'Hundreds' Of Teens Found Sexting At A Single School And Everyone Seems Unsure Of How To Proceed

from the how-about-'toss-it-back-to-the-parents-and-let-them-handle-it?' dept

A smallish town in Colorado is home to the teen sexting apocalypse. Something that first appeared to be limited to the football team now apparently involves almost half of Canon City High School's student body.

Superintendent of Canon City High School, George Welsh estimates that half the school is involved. That's about 500 students based on the initial stages of the investigation. Some eighth graders may also be involved.
That estimate given by Welsh has since been revised down to "certainly over 100 different kids," which is still a rather large number of students to suspend and (possibly) bring criminal charges against. Yet that's what Welsh feels should happen.
Right now their punishments are undecided but Welsh said they will likely be suspended and face criminal charges. Because posting nude photos is a class three felony, the students involved could be placed on the sex offender registry.
The Canon City Sex Offenders. Catchy, but also horrific and bound to be the least popular choice for new school mascot. Fortunately, the district attorney doesn't believe the path should lead through the local criminal court.
“Consenting adults can do this to their hearts’ content,” said Thom LeDoux, the district attorney, but “if the subject is under the age of 18, that’s a problem.”

He added that he was not interested in arresting hundreds of children and would “use discretion” if he decided to file charges.
This is a far more rational response than we're used to, although LeDoux reserving the right to "use discretion" suggests at least a few of these hundreds of students may end up on the sex offender registry. Especially with this added remark.
Mr. LeDoux, the district attorney, said the investigation would look into whether any adults were involved, whether children were bullied into participating, and whether any illegal sexual contact occurred.
As LeDoux pointed out, if everyone was over 18, all of this would be legal. But the ages of those involved invokes statutes ill-equipped to handle this sort of sexual activity by minors. Under Colorado law, any person under the age of 18 is considered a "child" for the sake of child pornography prosecutions. This means the only thing LeDoux has to do is find a few "adults" within the student body.
The general assembly hereby finds and declares: That the sexual exploitation of children constitutes a wrongful invasion of the child's right of privacy and results in social, developmental, and emotional injury to the child; that a child below the age of eighteen years is incapable of giving informed consent to the use of his or her body for a sexual purpose; and that to protect children from sexual exploitation it is necessary to prohibit the production of material which involves or is derived from such exploitation and to exclude all such material from the channels of trade and commerce.
The relevant portions of the statute would treat sexting as the production and distribution of child pornograpy. If it will be used to charge teens with sexually exploiting themselves (because they cannot give informed consent, even when photographing themselves) remains to be seen. The law, like those in other states, offers no guidance on how to proceed if the creators and recipients of the images are under the age of 18. This is where the prosecutorial discretion comes into play. A few convenient 18-year-olds would make for useful scapegoats should the community unite behind the move to prosecute its way out of this "embarassment."

Court decisions clarifying Colorado's statutes add even more bad news.
Evidence that a person has knowingly received prohibited material in an e-mail could be accepted as proof that the person knowingly possessed the material, because a person who knowingly receives an e-mail is aware of the nature of its content and has immediate and knowing dominion or control over it. Fabiano v. Armstrong, 141 P.3d 907 (Colo. App. 2006).
If read directly, this means students who received unsolicited photos from other students could be found guilty of possession. Even deleting the unwanted photos is of limited defensive use.
The presence of digital images in an internet cache can constitute evidence of a prior act of possession. There was enough evidence that the jury could infer that the defendant knowingly viewed the images in the internet cache. People v. Marsh, -- P.3d -- (Colo. App. 2011).
If the DA decides some charges are warranted, these will be the laws used and they cannot be adapted to fit this situation without a significant amount of imagination and collateral damage.

For now, though, there's been far more restraint exercised than has been exhibited by others in the same situation. Unfortunately, I get the feeling this restraint is more prompted by the sheer scale of the situation, rather than a realization that child porn/sexual assault laws were never written to address this sort of thing. In cases where the sexting has only involved a handful of individuals, school administration and law enforcement have moved far more swiftly and reacted more harshly.

Filed Under: canon city, colorado, high school, sexting, students


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 10:47am

    Put Bars on the School

    Just put some fucking Bars on the school and lock all of those little bastards right in there and force their parents to sue to get them out.

    I really hope these prosecutors just nail them to the wall. Then, and MAYBE then... will all of these fucking "Adults" figure out that all the people they have been voting for are not their friends and do not give even a little shit about their kids or the future of the nation.

    I am beginning to think that the only adults in society are made of legend now.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:05am

      Re: Put Bars on the School

      Are you an adult?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:26am

        Re: Re: Put Bars on the School

        Sadly... no... have yet to find any either.

        And for the record I think this entire problem is bullshit. Kids are kids, they are going to be doing stupid shit... it's just what they do.

        However, it seems that it takes a lot of terrible things to happen to get people to realize just how fucked up things are getting with their own government. So the best thing is for government to slip up, so that the people will come down extra hard to prevent this bullshit from happening again.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2015 @ 2:51am

        Re: Re: Put Bars on the School

        for the last 5 THOUSAND years
        humans have been considered adults above the ages between 12 to 14 years,
        after WWII our imported nazis and similar minded "experts" from the rest of the world decided to:
        -perpetuate childhood
        -implement lifelong learning (so that you do not have to wait generations to change society)

        this is basic history.

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

    • identicon
      OGquaker, 15 Nov 2015 @ 12:24am

      Re: Put Bars on the School

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

      • icon
        LAquaker (profile), 15 Nov 2015 @ 1:04am

        Re: Re: Put Bars on the School

        Actually, five years ago, 'LAPD School Police' locked down Manual Arts H.S. (1,300 children) http://www.mahs.org/ three blocks from here by locking each and every classroom up with the teacher, telling them nothing, and busing one class at a time to the LA Sports Arena during the rest of the day. Unbelievably; no LAPD helicopter was involved!

