ACLU defends teen pictures

[stevejohnson]

STORY http://www.onenewsnow.com/Printer.aspx?id=502786
Questions are being raised over court jurisdiction in cases involving teens who are "sexting" -- sending nude and semi-nude pictures of themselves via cell phones. A Pennsylvania district attorney planned to charge the teens under child pornography statutes, but the American Civil Liberties Union successfully sued in federal court to block the prosecutions. Pat Trueman, special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), believes the judge was out of order. "If the Pennsylvania prosecutor felt that these pictures violated Pennsylvania child pornography laws, why is a federal judge stepping in to say that the prosecutor can't even let the case go forward?" he wonders. As Trueman explains, it is not that the district attorney wanted to put the children behind bars at all. "All the prosecutor was insisting on was that the teenagers involved in producing what the prosecutor said was child pornography should be attending some class to understand that this is bad conduct," the ADF says. "That's too much for the ACLU and a federal judge, I guess -- but it shouldn't be." The ACLU contends that the U.S. Constitution protects what the children were doing, but that has yet to be decided. Consequently, cases in other areas of the country could still go to trial.

MY COMMENTS
And here comes the ACLU again, the same group that defended the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which wants to totally overturn statutory rape laws and reduce the age of consent. Now they are defending the rights of teens who want to send sexually explicit pictures of themselves over cell phones. It would not surprise me if they thought that the suggestion of these young people taking classes explaining why this is bad behavior to be more offensive than the actual pictures. After all, who are we to dare tell someone what is bad or not? That violates their civil rights, does it not? Give me a break. Traditional American society continues to erode before our eyes and no one appears to know where the brake is to keep us from going over the cliff.

[MrCapitalism]

These kids did a bad thing. but here is the thing, kids haven't changed, just the technology. When I was 14, there were plenty of 14 year old girls I would have been happy to see naked. 14 year olds looking at other 14 years isn't a deviant behavoir, it is expected.

That is not to say that kids shoudl be emailing the photos around, but that is technology for you.

To prosecute under the child pornography laws, regardless of the requested sentence would ruin these kids. Can you imagine filling out that college admissions slip and saying "yes I've been convicted of felony child pornography?"

I mean come on.

[BrittleBullet]

These kids did a bad thing. but here is the thing, kids haven't changed, just the technology. When I was 14, there were plenty of 14 year old girls I would have been happy to see naked. 14 year olds looking at other 14 years isn't a deviant behavoir, it is expected.

That is not to say that kids shoudl be emailing the photos around, but that is technology for you.

To prosecute under the child pornography laws, regardless of the requested sentence would ruin these kids. Can you imagine filling out that college admissions slip and saying "yes I've been convicted of felony child pornography?"

I mean come on.

Bingo.

[MrCapitalism]

Also, the guy from the ADF is clearly a complete moron. You think that the parents or the kids wouldn't be happy to attend a class in lieu of the kids being charged with felony possesion of child pornography?

Does no one remember the Giancarlo Wilson case for god sakes?

[MrCapitalism]

So I guess I pretty much Phil Spectored this thread?

[SFC(R)L]

The problem is that under the law in some states, these young people are being convicted of "sex crimes" and are facing stiff sentencing and permanent coding as "sex offenders" because they got a naughty picture on their phone.

That isn't appropriate and we need to find another answer that addresses the problem without sending an 18-year-old young man to prison for 25 years because his 17-year-old girlfriend sent him a naughty picture.

[Thor]

How do nude photos qualify as "pornography" anyway? If this is true, every parent who ever took a photo of their naked baby should be prosecuted. Nudists see nothing wrong with a naked body of any age, and they take family photos where everyone is naked. Should these people be prosecuted as well?

The law may be the law, but it must also be applied using common sense.

[Polkfan]

The problem is that under the law in some states, these young people are being convicted of "sex crimes" and are facing stiff sentencing and permanent coding as "sex offenders" because they got a naughty picture on their phone.

That isn't appropriate and we need to find another answer that addresses the problem without sending an 18-year-old young man to prison for 25 years because his 17-year-old girlfriend sent him a naughty picture.

Amen.

[BrittleBullet]

How do nude photos qualify as "pornography" anyway? If this is true, every parent who ever took a photo of their naked baby should be prosecuted. Nudists see nothing wrong with a naked body of any age, and they take family photos where everyone is naked. Should these people be prosecuted as well?

