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.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Bob V, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 3:46am

    As another thought

    One thought stuck me. What was the school doing going through the students phone to find the photos in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Kevin, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:38am

      Re: As another thought

      One thought stuck me. What was the school doing going through the students phone to find the photos in the first place.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        redhed, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:31am

        Re: As another thought

        Perhaps the teached should be charged with posession of child porn as well.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Ame, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 12:37pm

          Re: the teached should be charged with posession of child porn as well.

          That's a great idea! As soon as the teacher took that phone with pictures in his/her hands he/she is "in possession of" CP! The teens should use that fact in court citing unfair treatment (they are being sued and the teacher is not)!

          An the school officials will know better next time!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 11:55am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        > some of the images were sent during class. When the
        > 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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mike, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:48am

      Re: As another thought

      If you read the article, they confiscated the phone because it's in violation of school rules to use them.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Richard Ahlquist (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:23am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        the sad part is that will continue to be until countless kids are killed in one of these massacres where nobody can make a call. Schools have become a heaven for those with Napoleonic dreams of control and dictatorship.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Charlie, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:48am

      Re: As another thought

      The school had every right to go through the phone. At that age kids do not and should not have a right to privacy unless they are in the bathroom or showering. They should be watched nearly all the time. Obviously their parents arent doing THEIR job by monitoring what the kids are doing so the school has to pick up the slack. What needs to happen is to make it illegal for anyone under 18 to own a cell phone. We didnt need them when we grew up and they dont need them now., And before you start pulling out the tired old argument about what happens if there is an emergency at home crap. The schools have plenty of land lines a parent can call.99% of kids that have cell phones use them for nothing more than texting, playing games, and taking pictures, when they SHOULD be LEARNING in class

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:07am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        i think its pretty silly to suggest that you should invade privacy of anyone and go through their phone, no one should have that right. its also silly to try and take away a teen's phone, you couldnt police it and it wouldnt stop anything. the issue isnt that they arent learning, its the photos, which they will send on the internet, and if all else fails, they will just do it in person.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          AJ, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:24am

          Re: Re: Re: As another thought

          The courts have ruled time and again that public schools can limit speech, enforce dress codes, search without warrant and can violate certain privacys of students in the interest of maintaining order and discipline in schools. Schools regularly use drug sniffing dogs and open lockers to search for illegal substances. As far as I know, they do it without warrant. It has also been ruled legal for schools to ban things like cell phones which potentially bring disorder to the school. School officials also are now requiring see-through backpacks, metal detectors, drug screenings etc. I'm with Bob... where are the parents?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DCX2, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:54am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        With that style of parenting, it's a wonder that teenagers can adjust to the real world once Big Father isn't around anymore.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Ima Fish, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:59am

          Re: Re: Re: As another thought

          "no privacy and no rights"

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            DCX2, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:31am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: As another thought

            I think you misunderstand the context of my reply. The individual above believes that minors should be monitored almost 24/7, and given no privacy save "bathroom and shower".

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Jeff (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:13am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: As another thought

            So, then it is totally acceptable for your employer to search through your cell phone, briefcase, etc. I think most would take exception to that. I know I would, and I work as a contractor to the DoE which has more stringent restrictions than private sector.

            While I agree with some of what has been said, I think that at times it goes too far and becomes detrimental.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DanC, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:40am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        What needs to happen is to make it illegal for anyone under 18 to own a cell phone.

        While I'm not a fan of cell phones in schools, I find calls to legislate away the rights of parents particularly disturbing.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Jim, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:34am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        Charlie, that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard; restricting cell phones to 18+. I could sit here and argue, but I think it would be falling on deaf ears.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        You never know, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:31am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        Charlie, you are an idiot.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        eztrigger, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:49am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        Really? Can't it also be said that YOU, the adult, don't need your cell phone now? Use a land line! Its about convenience, not necessity. Besides, are you going to take away email and IM and the internet because they don't NEED them? Ridiculous. Educate your children and trust them. Don't shelter them and leave them unprepared for this world. You are creating the worlds future victims and should be ashamed!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        usmcdvldg, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:50am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        Your statement is DUMB on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.