        Kids were shiting in the class trashcans.
        The 'reason' was that a 'gun' may have been 'seen' by someone.
        (My wife and i found a black nylon 'Tactical' back-up holster lying on the yellow line on Normandie Ave. while this unfolded. I tacked it on the church bulletin board for months, but it was never claimed)
        Those kids who gave their parents phone number were picked up eventually by a 'parent' who could 'prove' custody, many late into the early morning since many parents hold multiple jobs and are 'illegals'.
        This warranted a single paragraph in the Los Angeles Times that week.
        A California child is State owned UNLESS he/she has been awarded to someone by a Superior Court judge. This was told to us by the County Sheriff when i was on the Acton Town Council, and is why California educates ALL it's children.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 10:49am

    Dumbest Law award

    So this means that people can send images to others and then have prosecuted? How about we question why these people are looking at pictures of underage teens. I would not be comfortable with anyone taking my kids phones and searching them. I would like to see if you can charge the people that took the phones and searched them without a court order for these charges and stop worrying about the kids consensual activities.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:36am

      Re: Dumbest Law award

      Probably not if you mark incoming mail from unknown persons as spam and don't open them, especially if they have attachments. I think it would be prudent to extend that to people who don't like you. Where you might have a problem is with people who used to like you but don't anymore and this is their way of telling you.

      Other than that, just what is the criminal act here, unless you requested the email somehow.

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

      • icon
        John David Galt (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:11pm

        Re: Re: Dumbest Law award

        The way the law is written today, possession is a felony, period. Intent is not required. If some hacker in Russia thinks it's funny to write a virus that loads child porn on your computer and then calls the cops on you, you're a felon.

        If the appeals courts had any humanity at all, they'd change that and require proof of intent for any felony conviction. (And put some teeth in the 8th Amendment, so prosecutors couldn't just force you to confess by threatening you with life-without-parole if you go to trial.) But so far, the Supreme Court continues to have a majority of monsters on it.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 7:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: Dumbest Law award

          The way the law is written today, possession is a felony, period. Intent is not required.


          No. That's just not true. You made that up. Federal law in 18 USC Section 2252 says "knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view". And if you're going to claim that a state law says otherwise, I'm going to have to ask you for a citation.

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

          • icon
            W. Vann Hall (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 9:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Dumbest Law award

            Yeah, but 18 USC funny-shaped-S 2252 also describes "producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" -- so it doesn't pertain to the vast majority of 'sexting' photographs, anyway.

            Of course, that doesn't prevent people being charged and convicted for possession of images that, strictly speaking, shouldn't be considered in violation.

            It all comes down to intent -- and all-too-often, the supposed intender's word carries the least weight. (In the relatively few cases that actually make it to trial, that is; when faced with [and regularly reminded of] the fed's phenomenally high conviction rate and shown the sentencing guidelines for a category 33 federal offense, many folks end up taking a plea, no matter how strong or weak the prosecution's case may be.

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

          • identicon
            PRMan, 10 Nov 2015 @ 8:26am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Dumbest Law award

            They just got done saying in the article that if it was deleted immediately, it was proof that you knew you got it.

            What other proof do you need as to how they are going to proceed?

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2015 @ 2:54am

        Re: Re: Dumbest Law award

        let´s test your point:

        you do not mind publishing your email here, do you?

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

    • icon
      Falindraun (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 2:19pm

      Re: Dumbest Law award

      the whole "kids" and "underage" and "below the age of legal age of consent" parts put a gigantic kibosh on the whole "consensual activities" part. you might want to go read up on child pornography laws.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 10:49am

    What a clusterfuck. I'd hope the DA wouldn't bang out any prosecutions, regardless of the mess he has on his hands.

    On a more serious note, part of me is glad these kind of things are happening. It's the ridiculous scale that could challenge conventional thinking to bring things to a more sane level.

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

    • icon
      BW (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:12pm

      Sad to say, but the only REAL way to deal with this is...

      To insist that he prosecute all of them to the fullest extent of the law.

      The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.

      Abraham Lincoln

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

      • icon
        John85851 (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 11:28am

        Re: Sad to say, but the only REAL way to deal with this is...

        I agree, especially when read in this context:
        That's about 500 students based on the initial stages of the investigation.
        So how many total students will this come to?

        As much as it would hurt all the students, I sort-of wish the DA would simply say "Sorry, that's the law and I have to enforce it". Then maybe we'll see some outrage as that town (and school) get the reputation as home to over 500 sex offenders.
        How does it work when you have to tell your neighbors that your son or daughter is now a sex offender when their sons and daughters are also sex offenders?

        And how does getting a job work out when every single one of these kids are now on the sex offender registry and companies aren't allowed to hire them?

        "Sorry, that's the law and it has to be enforced."

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2015 @ 3:00am

          Re: Re: Sad to say, but the only REAL way to deal with this is...

          -the future generation of "Canon City" will never get a job OUTSIDE this city, NEVER.
          -maybe,
          local employers will have to ignore the "child porn" FLAG on every job applicant

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

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 5:55pm

        Re: Sad to say, but the only REAL way to deal with this is...

        I find it difficult to just shrug off the enormous amount of collateral damage to innocent people that results from that course of action.

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

  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 10:55am

    To treat someone who is 18, but still in high school, as an adult is probably the most ridiculous "catch all" in the fiasco.

    Just another example of how laws "to protect the children" rarely do.

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

    • icon
      Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:01am

      Re:

      Wish there was a button for "sad but true".

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

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:54am

      Re:

      To treat someone who is 18, but still in high school, as an adult is probably the most ridiculous "catch all" in the fiasco.


      I disagree. We have to define the legal line between child and adult somewhere. We, as a society, have chosen 18 for that line (for most things). At 18 you can vote, own property, marry, make your own medical choices, serve in the military, etc. Why would you not also be responsible for your own actions at 18 too? Whether you have graduated high school or not is irrelevant here.

      If you are going to argue that 18 is too young to be held responsible for ones' own actions, fine, but you must also argue that it's too young for ALL of the other responsibilities and consequences that come with legally becoming an adult.

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

      • icon
        sigalrm (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:05pm

        Re: Re:

        "We have to define the legal line between child and adult somewhere."

        Well, actually, no, we don't. As a society we've just chosen to do so for the last several decades (at least).

        There are lots of ways the system could be modified to make more sense. But they're not going to happen any time soon.

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

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:27pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well, actually, no, we don't. As a society we've just chosen to do so for the last several decades (at least).

          No, societies have been defining the Age of Majority for quite awhile now. It was part of English common law and our current laws are based upon that. For most countries it is 18.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 5:26pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Zero tolerance is bullshit, what about common sense. I know it is not very common but FFS, this is getting ridiculous.

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

          • icon
            W. Vann Hall (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 8:57pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            In thirty-seven (or thirty-eight, depending on how you count Texas) states, the age of consent is 16 or 17, which means you could have a partner you could legally fuck -- but not photograph.