The law may be the law, but it must also be applied using common sense.

The makers of Coppertone should be arrested for peddling child pornography.

[Thor]

The makers of Coppertone should be arrested for peddling child pornography.

I've been to many museums where paintings of nude young girls are prominently featured. Maybe the curators should be tossed in jail for displaying child pornography.

[Marleysdaddy]

How do nude photos qualify as "pornography" anyway? If this is true, every parent who ever took a photo of their naked baby should be prosecuted.

And if it is true, apparently I have child pornography on my cell phone right now...Marley is adorable at bath time :D

[MrCapitalism]

The problem is that under the law in some states, these young people are being convicted of "sex crimes" and are facing stiff sentencing and permanent coding as "sex offenders" because they got a naughty picture on their phone.

That isn't appropriate and we need to find another answer that addresses the problem without sending an 18-year-old young man to prison for 25 years because his 17-year-old girlfriend sent him a naughty picture.

Or worse yet a 16 year old to prison for getting pictures of his 17 year old girlfriend...

[Apatriot]

How do nude photos qualify as "pornography" anyway? If this is true, every parent who ever took a photo of their naked baby should be prosecuted. Nudists see nothing wrong with a naked body of any age, and they take family photos where everyone is naked. Should these people be prosecuted as well?

The law may be the law, but it must also be applied using common sense.

Pornography is defined as a visual image of sexual behavior. Some nude photos are pornography, others aren't. It just depends on what's happening in the picture. A bathing child is usually not pornography.

[Marleysdaddy]

A bathing child is usually not pornography.

<wipes brow> Whewwww... ;)

[Joeybear23]

Are they trying to create a loophole for pervs to legally get child porn?

Sounds like it to me...

[Greyclouds]

Pornography is defined as a visual image of sexual behavior. Some nude photos are pornography, others aren't. It just depends on what's happening in the picture. A bathing child is usually not pornography.

While a majority of our population (myself included) agree with your assessment, how can we really quantify such a blurred distinction?

"The intent" of the imagery is hard to determine, is it not?

Granted, there ARE very very distinct (and disgusting) images that should be prosecuted, since they are memorializing the assault of a child, but should the same statutes that apply to those clear-cut abuses apply to the American high-school dream?

I think we should revisit the child pornography laws and make it easier to define when clear-cut abuse of a child has taken place, and when adolescent sexual curiosity is being engaged in with other adolescents.

[Greyclouds]

Are they trying to create a loophole for pervs to legally get child porn?

Sounds like it to me...

Huh?

They're prosecuting these girls and going to make them registered sex offenders.

Or are you referring to the opinions of people in this thread?

[Joeybear23]

Huh?

They're prosecuting these girls and going to make them registered sex offenders.

Or are you referring to the opinions of people in this thread?

My reference is the ACLU defending the act of using the internet to distribute pictures of nude minors, thus creating a legal loophole for pervs to get their jollies.

[MrCapitalism]

My reference is the ACLU defending the act of using the internet to distribute pictures of nude minors, thus creating a legal loophole for pervs to get their jollies.


That is a strecth.

[nick21ia]

My reference is the ACLU defending the act of using the internet to distribute pictures of nude minors, thus creating a legal loophole for pervs to get their jollies.

No, it is not. They are not creating a loophole for adults to see kids naked. It is not labeling kids sex offenders for having nude pictures of other kids. If one kid willingly sends a nude picture of themsleves to another kid, dumb, but they shouldnt be labeled sex offenders because of it.

[OldSchoolConservative]

A federal judge has the legal authority to order a state prosecutor not to prosecute someone if he believes that it involves a federal question in the matter. Federal judges can actually negate or overturn or void state laws that are deemed federally unconstitutional. I abhor pornography of any sort but in this case the federal judge is right.

[Gabby]

In a lot of the cases like this the problem comes when the boy-friend, not the ex-boy-friend decides he'll get revenge by sending her nude photos to everyone in his phone book. And those friends in turn send the photos to everyone in thier phone book... and so it goes until the photos of the minor are sent to hundreds, if not thousands of poeple.

Let's face it, if the girl sends some images to her boyfriend, and he keeps them to himself, no one will ever know she sent him.

The way I think it should be handled is that if one teen sends a nude (or even sexually explicit) image fo themselve to another, the orginal sender and the orginal recipient are not prosecuted. If they are caught some education might be in order.