        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!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        BTR1701, Jan 22nd, 2009 @ 12:13pm

        Re: Re: As another thought

        > The school had every right to go through
        > 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.)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Tiren, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 2:20am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        ARE YOU STUPID?! Kids arent always at school or at home! What if they go to a mall or a park or theres a black out! Say theres a 15 year old girl walking home from school and shes attacked by a rapist. Then dragged to a dark secluded place then she manages to get away and then.....what! Run and hope he wont catch up to her? Cell phones arent that bad. Which seems out of place? Marajuana, cocain, heroine, knives, guns, cell phones

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:43am

      Re: As another thought

      That's not even a real question Bob. It's obvious the boys were showing it to their friends or playing with the phone instead of paying attention and the teacher/hall monitor took a glance to see what the fuss was about in case it was something inappropriate for school and found the photo brought up on the screen.

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Jeff (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:19am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        I agree wholeheartedly.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        nasch, Jan 21st, 2009 @ 8:41am

        Re: Re: As another thought

        You have to have a victim to have a crime.

        You must be new here*.

        * "here" meaning the United States

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Tiren, Jan 29th, 2009 @ 1:05am

      Re: As another thought

      Seriously isnt it also illegal to go through someones email and other personal stuff like that

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    AC, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 3:48am

    Doesn't make sense

    So if a teen engages in solo something.... it's molestation?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2009 @ 4:22pm

      Re: Doesn't make sense

      Yes! nobody can touch them self before they turn 20 and absolutely not look in a mirror with out clothes. if so thay go to jail!! Jk. serusly! this world are so crazy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Shohat, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 3:59am

    Head exploded

    The amount of analogies, examples and metaphors that I can provide to show how profoundly idiotic the case is, has never been so overwhelming.

    This... is ... a... masterpiece.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:03am

    Just to take the other side for a moment; if something is illegal for an adult to do why wouldn't it be illegal for a kid to do? Though there are things that are illegal for kids to do (drink, drive, buy tobacco, etc) that are legal for adults to do. Of course a teen doing stuff like this is not the same as adults viewing child porn. The motivation is completely different. But how do you apply the law differently? It would need to be written with age exclusions like the drinking and driving laws. But then what happens when an enterprising teen sells photos of themselves to adults?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Doug, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:18am

      Re:

      There is nothing illegal about an adult taking naked photos of themselves. If the teens were taking photos of other underage people for exploitative purposes it would make sense, but taking naked photos of yourself cannot be classified as child porn.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      joe, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:26am

      Re:

      because... with an adult, there's another person involved.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Bob, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:43am

        Re: Re:

        Well apparently their parents arent doing a very good job at parenting them if they are doing stuff like this so the government might as well step in and be a parent. There is no excuse for this type of behavior at that age. There once was a time that people wore chastity belts until they were of age or married. Perhaps we should go back to something like that to control these perverse teens with bad parents. Kids didnt do crap like this back in the 50s when parents actually wanted to be parents to their kids instead of friends.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Falindraun, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:59am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Kids didn't do crap like this back in the '50s"

          Oh ok you keep telling yourself that.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          CastorTroy-Libertarian, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Guess you dont remember the Swinging 60's where the the kids and young adults tossed the repression and made todays kids seem like puritans....

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jeff (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:28am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Kids didn't do crap like this back in the 50s...

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Michael Langford, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:09am

          Re: Re: Re:

          no, in the 50's they succumbed to their curiosity in person, and then had teen girls sent away to have there baby's... there is little difference in actual sexual behaviour between then and now, I think you might be pining for the "good ol days" for the wrong reasons.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Kevin, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 1:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          There once was a time that people wore chastity belts until they were of age or married. Perhaps we should go back to something like that to control these perverse teens with bad parents. Kids didnt do crap like this back in the 50s when parents actually wanted to be parents to their kids instead of friends.,br>
          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          ghdf, Oct 13th, 2009 @ 1:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          u are a fucking idiot. i will send all the nude pics i want fuckface bitch....so shut the fuck up with your stupid ass name.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Mike, Oct 27th, 2009 @ 7:28pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Oh yes we did!

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      AJ, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:41am

      What's next

      So I can hire a bunch of underage kids, get them to take pictures of themselves nude, and then set up a website offshore and sell them? Apparently they've done nothing wrong. Therefore the pictures are legal and should be available for sale. After all, they're just kids...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Mike, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:50am

        Re: What's next

        It's different if you hired them, you see. That makes you a conspirator. Therefore you ARE part of the crime, and kids would be a victim. Making this a non-victimless crime.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Adam, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:34am

        Re: What's next

        Your scenario is exploitation and profiting from nude pictures of kids. This was done between peers. That's a pretty big difference. Anyway, I don't see how they can call it child porn, if one of these high school students had committed a murder or an assault involving a weapon, they would be tried as an adult in many cases. So why not apply that here and give them a slap on the wrist, if that?