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

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Nov 2015 @ 12:00am

            Probably because people are stupid (and we didn't have the internet)

            Much the way that the Cartesian system (or thirty-six barleycorns to a foot) were based on multiples of twelve to simplify the math, yeah, it makes sense when people can't compute do decide that on one birthday you get all your rights.

            Except we already don't.

            We can often drive as early as Fourteen. In California, the license is provisional (meaning you can only drive at day, and lose the privilege with very few infractions). The age varies from state to state.

            In the United States, one is eligible for military service and to vote at Eighteen, but sexual consent can be as young as sixteen (I think -- New Mexico used to be the youngest at Thirteen years).

            (And that's normal consenting intercourse with an opposite-sex partner. Many states have differing ages for same-sex partners. There are, obviously different ages for other acts, such as using video. Obviously our amateur porn and sexting laws need some serious adjustment.)

            You can't drink, smoke or gamble until you're 21. In some places they have 1% beer that you can drink at 18. (Classical Root Beer or Sarsaparilla was 2%)

            And then there are many offices you cannot hold until you are 25 or 35 respectively.

            So yeah, once upon a time it made sense that after you came of a certain age or went through a specific ritual that you became an adult, but we already don't have that anymore.

            So to properly embrace a variegated majority system we'd only need a means (or many) by which a person can be informed of their rights and responsibilities as they cross them, such as a schedule that can be dropped into their eCalendar of choice.

            That's feasible at this point.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:13pm

        Re: Re:

        ...If you are going to argue that 18 is too young to be held responsible for ones' own actions, fine, but you must also argue that it's too young for ALL of the other responsibilities and consequences that come with legally becoming an adult...

        In my area 16 year olds can marry with parental consent. I've heard of other areas allowing 14 yo this, again with parental consent. And in other countries - not the US - topless & nude modeling is allowed for as young as 14, in some cases requiring parental consent.

        On the other hand: why is the legal age for buying, possessing, and consuming any alcoholic beverage in the US 21? And rumor has it there's a movement to do the same for tobacco.

        So Gwiz' concept is a valid one: at what point (and age) do we consider a person to be an adult - with the responsibilities thereof?

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

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Nov 2015 @ 12:07am

          Younger than 18-year-old models.

          I remember it became a problem once Mayfair developed enough following in the states.

          In the UK you can have photos taken at 16 which you can then consent to publish at 18. So occasionally they had sweet sixteens (or seventeens) in Mayfair.

          Then around the nineties, someone in the US took notice and demanded they put an end to that nonsense.

          The initial workaround was not to indicate the ages of those who were too young. Later they just stopped publishing models under eighteen.

          And now a 17.9-year-old modeling nude is child porn in the US.

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

      • icon
        Manabi (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:16pm

        Re: Re:

        No, we don't have to define the legal line as a specific age. Doing so has all kinds of problems, beyond situations like this one. The better way would be to simply require that the law determine (using psychologists/etc.) whether the potential victim was capable of consenting, regardless of age. This would be harder, but would nicely handle situations like developmentally disabled adults who are not capable of giving consent, yet with existing laws are assumed to be able to. (It would also handle situations where someone is mentally mature, but young.)

        But like I said, this is harder, so it'll never happen. The "justice" system just wants quick and easy prosecutions, not actual justice.

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

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:35pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          The better way would be to simply require that the law determine (using psychologists/etc.) whether the potential victim was capable of consenting, regardless of age.

          I'm not sure that is plausible or even possible. What I am talking about is the Age of Majority or the point where a child legally becomes an adult. Would you require a physiological evaluation for every 18 year old who wants to vote in the next election or purchase a car or get married?

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:47pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            I'm not sure that is plausible or even possible.

            We do when we want to. For example, "declaring" children to be an adults so that we can then punish them as adults. When it suits our purposes, it's no problem.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2015 @ 3:08am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "mentally mature"
          O.M.G. half of the USA will never be mentally mature, by scientific design...

          where the frack do you have any tests to check the mental maturity???

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

      • identicon
        Yankee Doodle Dandy, 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:28pm

        Re: Re:

        We, as a society, have chosen 18 for that line (for most things).

        That's because at the exact moment someone turns 18 *magic* happens. An instant before that they are a minor and wholly incapable of consenting. An instant afterwards and they are magically transformed into fully consenting adults. It's amazing, really, but true! A lot of people don't know or understand this, but luckily or legislators and courts do!

        Remember, it's MAGIC!

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

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:57pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          That's because at the exact moment someone turns 18 *magic* happens.


          No, not magic. The legal line needs to be drawn *somewhere*. We have chosen 18.

          Other societies have set the age of majority at different ages.

          For example, in the Jewish religion you become a man at 13 (age 12 for women). In the eyes of the Jewish religion, you are considered a man (or woman) at that point and no longer a child.

          The Roman Empire handled it a bit differently, you became of age when your father or tutors judged you "ready to wear a man's garb and start trimming your mustache".

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 2:00pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            >The Roman Empire handled it a bit differently, you became of age when your father or tutors judged you "ready to wear a man's garb and start trimming your mustache".

            Which would be better than the arbitrary age line and then arbitrarily saying some below that age line still qualify as being past that line so we can put them in prison longer.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2015 @ 3:30am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "we" as in who?
            Carnegie? Rockefeller?

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

      • icon
        BW (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:51pm

        Typical black or white thinking.

        We can and should pass nuanced laws that take a graduated approach to responsibility and consent. Our lawmakers are just to lazy to do so.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 2:01pm

          Re: Typical black or white thinking.

          >We can and should pass nuanced laws that take a graduated approach to responsibility and consent. Our lawmakers are just to lazy to do so.

          Well that, and anyone who tries to do so will be smeared as protecting child molesters and other such bullshit.

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

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 2:23pm

            Child molesters and pedophiles need protecting.

            Child sexual assault has one of the lowest recidivism rates among the violent crimes and yet we permanently ruin their lives. It turns out child molesters often actually like kids, and would rather consider alternatives (e.g. role-playing with consenting adults) than knowingly harm them.

            (This isn't all of them, obviously. But we tend to treat them all like John Wayne Gacy.)

            In the 90s and aughts, it was a witch-hunt, and it still pretty much is, since we have more data but it's unpopular to actually look at it.

