/t

[gollygee]

114. That is a false dichotomy.

There are steps between "OK" and "Arrest the kid". No it isn't OK. No the kid should not be arrested.

[seabeyond]

117. if a 17 yr old male is getting picture of 12 yr old girls....

and videos and all and he sets up a porn site for all of this, what should we do with that guy?

[gollygee]

120. Where do you get that from? We're talking about kids sending photos of THEMSELVES out

and getting arrested for it. Your 17 yr old/12 yr old thing is a completely different scenario, and would actually be child porn.

[seabeyond]

127. from the two articles that i read. i am reading from posters that we are talking jail time

and on sex offender sheet. i have NOT seen that in any article. at all. not one.

help me out. show me anywhere where it shows someone who text a naked picture to a boyfriend is in jail and on sex offender role.

[gollygee]

128. If it is a child porn arrest

there is potential of jail time and the sex offender registry. That's how child porn cases are handled.

[seabeyond]

136. potential.... potential. that is the first time in all the poeple we have gone beyond

they WILL go to jail and go on sex pred.....

we dont KNOW.

the potential is there.

you say let the parents handle it. a kid takes a girlfriends picture she thought was just for him and shows all his buddies, and rest of kids in school. do you think that isnt a punishable offense. do you think the kids ought to learn something from it.

look how many adults on this thread have stated kids will be kids. parents give up. they do nothing with so much today. why would we leave it to the parents. do you think these school adm have not tried with parents. my kids school has been trying to get the damn phones out. parents get pissed at them when they take them away. why the hell isnt the parent taking it away. cause they dont do their job

[gollygee]

140. There isn't some new child porn law they're being prosecuted under

they're being prosecuted under existing child porn laws. And child porn laws have minimum sentences and mandatory sex offender reporting.

The kids who are actually sending out photos of *themselves* are getting arrested. If a kid sends around a photo of someone *else*, I don't really have a problem with him being arrested, though I'd like a new law rather than using the existing laws. But if a stupid kid sends out photos of him/herself, that kid should not be arrested for child porn. He/she can't be the assailant and the victim. That's ridiculous. That kid is obviously OK with his/her own photos being sent out, and whatever happens is his/her own fault for sending the photos (of him/herself) out, therefore that is not the same as a child porn case and shouldn't be prosecuted as such.

[seabeyond]

116. we have always had laws to protect children from themselves. hence why... they cannot

drink, porn, vote, drive ect.... until an age. it is the decision making ability that is poor. so to say that if a child choses to send him/herself out there nude, then they are no longer victims. we as a society has never cotton to children deciding what was best for them

[gollygee]

118. That doesn't mean they need to be arrested for it

or that it has to be illegal. Not everything a kid shouldn't do needs to be illegal. Not everything has to involve the police. They are not victims, but they aren't assailants of themselves either. They don't need to get arrested over doing something stupid. And it isn't the same as voting or driving - kids aren't licensed or able to register to do those things until an age. It isn't a case of turning kids into criminals. It's completely different and an irrelevant comparison.

[Still Sensible]

102. But, but, but

I believe in most US jurisdictions now persons conviceted on child pornography charges must forever be registered sex offenders. There might be a lesson to be learned, but not at this price.

[gollygee]

103. Exactly!

And why do the police have to be involved with EVERYTHING? I'm thinking of this, and this thread about the kid who stole $2 worth of brownies from school and got arrested, and this: http://www.kxly.com/global/story.asp?s=9669140

Must every single issue involve the police? Is there not any other way to discipline children? I'm confident I can handle something like these three issues in my house with my kids. I just don't get it.

[seabeyond]

106. having sex at 15 (in all their sexual freedom without responsibility)

without a condom may be a lesson learned with awfully huge price to pay. preg, aids, std.

why would they be exempt putting child porn on the net whereas an adult is not. what sense does that make.

drink and drive, they suffer the same repercussion as an adult. follows forever

you draw the line....

the teen makes the choice

and that choice can effect the rest of their life

[gollygee]

107. No - an adult can legally text people with nude photos of themselves

to any willing recipient. This law is only aimed at young people.