        America the Puritannical, get over it! Teens do sexual things!! The world doesn't come to an end over it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        What's next is confusing legal language, Feb 4th, 2009 @ 8:06pm

        Re: What's next

        Sigh.. no, no, no, AJ, you've got it wrong. You are an adult (I'm assuming), and, like someone else said, if the point of taking the pictures is to sell them to other adults, then you've crossed the line. If an adult was involved in production, it's got to be coercion, charges, etc, etc. With the adults on the recieving end, it's possession. Not such a terrible crime; they played no part in the making of the material, besides being a market for it, and, let's face it, there's a market for everything these days. What would make for a really interesting case is if minors (16, 17, whatever) took pictures of themselves and sold them to other minors via an offshore company. What then, Big Brother? What then?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Feb 3rd, 2013 @ 12:57am

        Re: What's next

        The part where you ask them to take part is the crime in that scenario, I think. They might not goto jail, but you would.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          yankees992012 (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 1:04pm

          Re: Re: What's next

          we should eliminate age limits altogether, we have to remember age limit laws were invented back in 20's or even earlier. a lot of these laws really don't fit today's society. who says it wrong to have sex at age 15 or 18? not one scientific proof that age has anything to do with human sexuality. yes we all have half theories but not one proof at all shows that 15 is even a child in today's standards? Free countries like America we are allowed to do many things as what adults would do. A true democracy would be eliminating age limits like this and driving limits, drinking limits, and etc. It may be nesscary at one time maybe in 1950's but this is 21st century and to alot of us it sounds ridiculous when you put a limit on age and sex.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DCX2, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:41am

      Re:

      You bring up an excellent point.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        AJ, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:57am

        Re: Re:

        OK, DCX2, but you're saying its ok as long as they're over 12. Why 12? Once you start lowering the age, then you will effectively remove age as a criterion (12 is as arbitrary as 14 or 8) and no age limit can be argued.

        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...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          DCX2, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:15am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Why 12?

          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/

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          CastorTroy-Libertarian, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:20am

          Re: Re: Re:

          So, does that me we the people who elected the people that write and enforce the law should destroy their lives?

          I am sorry but destroying a life to "set and example" is wrong.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            DCX2, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I am sorry but destroying a life to "set and example" is wrong.

            There are some Israelis who disagree with you.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:26am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "There are some Israelis who disagree with you." WTF kinda cheap shot comment is that? Has nothing to do with anything you asshat terrorist lover.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Headbhang, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:09am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Nice idiotic black/white mentality there, coward. So if you don't agree with the largely indiscriminate massacre the Israeli military is doing against Palestinians you are a "terrorist lover". Nice. So the choice is between being a monster-lover or a monster-supporter, huh?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Michael Langford, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:19am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  I guess no one told you your not allowed to disagree with jews...

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 11:41am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Well, if I'm firing thousands of rockets indiscriminately into population centers over a long period of time, why would I not expect some sort retaliation on me or the people around me? Agree or disagree with the Jews, all you need is logic to figure it out.

                    Didn't realize we had so many antisemites on this site.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      DCX2, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 12:48pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Imagine 1.5 million of you are cramped into a piece of land as small as the Gaza Strip, and you had no way to leave, and there wasn't enough food for your children to eat, and the people who are keeping you locked in and starving your children are also taking the land you used to live on.

                      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.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Anonymous Coward, Jan 21st, 2009 @ 8:57am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                        Bla bla bla...I'm an antisemite terrorist supporter...bla bla bla... shoulda just saved yourself the time and wrote that instead. No one's gonna read that windbag pointless retort.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:36pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  So the choice is between being a monster-lover or a monster-supporter, huh? In the Israel v Palestine conflict? Yes, that is the choice

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              CastorTroy-Libertarian, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:11am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Im not Israelie....And we are not talking murder, assualt, profit or any of that garbage, a person sent another person that is their peer a picture of themselves... thats it...

              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...

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        nipseyrussell, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:18am

        Re: Re:

        i think that this is not only NOT "ironic" but almost the opposite of ironic.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:42am

      Re:

      ill digress but not too far.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        chris (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:37am

        Re: Re:

        it's called the creep factor.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jeff (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:48am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Interesting formula. Never heard this one.

          I like it.