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

            • identicon
              Wendy Cockcroft, 10 Nov 2015 @ 5:12am

              Re: Child molesters and pedophiles need protecting.

              If that's true why are there reports of abuse going on for decades until the abuser is arrested and brought to trial? The name "Jimmy Saville" comes to mind.

              Think of any child abuse scandal there has been; indidents repeated for years and years until they were caught. Sorry, Uriel, I'm not buying it.

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

              • identicon
                Wendy Cockcroft, 10 Nov 2015 @ 5:12am

                Re: Re: Child molesters and pedophiles need protecting.

                *incidents

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

              • icon
                Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 4:13pm

                Child Sexual Abuse: A giant can of rant.

                Incidents of abuse lasting for long periods of time, usually across families of siblings as they each enter and leave the abuser's preferred age-range, are a different stat than recidivism of convicts who were charged with child sexual abuse.

                Unfortunately numbers for how often long-term child sexual abuse occurs in the population are not being easily found for me, so I'd have to research more than I'm willing to do at the moment. I doubt it's epidemic.

                Obviously long term abuse is a problem when it happens, though I'm pretty sure that the solution is not to treat every CSA perpetrator as the wicked stepfather who victimized all his step-daughters one by one. Or, for that matter, as someone like Jimmy Saville

                In the case of Jimmy Saville, or, for that matter the Roman Catholic Church, or Woody Allen, or Jerry Sandusky, or whoever... these are people with resources and reputation who were active during an era in which the testimonies of children (or of adult child-victims) was often not believed when weighed against the words of the famous person they were accusing. And these famous people typically also had fortune enough to launch a legal counterattack. Bill Cosby's transgressions (as a non-child-abuse example) were able to remain suppressed for a good part of a century, and they're still not entirely believed.

                Note the pedo-witch-hunts were sparked off by the whole McMartin preschool affair in 1983 and 1984 which depended on testimonies from children that were conducted by folks who didn't realize children that young are highly suggestible, which is why their testimonies featured underground tunnels, Satanic Ritual Abuse, flying witches on broomsticks, hot-air balloon rides and Chuck Norris as one of the abusers. It resulted in acquittal. There may have been abuse, but whatever there was, it was obfuscated by the general desire for the allegations to be valid. One of the kids made a statement in 2005 denying any incidents of abuse. This also was pretty much the first time the public ever considered that diddling children might not actually be good for them. It was a rough start all around.

                Famous people are pretty rare, let alone famous people who victimize children. So looking at the scandals of famous people is not a very good source from which to derive statistics for the general population.

                Also, part of the problem is how child sexual abuse is defined, which is often for the convenience of the one talking about it, and whether you want to put someone away, or exonerate them.

                Romeo and Juliet laws have been established nation wide in order to rule-out specific scenarios from being regarded as statutory rape (which is often a subcategory of CSA). It's indicative that teens being prosecuted for sexting themselves maybe should not be regarded as CSA or the production / distribution of child-porn. That we've seen other manipulations of the law, for instance giving the same person child status for sake of determining that their photos are child-porn, then adult status for sake of eligibility to be tried, indicates that use of CSA is often in bad faith, just to ruin lives.

                In the meantime, throughout the twentieth century, it was perfectly legal to marry a nine-year-old girl in many states with parental consent (which they often gave, if the groom was an upstanding figure in the local religious community), after which the child would be expected to engage in marital duties at nine. Only in the nineties have all fifty of state laws regarding early-age marriages have been adjusted at least to requiring the assessment of a family judge in the interests of all parties (including the child bride). But still, having sex with a child is not considered CSA if she's married to you. (We also can't say that child marriages have ceased, since we have counties in which other extralegal marriages occur, such as polygyny.).

                Then there's the case of Representative Mark Foley who was accused by his colleagues of child sexual abuse in 2006 for propositioning sixteen-year-old (male) pages. Inappropriate, yes, but not CSA. It was plenty enough to turn into a scandal. Maybe if he tried to coerce them, but I don't believe he did.

                But we have strong instincts to protect our urchins, especially from the kind of monsters that we think Bruce Willis should shoots in the face at the end of a movie. If an author puts an infant in Godzilla's path, the whole universe will warp to assure that he doesn't step on li'l miss pink-toes. But all that goes out the window when the children are the uncounted faceless that got lost on Alderaan. So really it sucks to be a kid in the US. We have ridiculous numbers homeless and starving. Most children only see their parent(s) exhausted after a full day's work. Our schools have become militarized zero-tolerance penitentiaries. Foster care is a poorly-regulated nightmare. The bar for satisfactory childcare in the home has dropped to the ground, since the only alternative is to rehome kids to foster care or juvie. Child beauty pageants are still a thing. We still portray our children as sexual objects in our mainstream media. Our education system still doesn't include consent or limits and boundaries, even though both of these concepts are useful not just in sexual negotiation, but day-to-day interaction, and would probably vastly reduce the rape problem. And then child rape victims are still regarded as used goods after the fact.

                This list goes on and on, and this is just America (on the global scale, the human trafficking trade makes our local CSA issues look like a hoodlum stealing apples from the local produce. When your parents threatened to sell you to the gypsies, it was into this market. A white virginal American girl is particularly coveted and can fetch $25k). In the meantime, yeah, in this incident above, we'll just convict the ones we can try as adults for distributing child porn and tag them like all other CSA perps as a sex offender. Do you think they deserve it? Do you think their scarlet letters will help them rehabilitate? And in the meantime, there are so many other ways in which we could be trying to make life better for kids, but aren't.

                Attacking pedophiles is easy so we do it a lot without a wit of interest in actual child-welfare issues. Making the United States a not-terrible place to be when you're a kid involves actually dealing with children. And who wants to do that?

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

                • icon
                  nasch (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 5:25pm

                  Re: Child Sexual Abuse: A giant can of rant.

                  Obviously long term abuse is a problem when it happens, though I'm pretty sure that the solution is not to treat every CSA perpetrator as the wicked stepfather who victimized all his step-daughters one by one.

                  Or my friend's ex-husband who did it to his own daughters. :-( Cannot even comprehend.

                  In the meantime, throughout the twentieth century, it was perfectly legal to marry a nine-year-old girl in many states with parental consent

                  Do you have any reference for that? Can't find anything on WP.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 10:55am

    Teenagers act like teenagers and the adults freak out; forgetting what they were like as teenager.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:03pm

      Re:

      " the adults freak out; forgetting what they were like as teenager."