If however the recipient then forwards that image to anyone else, that person can be charged as they have no right to send someone else's nude photos around. After that anyone who forwards the images can be charged.

All of this new technology in the hands of kids is a problem. But kids will be kids. They are legally minors because they do not always make good judgements and need to learn.

[BillyBobUSA]

ACLU used to defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association, so it shouldnt surprise anyone that those moral degenerates would try to defend sending nude pctures of children around on cell phones or anywhere else.

And, once again, I note the number of libruls piling on in this thread dwarfs any participation by culturally conservative people, aka people with common sense.

[Marleysdaddy]

The ACLU also defended our esteemed host. Were they "moral degenerates" then?

[Hoobeedoo Bejesus]

ACLU used to defend the North American Man-Boy Love Association, so it shouldnt surprise anyone that those moral degenerates would try to defend sending nude pctures of children around on cell phones or anywhere else.

And, once again, I note the number of libruls piling on in this thread dwarfs any participation by culturally conservative people, aka people with common sense.

They defended NAMBLA's right to free speech.

They defend far more Christians:

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

[birddog1]

In a lot of the cases like this the problem comes when the boy-friend, not the ex-boy-friend decides he'll get revenge by sending her nude photos to everyone in his phone book. And those friends in turn send the photos to everyone in thier phone book... and so it goes until the photos of the minor are sent to hundreds, if not thousands of poeple.

Let's face it, if the girl sends some images to her boyfriend, and he keeps them to himself, no one will ever know she sent him.

The way I think it should be handled is that if one teen sends a nude (or even sexually explicit) image fo themselve to another, the orginal sender and the orginal recipient are not prosecuted. If they are caught some education might be in order.

If however the recipient then forwards that image to anyone else, that person can be charged as they have no right to send someone else's nude photos around. After that anyone who forwards the images can be charged.

All of this new technology in the hands of kids is a problem. But kids will be kids. They are legally minors because they do not always make good judgements and need to learn.

As long as the minor took the pictures of their own free will and sent them I don't think law enforcement should be involved. I also don't think resources should be wasted tracking down 3rd parties that received the pictures either. The pictures getting around to other people is just the price the picture taker has to pay for making a stupid decision. Spend the time and effort going after the real sickos out there targeting children instead of rounding up a bunch of horny high school kinds over cell phone pictures.

[ChaosControl]

Don't they own their own bodies? If some chick wants to send a pic of herself to her boyfriend, it is her choice.

I'd agree with the ACLU on this. It may be a stupid decision that she'll regret, but it is her choice nonetheless.

Edit: I agree with the individual who said to prosecute the recipient who then forwards it on to a third party as it is no longer the original individual consenting to such. Of course this is why it is stupid for teens to do this to begin with.

[gdoane]

Don't they own their own bodies? If some chick wants to send a pic of herself to her boyfriend, it is her choice.

It's illegal to create child pornography. That's the law being broken here. I don't see any reason to change the law and allow anybody to create child porn for any reason.

I'd agree with the ACLU on this. It may be a stupid decision that she'll regret, but it is her choice nonetheless.

I'd disagree with the ACLU on this and everything else they've ever come up with. They're evil liberals.

Edit: I agree with the individual who said to prosecute the recipient who then forwards it on to a third party as it is no longer the original individual consenting to such. Of course this is why it is stupid for teens to do this to begin with.

The crime began at the creation of the porn. Therefore the criminals involved include the porn creator.

[BillBrown]

How do nude photos qualify as "pornography" anyway? If this is true, every parent who ever took a photo of their naked baby should be prosecuted. Nudists see nothing wrong with a naked body of any age, and they take family photos where everyone is naked. Should these people be prosecuted as well?

The law may be the law, but it must also be applied using common sense.

People have been prosecuted. for that very thing.

I read a story of a man and women being arrested when a Fox Photo booth turned them in for having pictures of their child in the bath tub.

Laws are NEVER enforced using common sense.
Don't forget, we're talking about the government.

[Marleysdaddy]

I'd disagree with the ACLU on this and everything else they've ever come up with.


Do you disagree with the ACLU's 1989 defense of Sean Hannity's right to free speech?

[birddog1]

It's illegal to create child pornography. That's the law being broken here. I don't see any reason to change the law and allow anybody to create child porn for any reason.



I'd disagree with the ACLU on this and everything else they've ever come up with. They're evil liberals.