          Starts looking at 23 year olds in a new light.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Xiera, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:57am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Actually, xkcd had a comic a while back about this, except it's

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Tamara, Jan 21st, 2009 @ 5:15am

        Re: Re:

        Depends what country you're in. Most countries in the world the age of consent is 16, so perfectly legal for a 40-year old to be with a 17-year old. As far as I know several states in the US and some countries in the middle East are the only countries where the age is 18(for regular sex between 2 members of the opposite sex - some places where it's 16 or lower, have 18 for same sex and some types of sex)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jan 21st, 2009 @ 7:00am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I looked up Pennsylvania's age of consent (AoC) laws, these kids were within 4 years of each other so even though some were under the AoC and some were over, they would legally be able to have sex with each other.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Kevin, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:44am

      Re:

      Just to take the other side for a moment; if something is illegal for an adult to do why wouldn't it be illegal for a kid to do?

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        hegemon13, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:33am

        Re: Re:

        "But it is legal for two 16 year olds to have consensual sex."

        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).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Kevin, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 1:54pm

          Re: 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.

          Which is why I started the post with the comment that laws vary from state to state.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          BTR1701, Jan 22nd, 2009 @ 12:30pm

          Re: Re: Re: Statutory Rape

          > 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.

          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.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:27am

      Re:

      Just to take the other side for a moment; if something is illegal for an adult to do why wouldn't it be illegal for a kid to do? Though there are things that are illegal for kids to do (drink, drive, buy tobacco, etc) that are legal for adults to do. Of course a teen doing stuff like this is not the same as adults viewing child porn. The motivation is completely different. But how do you apply the law differently? It would need to be written with age exclusions like the drinking and driving laws. But then what happens when an enterprising teen sells photos of themselves to adults?

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Loraan, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:59am

      But then what happens when an enterprising teen sells photos of themselves to adults?

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Xiera, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:14am

        Re:

        I'm not sure -- if a teen distributes naked pictures of themselves and profits, it should be considered a crime, regardless of the audience.

        In the relevant case, however, it does not seem like the teens are profiting so there should be no crime.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ame, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 12:17pm

      Re: if something is illegal for an adult to do why wouldn't it be illegal for a kid to do?

      e.g.: having sex with a minor (say 17 yo). For an adult it is a molestation charges. For a minor (of 17 yo) it is not.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jesse, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 12:37pm

      Re:

      "if something is illegal for an adult to do why wouldn't it be illegal for a kid to do?"

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Meh, Jan 22nd, 2009 @ 6:51am

      Re:

      Isn't the point that Adults can view naked pictures of other adults because there is consent involved, and a full understanding. Kids can see pictures of naked kids because they don't view them in the same way as adults would, seeing how they most probably lack the experience which makes a nude picture so evocative for an adult.

      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...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      cc, Nov 11th, 2010 @ 1:57pm

      Re:

      The thing is though, it is not illegal for adults to send nude pictures of themselves to other adults. It would be illegal for them to send them to children, and for children to send nude photos to adults but you cannot just say it is illegal for an adult over 18 to look at a picture of a nude child and then charge the child with viewing another child of the same age...it's ridiculous!
      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. :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Crazy Fool, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:13am

    This is crazy boys and girls do stuff like that at arround their age, I think they need to sort themselfs out and start looking for the dirty pervs out there on the street.
    Not kids who are taking small steps into becoming adults and learnign about the human anatomy themselfs.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    boneheads, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:16am

    These individuals are just children. The article said there probably won't even be jail time if convicted. Plus once they "become an adult" their juvenile record is supposed to be sealed anyway, I would expect that at that point they no longer have to register as sex offenders. So if anything they are having the Sh*t scared out of them an hopefully will think things through... ya know, so that they don't get caught as adults.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Kevin, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:56am

      Re:

      These individuals are just children. The article said there probably won't even be jail time if convicted. Plus once they "become an adult" their juvenile record is supposed to be sealed anyway, I would expect that at that point they no longer have to register as sex offenders.

      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?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        TL, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:44am

        Re: Re: sex offender

        I agree that the punishment (of being labeled sex offenders for life) doesn't fit the crime (of sending nude pictures of oneself as a minor). It's far too severe.
        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard Ahlquist (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:20am

      Re:

      Their record would be sealed if they commit no other crimes. One additional misdemeanor and its part of their permanent record. Of course being a felony sex crime it may be permanent anyway.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      anon, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:42am

      Re:

      whether the have to register as a sex offender when they are adults is a state by state issue.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:29am

      Re:

      Won't get caught as adults... taking pictures of themselves? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Loraan, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:02am

      Re:

      I would expect that at that point they no longer have to register as sex offenders.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ToySouljah, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 12:13pm

      Re:

      "convictions would have "serious, serious implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual offenders for at least 10 years."