      It's precisely BECAUSE they remember what they were like as teens that they can't bear the thought of their kids getting up to the same things. Simple jealousy in many cases - unable to bear the idea of being 'old' and of no longer being the 'cool kids'.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:06am

    Even deleting the unwanted photos is of limited defensive use.


    That's destruction of evidence and you just bought yourself up to 10 years in prison, even if you were innocent of the underlying crime.

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

  • icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:12am

    More Accurate Headline

    'Hundreds' Of Teens Found Sexting At EVERY Single School

    Now what do they do?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:27am

      Re: More Accurate Headline

      They shout at the government to do something, because the us is still full of puritans apparently.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:28am

      Re: More Accurate Headline

      did you not read the article?

      FLIP THE FUCK OUT...

      that is what they are planning to do!

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 1:06pm

        Re: Re: More Accurate Headline

        Sounds like a good time to invest in stocks in companies running prisons. Go capitalism!

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:15am

    Clearly the only option here is to put them all on the sex offender registry -as they are all dangerous pedophiles who need lifetime monitoring.

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

  • icon
    mcherm (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:16am

    Astounding Hypocrisy from School Officials

    Somehow, in your article you failed to point out the other interesting hypocrisy that NY Times article described. They interviewed parents who said they had reported the rampant sexting to the schools and had been told "there is nothing we can do". To go directly from refusing to act to overreacting is rank incompetence.

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

  • icon
    ishould (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:21am

    Mr. LeDoux, the district attorney, said the investigation would look into whether any adults were involved, whether children were bullied into participating, and whether any illegal sexual contact occurred.

    This is the only sensible part of the whole situation. I guess it depends on how you define 'illegal': 'unwanted' vs 'you're under 18 so everything'

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:22am

    So if Bobby forwarded a picture to Timmy, without Timmy asking for it to be sent Timmy can get taken down as well.

    This seems like an amazingly good use of resources. o_O

    Perhaps some grownups can stop thinking of this as some sort of evil porn trading conspiracy and arrange for some assemblies. Explain how badly this can go, that before you send a picture like that to anyone understand they might show it to others.

    Rather than scare them with the full weight of the law, perhaps treating them like kids who didn't know any better would be a better play. If you don't explain it to them, you can't expect them to know any better. We no longer dare teach sex education and a majority of 'net teaching is about not telling the stranger you are home alone and unlocking the door for them.

    I do think it would be appropriate to make sure no one was forced to join in, but to remember there is a difference between peer pressure and actual threats/abuse.

    This case should make an impression, that the law isn't keeping up with reality. Pretending that your kid would NEVER do something like this no longer works. The law should protect kids but at the same time treat kids experimenting like kids experimenting, not as sexual deviants preying on others.

    Or should the state just start using all of the extra income to build little one room prison schools to keep all of these new sex offender registry recipients away from each other?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2015 @ 7:03am

      Re:

      Hold on a second there mister ... we can not allow logical thinking to contaminate our self righteousness now can we?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:22am

    ...the students involved could be placed on the sex offender registry.

    Which is why the registry is likely to grow more useless as these events happen. When you lump in naive children with real sex offenders just because you can't use common sense, the registry becomes less and less relevant.

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

  • identicon
    Bengie, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:25am

    I smell BS

    Enforce the law or fix it.

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

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 3:24pm

      Haven't you heard of prosecutory discretion?

      That's the option by the DA when they want to use a law or not.

      That way, if he doesn't like you, he can nail you for everything including starting the Chicago Fire and then plea-bargain down to five years.

      If he likes you, eh...

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

  • identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:32am

    Lack of basic comprehension about messaging

    Evidence that a person has knowingly received prohibited material in an e-mail could be accepted as proof that the person knowingly possessed the material, because a person who knowingly receives an e-mail is aware of the nature of its content and has immediate and knowing dominion or control over it. Fabiano v. Armstrong, 141 P.3d 907 (Colo. App. 2006).

    Nearly everyone on the Internet receives email every day that they not only don't knowingly possess, but that they don't even want to possess. It's called "spam".

    In addition, a sizable number of those people receive phishes that are designed and crafted so that people will choose to possess them (and respond to them). This may well be an instance of "knowingly possessing" but that's only because the recipients are incapable of detecting sufficiently well-engineered forgeries. (Or in many cases, incapable of detecting horribly-engineered forgeries.)

    Beyond that, anybody who receives high volumes of e-mail traffic is unlikely to read all of it. Some of it will be filed and filtered. Some of it will be discarded. Some of it will be saved. Some of it might receive eyeball attention but that doesn't necessarily extend to attachments: a quick scan of the textual message body may well result in a decision to defer a full reading until later.

    And so on. My point is that the quoted statement is completely disconnected from how email systems work and how people interact with them. It presumes that it's possible to read someone's intent by examining their inbox(es), and that's flat-out wrong.

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

    • identicon
      Brian Crail, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:56am

      Re: Lack of basic comprehension about messaging

      This is stupid. For 1 this is about email. Text messages cannot be "marked for spam" and the notifications with the picture pops up on your phone without your involvement.

      Plus how can one be "aware of the nature of its contents"? That's like getting an unknown box in the mail with your name on it and knowing whats inside.

      Regardless, "sexting" is "sex texting", not email. Two different types of messages and delivery systems. You also cannot BLOCK incoming calls and messages on cell phones, carriers do not let you.

      Hopefully this will allow some sort of acceptance on this as long as both parties are willing, participating, and within a certain acceptable age of each other (3yrs max).

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:39am

    It seems pretty simple to me.

    If the D.A. isn't prosecuting minors for masturbation and calling it self-sexual assault, then consensually taking a picture of yourself naked while under 18 can't be considered child pornography.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2015 @ 5:36am

      Response to: Anonymous Coward on Nov 9th, 2015 @ 11:39am

      Age of consent in Colorado is 15 if the other person is less than 5 years older.

      So the kids could legally be having sex, but taking a picture is a felony.

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

  • icon
    tom (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:39am

    The DA is likely showing restraint because of the high probability that children of judges, law enforcement and local and state officials are involved. Trying to justify charging middle class kid #2 and not the mayor's kid would be kinda hard, given the large number of accused.