[seabeyond]

109. YES cause porn is lawful for ADULTS> n/t

[gollygee]

112. See #110

Child porn is a crime because the child is being victimized by the porn producer. If the child is sending out pictures of him/herself, he/she isn't being victimized by anyone. This is not the same as a child porn case.

[varkam]

126. The problem with that line of reasoning...

is that for many of those consequences, there is no chance at redemption, no chance at reintegration. People make mistakes, and they should suffer consequences, but for the most part shouldn't have to pay for it for the rest of their lives.

[seabeyond]

130. BUT as a teenager there are many things that are exactly that. why it is a scary time

yawl are telling me these kids that show a picture of naked body to boyfriend are going to jail and on sex offender list that will follow them forever.

make me believe.

i have not seen it. the two articles i read did not say that.

[varkam]

132. Whether or not it has actually happened is immaterial to your being fine with it.

I don't know about cases of child pornography, but I do know for a fact that there have been cases of "romeo and juliet" type offenses that have carried felony convictions, prison time, and registration as a sex offender. Which, by the way, has led to the murder of one such individual.

In another case I am familiar with, a high school student mooned a class of girls, was convicted of indecent exposure and placed on the sex offender registry. He subsequently shot himself prior to his 19th birthday as a result of his placement on the SOR.

[seabeyond]

142. this is the way i see and have always seen it works.... as unfair some of them are

that i hear, and i just hate one in particular cause i know it is racially motivated, a 18 yr old? black guy had sex with a 16 yr old white girl. and i know he got the hard time cause he was black. like in georgia. was/is horrible and i hate it. i dont want it to be

the bottom line, there are laws and boundaries and consequences if they are broken. a kid had damn well better think twice before making this step. the law is there. dont do it. not worth it.

as to your point of it is mute whether the kids name is on the list or not.... i think is bogus and absolutely the point. i would hope they got the piss scared out of them, the judge said dont do it again and that was it. it does matter whether it is on there or not which is the whole outcry from the people protesting on this thread.

[varkam]

148. .

Would you agree that if laws are unfair that they ought to be changed or vacated, or should we allow teens to rot in prison for a few more decades? It used to be a crime in most states for a white person and a black person to marry, were that law still enforced, how would you feel about it?

the bottom line, there are laws and boundaries and consequences if they are broken. a kid had damn well better think twice before making this step. the law is there. dont do it. not worth it.

I'm not saying that there are not consequences, however even the framers of the Constitution recognized that there need to be limits on those consequences. Furthermore, your average teenager is not likely to understand the intricacies of current good law on the subject - that is, if they are not subject to the invulnerability syndrome that many teens have.

as to your point of it is mute whether the kids name is on the list or not.... i think is bogus and absolutely the point. i would hope they got the piss scared out of them, the judge said dont do it again and that was it. it does matter whether it is on there or not which is the whole outcry from the people protesting on this thread.

I believe the term is "moot" and not "mute". I'm having a difficult time understanding what that means. The whole point of our disagreement is that you would be fine with such teenagers being adjudged as sex offenders. The fact that we disagree isn't changed at all whether or not it has actually happened (although, for sim. crimes, it has happened).

[seabeyond]

162. i think the point that is being ignored that i have repeated a number of times is....

i do not think the 6 kids texting back and forth will go on sex offenders list or have jail time. IF that is what is going to be happening to these kids, then we need to rethink. i will wait to see what is exactly happening with these kids. but as far as distributing onto net... for me that is a pretty clear one and if a 17 chooses to do, he pays the price.

and thank you for mute, moot. in rush to answer and go pick up kids.

[varkam]

166. .

i do not think the 6 kids texting back and forth will go on sex offenders list or have jail time. IF that is what is going to be happening to these kids, then we need to rethink.

So then you don't think that those kids should go on the SOR?

but as far as distributing onto net... for me that is a pretty clear one and if a 17 chooses to do, he pays the price.

I know a few people on the SOR, and it's a pretty heavy price to pay. You're lucky if you can find a place to live (a good number of people on the SOR are transient), you lose your job (and forget about trying to find a new one), you're threatened with violence and other assorted vigilante activity (and the constant fear that goes along with that), you lose your friends, you lose your family. You basically become a leper, and you stay one for life. I'm not saying that what the kid that put those pictures on the net did was right - in fact he should be punished. But are you saying that he should have to suffer those consequences for the rest of his life? I'm curious to know what separates his actions from the actions of the kids texting back and forth, merely beyond a matter of degrees.