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Mom of a teen, Oct 30th, 2009 @ 8:10pm

      Re:

      Unfortunately that is not true. Most teens convicted of a sexual crime as a minor are still considered sex offenders as adults and still have to register, etc. I know in my state a young man of 17 had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and is not 25 and still must register as a sex offender because her mother found out about it and called police (she was less than 2 months from turning 16 and he was 2 weeks past his 17th birthday)..so they were 14 months apart. Shouldnt have happened, it did (it does) and he shouldnt have been convicted, but was. CRAZY

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Gyffes, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:21am

    so...

    ala the masturbation question: do we charge a kid with "child abuse" for smacking themselves in the head?

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      asdf, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:23am

      Re: so...

      I know as far as the federal government is concerned they don't care how it got there. If I hack your computer and drop in a gig of CP and call the cops, you go to jail.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:30am

        Re: Re: so...

        I believe "I was hacked" has been used as a successful defense in such cases, but don't quote me on it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mike allen, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:38am

    kids

    At their age they are doing what thousands of teens do at that age
    to use such a large stick is way over the top. why did the school go through the phone in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Twinrova, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:40am

    Comment in the source: Welcome to Government Control, #425876

    "Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nobody, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:59am

    Statutory Rape

    Actually, it is illegal for two teens, under the proper age of consent for their state (different states have different ages), to have sex with each other.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Washii, Jan 24th, 2009 @ 10:49pm

      Re: Statutory Rape

      While this is a horribly late reply and someone else has already commented on this, I would just like to bring it up again:

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 4:59am

    simple solution:

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      none of ur business, Feb 4th, 2010 @ 4:08pm

      Re:

      what ever, kids and teens do need texting in case of if you cant get a hold of your parents or guardians, and # 1 why do u need a cell phone for? u could do the same thing as a teen, say for instance you can take pics of teens and put it on your phone and u will be in trouble just like all teens would. so think about what u say. and 2nd of all who cares if a teen sends nudity pictures of their body to lets say to one of there boyfriends or who ever. its not like there going out and having sex their just pictures.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:20am

    LAWL!

    "Kids didn't do crap like this back in the '50s"

    According to statistics, they did this more back then. You just never heard about it because it was taboo to even talk about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      JK, Nov 18th, 2009 @ 5:26pm

      About the 50s

      Back when women wore chasity belts the average age for marraige was around 13 or 14. Women use to be considered adults when they started ovulating back in chasity belt times.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ARuffNeckBrotha, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:39am

    Kids Will Be Kids

    Sometimes we tend to throw out the baby with the bath water in our attempts to do proportedly, "what is right".

    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.....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      You never know, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 1:53pm

      Re: Kids Will Be Kids

      Well said ARuffNeckBrotha. By the way, the kids call it “Sexting”. As for the school confiscating personal items for what ever reason, I do agree with, but searching the contents should be the parents responsibility, if anyone but the parents searches some ones cell phone/MP3 player, PDA or notebook, it is an invasion of privacy for not only the child but the entire family, and in this case multiple families. Any evidence should be deemed inadmissible as it was gathered with out a warrant. No, I do not condone this type of behavior in teens under legal age but every psychologist out there will tell you this is perfectly normal behavior and to be expected. That being said, I believe the state has no right to publicly embarrass the kids and families (yes I did mean that as a plural) and ruin the Childs future by being tagged a sex offender. Correction and discipline in this type of case should be at the parental level.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ima Fish, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 5:54am

    "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."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DueDoe, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:21am

      Re: pornographer

      Is a nude photo pornographer per se?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Headbhang, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:16am

      Re:

      This is exactly why you shouldn't put a monkey (or a fish) in law enforcement. They are unable to see laws as a means to an end (which is what ultimately matters) rather than ends of themselves.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Xiera, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 10:15am

      Re:

      So a teenager sees herself naked in the mirror and there's no problem, but if she takes a picture of herself naked, there is?

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Kevin, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 1:56pm

      Re:

      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.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      I should tell you this..... why?, Sep 17th, 2010 @ 8:54pm

      Re:

      That, my friend, is NOT a good analogy. It isn't the DISTRIBUTION, it is WHAT is being distributed. And how does it not matter if they are pictures of THEMSELVES? If a child feels like taking a nude photo of themselves (For whatever reason) they are in possesion of Child Porn? I find that idiotic.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    sniperdoc (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:00am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      amalyn, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:15am

      Re: I don't think most of you all get it...