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

  • icon
    william (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:40am

    The principle sounds like an person who is basically "playing by the books" so he doesn't have to take any responsibilities. He's basically saying, "Let the law deal with it, I am just a small town principal and I have nothing and will have nothing to do with this fiasco. Oh, and btw please don't fire me"

    The prosecutor sounds a bit more reasonable. What we are finding is that public servants are using less and less "discretionary power" because they don't want to take any responsibility that may jeopardize their job/position. That's why almost in every single case they just went ahead with prosecution without using their head first.

    I am afraid to say that the prosecutor may only be using discretion only because of the number of students involved. The idiom "Too big to fail" seems appropriate here.

    Be a lesson to you kids, if you want to do this, grab another 99 friends with you so the justice system won't just sweep you under the rag without thinking.

    If that sounds idiotic, it is, and that's what this broken and fearful American society has grow into with their tough on crime and fear-monger law making.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:44am

    Age-dependent crimes are hardly limited to "sexting". The penalty for "minor in possession of alcohol" can be a year in jail. And even worse if fradulent means (like changing the birth date or using an older sibling's ID) were used to buy it.

    And if a 15 or 16 year old can be "tried as an adult" for murder, then why not for these (minors-only) crimes as well ... which would mean that no crime even occurred.

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

  • identicon
    Brian Crail, 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:46am

    Just leave things alone

    Teens are teens. They are out having sex, having fun, preparing for college and life, and taking advantage of all their technological resources to help the above.

    This crap makes me mad. Last month I read about a 17yr old getting tried as a adult for child pornography because he was sexting his 17yr old girlfriend. WTF. If both parties are of similar age (1-3yrs) then leave it alone.

    This blurred line of underage but tried as an adult is crap. I have always been older than my girlfriends. When I was 18, I was dating a 15yr old. When I was 20 my girlfriend was 17 (almost 18). We have been together for 12 years and have children together. I am 32 and she just turned 30 (about 2.5yrs apart).

    Funny thing is about the guy above that was found guilty of child pornography... what about his 17yr old gf who had nude pics of him. Oh yea she gets a pass because shes a girl.

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

    • icon
      sigalrm (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 11:55am

      Re: Just leave things alone

      "Teens are teens. They are out having sex, having fun, preparing for college and life, and taking advantage of all their technological resources to help the above."

      You're forgetting: the de-facto "On The Internet/Made use of technology" modifier takes the behavior out of the realm of adolescence and pushes it straight into the "Unambiguously Evil" section of law.

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

  • icon
    BW (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:05pm

    How can we prosecute the DA if he fails in his duty to prosecute these children?

    The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.

    Abraham Lincoln

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

  • icon
    BW (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:05pm

    How can we prosecute the DA if he fails in his duty to prosecute these children?

    The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.

    Abraham Lincoln

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

  • identicon
    Law and Order, 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:14pm

    The Law is The Law

    The people elected the lawmakers to make the laws and the district attorney to prosecute. Lawmakers considered and rejected exempting minors from these child pornography laws so it is not up to the DA to decide whether of not he feels like doing his job. That's just the way it is. Especially when such an apparently large criminal ring is involved.

    I bet they didn't have permission to copy those images either, so we can add copyright violations in as well.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2015 @ 7:10am

      Re: The Law is The Law

      It is becoming apparent that the people no longer elect anybody. We go thru the motions while patting ourselves on the back proudly declaring what an exceptional nation we are while ignoring the rampant disintegration of what many predecessors worked hard for. The future is not bright unless you already got yours.

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

  • icon
    You are being watched (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:27pm

    Send the DA nudes

    If you're going to get strangled with a stupid ass law, take the DA down with the exact same law.

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

    • icon
      You are being watched (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:29pm

      Re: Send the DA nudes

      or better yet, hit the lawmakers now that I think about it.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:34pm

      Re: Send the DA nudes

      If you're going to get strangled with a stupid ass law, take the DA down with the exact same law.

      Laws of this type are usually written to exempt the police, prosecutors, judges and legislators themselves.

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

  • icon
    Blackfiredragon13 (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:31pm

    Another facet of the problem

    Let's assume that they do end up prosecuting all those kids and they all end up on sex offerender's register. As a sex offender they can't have contact with minors, which includes their classmates. Ergo they can't go to school.

    The law is fucking stupid.

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

  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:47pm

    Extended infantilization

    It wasn't that long ago that people were considered to be adults at 13 or 14. It isn't clear to me why we need to coddle children along for another 4 or 5 years.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:53pm

      Re: Extended infantilization

      It wasn't that long ago that people were considered to be adults at 13 or 14. It isn't clear to me why we need to coddle children along for another 4 or 5 years.


      I believe that Judaism considers males to be adults at age 13. Females in Judaism are apparently slower to develop mentally are not considered to be adults until age 21.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re: Extended infantilization

        Never mind 21 for women. I was basing that on the Age of majority article on Wikipedia which has now been changed to read 12 for women.

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

    • identicon
      Wendy Cockcroft, 10 Nov 2015 @ 5:15am

      Re: Extended infantilization

      We're not adults until our bodies have completed their development and growth, which is usually in our twenties. The word you're looking for is "care," not "coddling." Thirteen is a bit too young to leave home, get a job, and start a family.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 12:49pm

    "Would you require a physiological evaluation for every 18 year old who wants to vote in the next election or purchase a car or get married?"

    Yes unless they had cash to buy the car (in fact in many US States doesn't someone have to be 21 to enter into a contract, such as car loan, another piece of nuttery), anybody who wants to do the other two things at 18 is automatically suspect. Would you require one for everyone aged 17 yrs and 364 days?

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

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 1:09pm

      Re:

      in fact in many US States doesn't someone have to be 21 to enter into a contract, such as car loan, another piece of nuttery

      It's age 18 in most states. That is why I included it as part of my examples.

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

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 1:00pm

    Someday we're going to realize we can't just igore when our teens get sexually curious.

    That's been our strategy throughout the twentieth century, even as far as pretending that puberty just doesn't happen.

    Maybe we should stop that, and, you know, COMPLETELY RETHINK how we regard our adolescent kids...and how we regard other people's kids (e.g. maybe not as vermin larvae?)

    Right now, it seems that bunches of old people are freaking out about kids being sexually demonstrative, and turning to the old saw that if we just beat the tar out of them they'll grow up right.

    Because that worked before.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 1:21pm

      Re: Someday we're going to realize we can't just igore when our teens get sexually curious.