The crime began at the creation of the porn. Therefore the criminals involved include the porn creator.

It is a waste of time to go after horny teenagers that hurt no one with that kind of act. We should ignore such instances and go after the scums bags out there that victimize kids.

[Thor]

People have been prosecuted. for that very thing.

I read a story of a man and women being arrested when a Fox Photo booth turned them in for having pictures of their child in the bath tub.

Laws are NEVER enforced using common sense.
Don't forget, we're talking about the government.

You have a good point! It's like the ridiculous "zero tolerance" policies that treat a kid bringing a butter knife to school (so she can butter her bread at lunch) the same as the hoodlum who is caught carrying a switchblade. I recall reading one story where a kid gave her friend some sort of medicine (I think it was throat lozenges) and because the school had a "zero tolerance" policy for drugs, they treated the kid as if she was dealing crack.

It reminds me of something I saw in an email. It was a "then and now" thing. One of my favorites was:

THEN: Billy drives his pickup truck to school with his hunting rifle hanging on a gun rack. The principal sees the rifle and asks Billy if he bagged anything over the weekend. The principal then goes to his vehicle and shows Billy his own hunting rifle.

NOW: Billy drives his pickup truck to school with a paintball gun sitting on the front seat. The principal sees the gun and immediately puts the school into lockdown. The police are called and they search the school looking for any more "weapons". Billy is taken out in handcuffs and arrested. He is subsequently expelled from school and later sentenced to probation. Now with a police record and a school expulsion, Billy is unable to get into the college he was looking at. He eventually gives up on getting a GED and, unable to find a good job, winds up as a small time criminal.

And here's one more that I liked:

THEN: Pedro's family immigrates to the US. He is sent to school not being able to speak a word of English. His teachers make him stay after school and learn English. He eventually masters his new language and graduates with honors. He goes on to college and becomes a successful businessman.

NOW: Pedro's family illegally enters the country but they are given sanctuary by "undocumented aliens" advocates. Pedro is sent to school not being able to speak a word of English. Not wanting to "insult" Pedro's "culture", he is pushed through school and he graduates without being able to read his diploma. Unable to speak the language, Pedro finds getting a job extremely difficult. So he ends up mowing lawns for a living.

[jimjames418]

It is a waste of time to go after horny teenagers that hurt no one with that kind of act.
Said one such horny teenager. :lol:

[angelicmadrigal]

My reference is the ACLU defending the act of using the internet to distribute pictures of nude minors, thus creating a legal loophole for pervs to get their jollies.

It isn't much of a loophole. If the girl takes the picture herself of her own volition, sends it of her own volition then that really has nothing to do with a pervert.

[sgtmac_46]

These kids did a bad thing. but here is the thing, kids haven't changed, just the technology. When I was 14, there were plenty of 14 year old girls I would have been happy to see naked. 14 year olds looking at other 14 years isn't a deviant behavoir, it is expected.

That is not to say that kids shoudl be emailing the photos around, but that is technology for you.

To prosecute under the child pornography laws, regardless of the requested sentence would ruin these kids. Can you imagine filling out that college admissions slip and saying "yes I've been convicted of felony child pornography?"

I mean come on. Exactly......prosecuting two teenagers for taking naked pictures of themselves, under the guise of protecting them is asinine on it's face......:confused:

[sgtmac_46]

It isn't much of a loophole. If the girl takes the picture herself of her own volition, sends it of her own volition then that really has nothing to do with a pervert.

Bingo!

Now if some adult gets that picture and keeps it for his own prurient interest.......that's entirely different story.

But to prosecutor her?! For her 'own good'? :eh:

[sgtmac_46]

It is a waste of time to go after horny teenagers that hurt no one with that kind of act. We should ignore such instances and go after the scums bags out there that victimize kids.

It's not only a waste of time, it defies logic.......why do we have such laws? To protect these kids from exploitation..........so who are we protecting these kids from by prosecuting them? :confused:

[sgtmac_46]

My reference is the ACLU defending the act of using the internet to distribute pictures of nude minors, thus creating a legal loophole for pervs to get their jollies.

You're right.......we need to prosecute these girls to the fullest extent of the law to prevent them from exploiting themselves, thereby protecting them from themselves......it's for their own good......:confused:

[BillyBobUSA]

The ACLU also defended our esteemed host. Were they "moral degenerates" then?

What a ridiculous rebuttal.