[JVS]

30. I think they should be prosecuted.

[anigbrowl]

53. That ws a convincing argument.

[Regret My New Name]

91. and executed...

[THUNDER HANDS]

33. I'd imagine if cell phones with cameras were around 50 years ago

our parents would have done this too, probably our grandparents too.

Being horny isn't exactly a new phenominon.

[crimsonblue]

34. this whole "exploited child" thing has gotten way out of hand....

yeah, actual porn of kids is very bad. but kids being kids shouldn't be a felony. And how can somebody be prosecuted for somebody else sending them a picture? I'm pretty sure that legal precedent has shown that a person is not legally liable for unsolicited goods.

[Smith_3]

36. not only the recipient is liable here. the sender as well, for sending a pic of themself.

so the sender has commited an offense against themself :crazy:

[crimsonblue]

40. plus, third parties that get ahold of this stuff

have no idea how old the person in the picture is. Somebody could go to a website and think the photo is of a legal adult, only to find out the person is 17. Then, BAM! Off to "pound me in the ass prison" you go.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

99. Are you high?

Nobody goes to pound-me-in-the-ass prison for surfing teenagers' myspace pages.

[varkam]

121. Actually...

if someone views a picture of a nude teenager, and it is known (to authorities, not necessarily to the defendant) that the picture is of a teenager, then that person can be brought up on possession charges - and sent to prison.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

124. Can be, sure.

But how many cases are there of someone getting busted for something like this? It's the kiddie porn equivalent of driving 37mph in a 35 zone.

[varkam]

131. Probably not many, but it is legally possible.

Most often people are arrested for this sort of thing by attempting to swap pictures with a LEO decoy, being brought up on charges of sex abuse and then having their computer searched, or taking their computer into a repair shop and in the course of repairs the tech discovers child pornography.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

171. Perhaps I should rephrase:

Nobody goes to pound-me-in-the-ass prison just for surfing teenagers' myspace pages.

Completely off topic: You're no longer a moderator. Very surprising, and I'm sorry to see you go.

[varkam]

172. Lol! I appreciate it.

I decided to stop modding once law school started - I wouldn't have the same amount of time to devote to DU as I used to and so I figured that it would be best to give the spot to someone else.

[GoesTo11]

42. What about fat older guys

It may be legal but no one wants to see us nekkid.

[Gwendolyn]

51. The person who is your beloved does.

Which is why this issue is odd. More often than not, the victim is a child who was pressured into, or wanted to, send a pic to someone they were crazy about. Then it ends up processed to the world. It can ruin a person's future possibilities. Not sure what the remedy is, but sending nekkid pics around of a discarded girlfriend or boyfriend is often a terrible version of net snark. Children do need to be protected somehow.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

98. No, on the internet there's ALWAYS someone who wants to see you naked. n/t

[AngryAmish]

57. I blame the parents

And they should have gotten a Mac.

[madinmaryland]

71. ...

Someone had to say it.

:rofl:

[treestar]

81. This is the problem our society has

Sex is "normal" for teenagers in today's society.

Yet they are "minors."

"Minors" aren't supposed to have sex.

Thus the conundrum, it is "normal" for minors to do something they aren't legally allowed to.

We need an intermediate legal category for this.

[Javaman]

84. Veronica: Hey Archie, why don't we meet at the malt shop and exchange some porn?

Archie: sounds like a keen idea, Veronica.

sigh.

[BlooInBloo]

93. Yup - Atrios likes to make fun of this silliness.

[bertman]

94. As if there aren't enough CRIMINALS for our police to go after.

This is more of the same old shit. Go after the easy ones that sound sensational when they get reported. These teens aren't going to fight back with Uzi's and Mac10's like the real crooks.

Same as the pot smokers.

Fascist police state tactics.

[varkam]

123. Here's the thing...well a couple of things...

First, I agree that it's run off the rails. The reason that these kids are being prosecuted, though, is because child pornography is considered mallum in se - it is bad shit on its face. It doesn't matter how it was created or who it was created by (i.e. if no one was harmed in its creation).