      Just like Prohibition worked, right?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 1:09pm

    So if anybody who isn't working for the government looked at those pics

    They would be called a pedophile and sentenced to hard time for looking at nude kids. Yet these 'officials' are allowed?

    So apparently if you want free child porn, work for Uncle Sam.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 2:28pm

    US screwed up attitude towards sexuality and in particular childhood sexuality.

    Kids doing what kids have always done. We are just using new technology to explore our sexuality. This is the same government that has prosecuted children for sexually violating themselves.

    Truth be told the headline would more accurately read:

    'Hundreds' Of Teens Found Sexting At EVERY School.

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

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 2:38pm

      Hundreds of teens sexting at every school.

      It's safe to say they probably are. But they haven't been found yet.

      Maybe that's the problem. Maybe the scale of this incident is big enough to be embarrassing, but not big enough to indicate that the problem is bigger than the administrators.

      Maybe we need thousands of kids across many schools (and districts) before they'll decide maybe little boys and little girls just like each other and want to express it. It's safer than Romeo and Juliette sex, after all.

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

  • icon
    nasch (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 3:21pm

    Cañon City

    It's actually Cañon City, with a tilde (for the past 21 years).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ca%C3%B1on_City,_Colorado

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 3:30pm

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 4:00pm

    Leave the kids alone and CHARGE EVERY FUCKING ADULT
    WITH KIDDIE PORN who looked into this

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

  • identicon
    Ryunosuke, 9 Nov 2015 @ 4:02pm

    I am curious, do the people (to use the term lightly), who defend sexting prosecutions of minors, by minors(In the strictest letter of the law), actually suggesting that a 17 year old, who is due to turn 18 within 12 months, have the same reasoning and decision making faculties of a ... say... 6 year old?

    it seems that some of these people, The administrator, possibly the DA in question, have also the same level of decision making capabilities.

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

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 4:24pm

      I expect it's about adult panic.

      Specifically parents who are realizing for the first time that their kids are sexually curious (and are not ready for them to be), and administrators and attorneys who don't know how to handle panicking adults for whom the (outdated) law is on their side.

      And so scapegoating a few 18.2-year-olds to appease the freaking out parents may be regarded as the easiest option with the least amount of school liability.

      So it's a cover-your-ass solution rather than one that recognizes some real truths about human development.

      The United States is seriously hung up about sex, and we're in a strong conservative swing, which is why kids (particularly girls) are often lectured about how despicable they are if they ever use their genitals once (or get them non-consensually used for them). Because that works about as well as just say no.

      Yes. They're teaching in public schools that one rape and you're expended and valueless.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 5:29pm

    Here's an idea.
    Stop confiscating cell phones to support your sick and demented perversions.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 6:00pm

    Hey! Teacher! Leave those kids alone... ~guitar riff~

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 6:03pm

    More zero tolerance stupidity...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgkZGiCe4bI

    Video description:
    School gives student detention for hugging a friend.

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

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 9 Nov 2015 @ 7:42pm

    Show the pictures...

    or it didn't happen.

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

    • icon
      W. Vann Hall (profile), 9 Nov 2015 @ 9:48pm

      Re: Show the pictures...

      You joke -- but I have a housemate who has been held* since her April 17 arrest on child pornography charges.** One of the reasons given for denying her bail was that she supposedly encouraged pedophiles to send her documentation of their crimes. In support of this, the US Attorney cited a "pics or it didn't happen" SMS she sent in response to what she thought was someone trying to BS her....

      __________

      * For the last nine weeks, in solitary 23.5 hours a day, thanks to the SFPD's somewhat belated, undeniably overheated press release about her arrest.

      ** I've known her for 14 years -- and the first indication I ever had of her alleged interest in such things was when I stepped from my office into my bedroom to see who could possibly be knocking on the front door at 6:45 in the morning, and found myself staring down the barrel of an FBI Glock.***

      *** I'm a little biased, I suppose, since the feds walked off with my primary work PC and about 3 Tbytes of storage -- including all my backups , natch -- which I have yet to have returned. (For months, I had no idea exactly what they had taken, as they left no inventory. Turns out this was due to a carbon-paper failure, as the recording agent had insertd the carbon upside down, so the list they left amidst all the carnage didn't include anything of mine seized.) The feds claim there was offending material on my PC -- but they can't tell me what, exactly. Other than the possibility I had a copy of "Smart Alec" in a collection of stags and smokers I occasionally used as a VJ, I have no idea what that might be.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 9 Nov 2015 @ 8:24pm

    You know the old saying about bad laws

    "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."

    Sadly it may be the that the best solution long term is to try to enforce the stupid-ass law en mass. When the first clearly-wrong prosecution didn't cause them to get the hint that may be the only thing to beat their brains out with a cluebat.

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

  • icon
    Ninja (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 3:26am

    Probably registered above but it's worth emphasizing:

    For now, though, there's been far more restraint exercised than has been exhibited by others in the same situation.

    Obviously. You'd need to be whatever-levels of dumb to put over 100 kids in jail. This sort of thing was needed to put that dilemma into the hands of both society and the authorities: do we go ahead and incarcerate hundreds (if not thousands) of children and young adults or do we finally sit down and admit this is incredibly common and we need to address it in a sane way?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2015 @ 4:47am

    "That estimate given by Welsh has since been revised down to > which is still a rather large number of students to suspend and (possibly) bring criminal charges against. Yet that's what Welsh feels should happen."

    And I perfectly agree. Put all 100 kids behind bars... In fact do it all over the country! :D :D :D
    Maybe the parents will be outraged enough at that point to force "the powers that be" to make appropriate changes to the laws.

    It seems that lately only tragedies of magnitude seem to move the masses enough to care.

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

  • icon
    Geno0wl (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 6:23am

    Just take the phones

    Just take everyone's phones away and be done with it.
    If you are not willing, and hopefully he isn't, to charge horny teens for being who they are, then just take the "tools of crime" or whatever away and have the school bar those kids from having phones again.
    What else is there to do? Expel 1/3 of the student body?

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 8:49am

      Re: Just take the phones

      If you are not willing, and hopefully he isn't, to charge horny teens for being who they are, then just take the "tools of crime" or whatever away and have the school bar those kids from having phones again.

      A school doesn't have the authority to do that. Neither does a DA.

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

  • identicon
    pg, 10 Nov 2015 @ 6:50am

    National Dick Pic Day

    Is there anybody besides me that sees the need for "National Dick Pic" day? Take a picture of your parts, send it to all your friends. If everyone's phone has multiple photographs of genitalia it makes it a lot harder to freak out over one.