      "It's NOT ok for someone to OWN nude images of minors PERIOD"

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ima Fish, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:30am

      Re: I don't think most of you all get it...

      Agreed. Perfectly argued.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Xiera, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:53am

      Re: I don't think most of you all get it...

      I don't think *you* 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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        sniperdoc (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 10:49am

        Re: Re: I don't think most of you all get it...

        Wow you just sound creepy there... maybe the cops need to visit your PC.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Xiera, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 2:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: I don't think most of you all get it...

          Heh. They can visit my PC, there's nothing there.

          Sorry if I came off as creepy, as just trying to make a point.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    IT Dude, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 6:51am

    Good

    These girls should be prosecuted with this law simply because anyone they send these images to CAN be prosecuted. Lets say they were sending it to a friend of theirs but they dialed the wrong number and YOU got it. You would be locked up for something you were not guilty of. If its that easy for an adult to get prosecuted its only fair the kids who make it are prosecuted as well.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      sniperdoc (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:14am

      Re: Good

      Thank god I'm not the only one that seems to have a realistic view on the matter. Reading these responses on this page it almost looks as if child porn traffickers are trying to defend the kids that they prey on... man there's some scewed individuals out there!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Headbhang, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:27am

        Re: Re: Good

        Ah, don't you get it? Society should only protect chaste and innocent children!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Xiera, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 2:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: Good

          "Ah, don't you get it? Society should only protect chaste and innocent children!"

          Society shouldn't protect anyone from themselves...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    DCX2, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:13am

    A sort of Streisand effect

    I was just thinking, how many people do I know who have been publicly embarrassed by naked pictures? I can't think of a single one. Does anyone here know of anyone was, besides celebrities?

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      sniperdoc (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:36am

      Re: A sort of Streisand effect

      Sure... gotta be a teen or child porn individual there with that comment.

      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!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Headbhang, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:41am

        Re: Re: A sort of Streisand effect

        Yay, let's all be nice and chaste to please our corporate overlords!

        "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!"

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DCX2, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 1:01pm

        Re: Re: A sort of Streisand effect

        What a disgusting troll. Just FYI, I hate kids and I'm not even sure I want to have any. I wonder what kind of person you are, to be able to accuse people you don't know of being the worst kind of pervert. Defending these teenagers from prosecution under child porn laws is not the same as being a pedophile.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    CrackedBell, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:14am

    Stupid is as Stupid does!

    Who's the prosecutor in this case, Mike Nifong Jr.? Is this person up for re-election? Why would some prosecutor try this bonehead idea out? First of all, what the kids did is absolutely stupid beyond stupid. But kids do stupid things! What they don't realize is these pictures will never be able to be taken off the net, they will float around for years, remember that all you Facebook and Myspace people, the pictures you put on the net will come back like a bad rash for pretty much your entire life.

    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!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      You never know, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 2:54pm

      Re: Stupid is as Stupid does!

      AMEN! It's a clear case of some one going for his/her 15 minutes of fame at the expense of some kids doing stupid things like all kids do. By the way, In my day, we stole Dads Playboy mags and hid out in the old barn. Same idea, just different technology...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Fathers, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:44am

    Give me a break

    This is the most outrageous thing I have read in a while. The government needs to stop trying to police our kids. The parents need to get involved in their childrens lives. And the easiest way to solve the problem, TAKE THE DAMN CELL PHONES AWAY! You know this seems like a simple case of over reacting. Kids will be kids, these kids need to be grounded, not registered as sex offeneders!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Diane, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:48am

    I do find it very interesting that so many are quick to ask where are the parents and many just as quick to suggest or outright state how bad they are also. In a society where both parents tend to work, or many even work more than one job and not even just the traditional hours but also evenings, weekends and afternoons just to make ends mean those statements are extreme to say the least since there is NO mention that the parents themselves are being held responsible.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Xiera, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:51am

    Stupid kids...

    Don't they know they can lock their cell phones? Sure it's inconvenient, but it would have saved them the larger inconvenience of this case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      You never know, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 3:37pm

      Re: Stupid kids...