Also, once it gets to the internet (and many of these pictures do), there's no telling how many people have access to it. In addition, there's no getting it back (and so such prosecutions would serve a deterrence value).

I don't think that you should have jail time, or that such persons should be adjudged as sex offenders (and I think the SOR is over-used as is - placing way too many people on it that don't pose a threat), but I can see the utility of it given the nature of child pornography in this electronic age.

[BuyingThyme]

135. Is it technically a crime for children to look at themselves in the mirror?

(If they're naked.)

[gollygee]

141. Apparently

Masturbation, too.

[Holly_Hobby]

143. When I was in HS in the early '70's, we used those photo booths

at the Mall

[undeterred]

145. A 51 year old male who is Mayor of a large city in Wisconsin

was arrested this week for soliciting sex with someone online who he believed to be a 14 year old girl. (See my post in the Wisconsin forum.) He asked her for pictures of herself and was planning to meet the girl at a shopping mall, buy her some lingerie, and take her to a hotel. Instead he was arrested.

His computer was found to have 1800 online chat sessions. Also pics of naked girls as young as 10. I wonder how many underaged girls he actually had sex with, and how many sent him pictures- and who he sent those to.

This is why its so dangerous- because pictures of teens and children will get into the hands of adults who will exploit them. The child shouldn't be punished with a juvenile criminal record, but it should be against the law.

[gollygee]

147. Should the teen girl be arrested?

Of course it's dangerous. If a teen girl sends her own photo out, should SHE be arrested for distribution of pornography? This isn't about a 51-year-old man.

[undeterred]

149. In this case there was no girl- it was a state agent.

But it wouldn't be a bad idea for girls who do this to be afraid of the consequences. I'm not sure what those should be, but it should be illegal.

[gollygee]

151. This article is about them being arrested under current child porn laws

which have mandatory sentences and sex offender registry reporting. That is overkill. Personally, I think the embarrassment of having a nude photo out in the world is punishment enough (too much punishment really, but her own fault), and the parents can ground her and take away her cell phone and computer access to make sure it doesn't happen again. I don't see why everything has to be handled by laws.

[TheKentuckian]

163. The nanny state strikes again

Laws to protect you from yourself are fucking stupid. Simple as that. If a teenage girl ends up all over the net then she'll have to deal with those consequences but that is more than enough. The law that dictates that you are in possession of child porn, even if you'd have no way to know it is also brain dead overkill and should be stricken. This isn't ignorance of the law but inability to verify/dependent on provider sources to verify. The burden of proof should never be reduced, even to protect children. Sorry, but I don't buy into it a bit. Deal with the producers of content and with taking down content that authorities know is illegal. If the kid produces the content in question they learn a lesson and it can be taken down when it is caught. If that's not enough for parents then they should take responsibility for being parents instead of depending on Uncle Sam to raise their kids.

[ismnotwasm]

164. It is happening

I was attending a conference a couple of years ago. One of the speakers was an expert nurse witness on child development, she had to view thousands of pictures of child pornography and give opinion on age. Generally, it's under judging whether the victim is under 18 or under 12. Horrible, horrible stories. Child porn collectors have little closed societies, and are not always easy to find.

Anyway, she mentioned this topic. She told a story of a 14 year old boy who got prosecuted for posting a picture on the internet of a 14 year old girl performing a sex act on him.

He was prosecuted. And if I recall right, had to register as a sex offender.

I don't know what the answer is, but teenagers are not adults, their brains haven't developed all the judgment skills of an adult, they are still developing sexually, no matter what they're texting or doing. That needs to be taken into consideration. It's not cool for kids to act out sexually in public, there needs to some sort of boundary's and guidelines. Some sort of consequences. What's also shitty is when it's done to humiliate another human being in such a widely broadcasted way.

But, Dumping these kids in the category of "child pornographer" does NOT help catch or prosecute the sick Adults indulging themselves. In fact, from what I understand, a lot of child pornography is lifted from available sources on the internet, used, or photoshopped into use-- what have you.

[varkam]

167. I agree that these laws need a heaping-helping of sanity.

Even with respect to adults who engage in this sort of thing, Justice has kind of run off the rails and it's probably doing more harm than good.