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

  • icon
    JustMe (profile), 10 Nov 2015 @ 7:49am

    Care vs coddling

    You were on your own as soon as you could care for yourself. It worked for millions of years of evolution (6,000 if you don't believe in evolution), and it is only in the last ~150 that have we have had this belief. Maybe we need some A/B testing here to see which is better.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Nov 2015 @ 9:27am

    Damn teens... trying to have sex in the digital age.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2015 @ 2:44am

    so,
    if a "child" sends a naked photo to all the employees of the school (teachers and admin staff),
    then they must be all jailed and fired for possession of child porn in their emails,
    RIGHT???

    that is a lot of power for a child to have.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 12 Nov 2015 @ 5:06am

    to balance the huge jump in productivity (due to war tech)
    and the fall on consumption (due to the end of war)
    "we" have implemented after WWII the follwing:
    -extended childhood + forced schooling
    -consumerism

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

  • identicon
    eyda, 18 Nov 2015 @ 1:55pm

    sexting

    Those kids were stunningly dumb. Most seemed to have shown their faces along with their crotches. I thought kids would know better. Most sexing is between a two people messing around. At Canon the whole damn school was doing it and handing out nudes to anyone that asked.and even the middle school was involved. Did the girls really think anything good could come out of passing around dozens or hundreds of boob and ass photos to a bunch of horny HS guys?

    I would love to be a fly on the wall when some little 14 or 15 year old girl tries to explain to her parents why there's dozens of photos of her boobs and crotch all over school. I would also like to hear some 17 or 18 year old HS guy try and explain what he is doing with and trading nude pics of a 12 year old middle school child. Stupidity always has a price and these students were shit stupid.

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 18 Nov 2015 @ 3:00pm

      Re: sexting

      I thought kids would know better.

      Because teens are known for their good judgment and maturity?

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

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 18 Nov 2015 @ 4:51pm

      Maybe try thinking it through?

      You know what we still do in the US? We still pretend that puberty doesn't happen. We still pretend that if high-school kids can't think past their pants, or suddenly have sexual curiosity that dominates their train of thought that it's their problem.

      We're removing critical thinking from high-school curricula because our administrators and officials are afraid of children that might be able to think for themselves, and you expect them to know better? They're exactly the idiots we ordered from the catalog.

      Incidentally stupid, lazy and crazy are our primary lame justifications for fuck those guys.

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

  • identicon
    eyda, 18 Nov 2015 @ 4:56pm

    Sexting

    There is stupid, the stuff all kids do, and then there is really, really stupid, that's where the Canon City stuff lands. No a 12 or 13 year old has no maturity or judgment but a 17 year old should at least know the difference between right and wrong. And for a 17 or 18 year old to possess nudes of a 12 year old is definitely in the very wrong department.

    The eight year old girl that lives next door told me to never put anything on the internet or let someone put anything on their digital device that you don't want everyone to see because everyone will eventually see it. Pretty perspicacious for a eight year old but I think most kids know that. All but the foolish ones at Canon apparently. Actually I suspect many did know how wrong, foolish and dangerous what they were doing was but just went along with peer pressure and what they thought others wanted. Too bad they couldn't think for themselves, then they wouldn't be in this mess.

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 18 Nov 2015 @ 6:16pm

      Re: Sexting

      No a 12 or 13 year old has no maturity or judgment but a 17 year old should at least know the difference between right and wrong. And for a 17 or 18 year old to possess nudes of a 12 year old is definitely in the very wrong department.

      The parts of the brain in charge of things like self-control don't fully mature until some time in the 20s.

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

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 18 Nov 2015 @ 5:10pm

    And for a 17 or 18 year old to possess nudes of a 12 year old is definitely in the very wrong department.

    Says you. To a 17 year old, that's only a five year difference, and the only thing we tell them regarding sex is just say no, without acknowledging at all that it's the primary drive that's kept our species alive for the last one hundred thousand years.

    If they were in a hunter-gatherer society, a 12-year-old fooling around with a 18-year-old would be well within the realm of normal.

    It's your society that has sexual hang-ups. It's your society that has no empathy for teens. It's even your society that has pushed to keep kids ignorant.

    Japan's society also wants to keep sex restricted by license controlled by elder authorities, and they're going through a massive depopulation, where men are just disinterested in bothering with the responsibility shit because it's overwhelming, so they jack off every night to idealized anime girls.

    If that's the society you want, keep blaming the kids.

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

  • identicon
    brian stulpin, 19 Nov 2015 @ 9:23am

    Pedos

    Wow Uriel-238, I can't believe you actually defended child molesters and pedophiles. You and your pedo buddies here are incredible. I hope the FBI reads this and pays a little visit to check your phone and computer. I bet they would find some interesting stuff. And I don't think someone like would will enjoy prison

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

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 19 Nov 2015 @ 10:03am

      Re: Pedos

      "To a 17 year old, that's only a five year difference" is "defending child molesters and pedophiles"? Get a grip dude.

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

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 19 Nov 2015 @ 12:03pm

      Re: Pedos

      You mean because my line of work might cause an intersection with perpetrators and victims of child sexual abuse the police might take an interest in my personal affairs?

      Probably, if they were fishing for a house to raid. I'd really rather they take an interest in the work, because the reality of what is what is far more complex than Burn the heretic. Kill the mutant. Purge the unclean.

      Shocked and terrified administrators are a common thing because most grade schools are large enough that not a day goes by with kids having intercourse in the bathroom. And yet all the way through high-school we treat our kids like their sudden interest in sex is their problem that they should just ignore. And then we wonder why teenage pregnancy skyrockets in regions that allow only abstinence only education.

      Kids are going to fool around. Your kids. Unless you choose to not have them, or unless you choose to beat them hard enough to keep them in the hospital (which is considered child abuse). We can either keep doing what we're doing and stay shocked (shocked!) that sexual activity is going on among our adolescents

      Or we can reform society so that it accommodates and guides what is biologically normal behavior (and has been for hundreds of thousands of years) so that our kids transform into functional socially well-adjusted adults.

      Regarding that, I'm desperate for the police or the department of justice or some judges to take an interest in my work.

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

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 19 Nov 2015 @ 12:05pm

    Crap. Posting before coffee.

    ...not a day goes by without kids having intercourse in the bathroom...

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.