      From what I heard on the news last night, the kids were discovered in the process of sharing the photos back and forth. It wouldn’t have mattered if the kids locked their phones or not, the faculty would have forced them to unlock them and search any way (personal experience with my kid, only she has pictures of the family pets). They have the altitude that they can do anything they want in the name of “Protecting the children!” Yes I am soap boxing but it pisses me off when anyone hurts my kid (or tries to)just to get their jolly’s!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 7:58am

    After reading all the posting it is very easy to understand the Salem Witchcraft trials and their being burned at the stake.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    MediaEmpyre, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:18am

    I happen to live in this area. I pretty much look at it as some over zealous prosecutors looking for a chance to check out some teen porn. Cause you have to display it in court you know, just to make sure it's what we think it is.
    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

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 8:35am

    Maybe someone can get these girls to send their photos to RIAA and MPAA lawyers. Then we'll see some real child porn cases.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:03am

    3 things

    One, the teacher who confiscated the phones with the "evidence" became in posession of them at that point. If you can get charged for victimizing yourself (or whatever other retarded logic is going on in the primary case) I hope the bastard who took the phones and saw the pictures gets labeled as a sex offender too. I mean, he was in possession of the phones, and much like the other teens who received the pictures, he unknowingly and unwilfully viewed them. If those guys are sex offenders, he's a double sex offender for gathering the phones (i.e. hording some child porn.)

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael Langford, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:15am

    missing the real point

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Michael Langford, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:18am

    Real point

    Why is it that any any all nudity is now called "porn"? Its a little backwards that the supposed civilized nation of the US thinks nudity is a bad thing and labels it dirty, but violence and murder on tv or in print is fine? A naked body is not porn, its natural and normal, the countries that label it perverse are the ones with the highest teen pregnancy rates, higher AID's rates, and things like this garbage. You puritanicals are making this kind of thing happen, and the harder you try to suppress it the more it will be a problem. Get a grip.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    some random guy, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:35am

    gotta pay the price

    if these kids are sex offenders, does that mean they have to stay at least 500 feet away from a school zone? That's reason enough for them to do the crime!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    MediaEmpyre, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 9:55am

    According to the laws to save children from nudity and pornography and sex offenders, if Joseph and Mary were alive today, he'd be in jail for molesting a child.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Trent Orzechowski, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 10:13am

    Teens Face Child Porn Charges. . .

    This is absolutely retarded, the only logical reason for charging these people would be that the state just simply makes some kind of profit. No matter what your age is if it's your body you have every rite to not only take pictures of yourself (whatever nature tey may be); and anything else that you find acceptable for yourself. I think whover came up with the charges should be charged with deflamtion of character; those kids are going to be punished for the rest of their lives for doing absolutely nothing wrong. These charges should be dropped immediately, and it sickens me that their has been no public outcry.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 10:44am

    Welcome to the American inquisition.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    sniperdoc (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 10:46am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      DMNTD, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 12:22pm

      Re: The real issue at hand...

      Kids/teens don't get it...I don't think anyone denies that. In fact we admit it, THATS why it does not MATTER in these lawful terms WHAT they do. They are allowed to do strange and unexplainable things and then told why it was wrong or why its no big deal..LEARN even. Some just choose the harder lessons but that does not make them a demon. This is a circumstantial matter not a lawful one.

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        sniperdoc (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 1:31pm

        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

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2009 @ 4:50pm

      Re: The real issue at hand...

      When did everyone start saying ANYWAYS???
      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    PRMan, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 11:46am

    Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

    "According to the laws to save children from nudity and pornography and sex offenders, if Joseph and Mary were alive today, he'd be in jail for molesting a child."

    I swear, your honor, I never touched her. She became pregnant miraculously by the Holy Spirit!

    Yeah, sure. Lock him up...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      sniperdoc (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 12:24pm

      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        DCX2, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 1:05pm

        Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

        Look at you, pretending you're all righteous. Good job exploiting the word "children" when in fact the appropriate words are adolescent, teenager, or minor. No, we can't use the correct word because it doesn't sound as scary and we want to put this other guy over the Internet down and make him feel dirty.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          sniperdoc (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 1:12pm

          Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

          I'm just calling it as I see it. They're CHILDREN that's that... until they're 18 they cannot make their own decisions. PERIOD. Hence contracts are NOT binding when under-age.

          Anything else?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 1:22pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

            how about that in many (dare I say most?) states you can sign legally binding contracts before you are 18?

            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.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              sniperdoc (profile), Jan 20th, 2009 @ 2:03pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

              1. Unemancipated minors no. Their contracts are not binding.
              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.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 2:19pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

                Do I agree with it...? It doesn't matter. It's the law.

                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?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Xiera, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 2:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Joseph wouldn't have a very good defense, either

                Yes, the law is the law, but when the law is wrong, it should be challenged -- that's one of the many wonders of this country and our political institution. I suppose we could all follow in your footsteps and sit idly by and accept the law as-is. Or, if we don't like something we can b**** and moan. Clearly, many of us choose the latter.

                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.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 20th, 2009 @ 11:56pm

    United States of Retards

    This story reminds me of a case of two minors, a girl and her brother from Austria or Switzerland (forget the detail). The family was on vacation in the USA, not long ago. The young children were seen playing doctor. The boy was charged with incest and arrested! The parents quickly got their daughter out of the country, and then with diplomatic efforts they finally managed to get their son released.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bryan Price, Jan 21st, 2009 @ 3:39pm

    I've already caught one of my kids doing this

    When I was dating my wife, I bought a web cam so that we could see each other (although we both had dial up...) and found out that one of her kids took a picture of himself with his pants down to pass around to some of the "girls" that he was chatting with. I told him that they weren't necessarily girls (one of the reasons his dad got divorced over his propensity to act as a female in IMs and group chats, which he did know about) and that it was illegal.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rekrul, Jan 21st, 2009 @ 9:22pm

    The real issue at hand...

    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!"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    BTR17101, Jan 22nd, 2009 @ 12:05pm

    Fantastic

    This hysteria over child porn and attendant trampling of every freedom and guaranteed right in the name of “protecting the children” has now reached ludicrous heights. We’re now locking up the children in the name of protecting the children. Having a criminal record will be albatross enough for these kids to deal with in the future but to also have to register as sex offenders wherever they go for the rest of their lives— for this? We’ve lost our collective sanity.

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jan 31st, 2009 @ 4:18pm

    Serusly the girls took pictures of them selfs (I did that to in there age). so is that forbidden to? nobody got harmed it is just a nude body. And it is not the boys fault for getting that mms. usa are so fare from natural. The world will get so crazy soon if it get influenced more by usa.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    alex, Jul 9th, 2009 @ 3:00pm

    stupidity

    This whole "sexting" and child porn thing is out of hand. Kids shouldn't labeled as sex offenders like they are! Its ridiculous! If kids are aloud to have sex with each other and not be convicted then why this? This must change soon, its gone far too far!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    tumay, Aug 22nd, 2009 @ 7:59pm

    tu may

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Chris, Nov 20th, 2009 @ 4:45pm

    The hysterical reactionary morons think that the tougher you get and the wider net you cast, the more you are doing to prevent these "sins". It's the same thing with drunk driving. They ignore the multitude of other things that cause dangerous driving and focus only on the "sin" of drinking.
    We have religious fanatics shaping our laws. And they are not very bright at all.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    ali, Jan 27th, 2010 @ 7:11pm

    that is good begining!

    it is very good and other girls and boys must do it.
    nudity and even other sexuall activity whether as sexuall explicit or not is good

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 20th, 2010 @ 11:44pm

    ass

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 6th, 2010 @ 11:33am

    why not they get to due whatever they want laws are laws so if broken dont cast the age thing sex is sex so let the law be or change the stupid laws

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    joe, Aug 10th, 2011 @ 9:10am

    bob

    Sir you are horribly mistaken if you think teens weren't having sex with each other in the 50's I know quite a few people who had kids when they were quite young back then... Maybe not 15 but 16, 17, 18 yes ... They would get married right out of high school.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Chris M., Dec 17th, 2011 @ 2:15pm

    Nude teens is NOT child porn

    I'm sorry, but I do not understand what everyones fascination is with teens being nude. Teenagers are not children. They are young adults, perfectly capable of doing what they want. While they are minors in the eyes of the law, for centuries teenagers have been engaged in adult things: bearing children, starting families, hunting and foraging... Only in today's society do we make a big deal about the nude teen. Who cares! I happen to like nude teens, and if I have a few pictures of some nude teens that does not mean I am a monster.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Qwerty, Apr 5th, 2012 @ 12:08pm

    Say there a fight at school, two males, they punch and puch, then they get suspended not accused of child abuse. A 40 year old beats on a high school kid. Now it's child abuse. It should be the same for child porn laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      yankees992012 (profile), Feb 4th, 2013 @ 1:24pm

      Re:

      i agree, so many our laws don't even make sense in today's standards. and we seemed to allow a closed minded society to control what we can or cant do. on one of my post stated that there's no scientific evidence anywhere that definition of a child is under age of 18, it the closed minded society made that up and forced it will on us. we will always have this problem unless we tell these closed minded society "NO" thank you

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    No, Dec 25th, 2012 @ 3:20pm

    This

    When I was young in high school. Girls and boys had sex and shared photos. As do adults I wasn't molested just 16 and horny and curious. Fuck you closed minded fools... It should be illegal for 50plus people to share nude pics

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This