IF a genocidal maniac helps a little old lady across the street, are they still genocidal maniacs then?

HELL YES THEY ARE, DUDE!

Buy a clue.


They defended NAMBLA's right to free speech.

They defend far more Christians:

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

So what?

Does that make their defense of child molesters OK?

Where do these wack-jobs spawn from?

[BillyBobUSA]

You have a good point! It's like the ridiculous "zero tolerance" policies that treat a kid bringing a butter knife to school (so she can butter her bread at lunch) the same as the hoodlum who is caught carrying a switchblade. I recall reading one story where a kid gave her friend some sort of medicine (I think it was throat lozenges) and because the school had a "zero tolerance" policy for drugs, they treated the kid as if she was dealing crack.

It reminds me of something I saw in an email. It was a "then and now" thing. One of my favorites was:

THEN: Billy drives his pickup truck to school with his hunting rifle hanging on a gun rack. The principal sees the rifle and asks Billy if he bagged anything over the weekend. The principal then goes to his vehicle and shows Billy his own hunting rifle.

NOW: Billy drives his pickup truck to school with a paintball gun sitting on the front seat. The principal sees the gun and immediately puts the school into lockdown. The police are called and they search the school looking for any more "weapons". Billy is taken out in handcuffs and arrested. He is subsequently expelled from school and later sentenced to probation. Now with a police record and a school expulsion, Billy is unable to get into the college he was looking at. He eventually gives up on getting a GED and, unable to find a good job, winds up as a small time criminal.

And here's one more that I liked:

THEN: Pedro's family immigrates to the US. He is sent to school not being able to speak a word of English. His teachers make him stay after school and learn English. He eventually masters his new language and graduates with honors. He goes on to college and becomes a successful businessman.

NOW: Pedro's family illegally enters the country but they are given sanctuary by "undocumented aliens" advocates. Pedro is sent to school not being able to speak a word of English. Not wanting to "insult" Pedro's "culture", he is pushed through school and he graduates without being able to read his diploma. Unable to speak the language, Pedro finds getting a job extremely difficult. So he ends up mowing lawns for a living.


LOL, good contrasts.

So true.

We live in an insane age and the most insane are runing the assylum.

[BillyBobUSA]

You're right.......we need to prosecute these girls to the fullest extent of the law to prevent them from exploiting themselves, thereby protecting them from themselves......it's for their own good......:confused:


The law is the law.

Photographs for prurient interests of minors is illegal, whether they do it themselves or not.

[gdoane]

It isn't much of a loophole. If the girl takes the picture herself of her own volition, sends it of her own volition then that really has nothing to do with a pervert.

I don't see it that way. The teen is under the age of consent and cannot give consent to take and distribute nude pictures of anyone, not even herself.

The person who can give consent for a minor, the parents, would be CRUCIFIED if they took nude pictures of their kids and sent them to another kids cell phone, wouldn't they? That would be like the villagers coming to the doorstep with torches and pitchforks if a parent did that!

So if it's so very wrong for a parent or guardian to do it, why is it any better for the child to do it?

[mtdim]

Who are the victims of these children's "crimes"? Themselves?

Next we'll be prosecuting masturbaters for raping themselves. :eek:

[gdoane]

Who are the victims of these children's "crimes"? Themselves?

Next we'll be prosecuting masturbaters for raping themselves. :eek:

Okay, so if I send your cell phone an image of me mooning you then you're not a victim by your logic, am I correct?

The elephant in the living room that everybody is seeming to miss is that sending explicit photos to a child's cell phone is a CRIMINAL ACT. Actually, sending explicit photos unsolicited to an adult's cell phone is a crime too, or if it's not it damned well should be.

Can you, as an adult, take nude pictures of yourself and e-mail them to kids, send them as photos to any cell phone number you have or put them on the bumper of your car?

Let's just say HELL NO to that, okay?

So if you can't legally distribute nude photos of yourself as an adult to a child's cell phone (a crime which would have you so crucified as a pervert that Charlie Manson would get parole sooner than you) then why can a teenager send nude photos to a child's cell phone without severe consequences?

WHOM the nude photos are of really doesn't matter.

Look at the rules of this forum, for example. Post a nude photo on this board and I can pretty much guarantee they'll be deleted and the offender will be banned. It doesn't matter whom the photo is of. The fact of the matter is that transmitting pornography is against the rules.

If you want me to say that kids can photograph themselves nekkid then fine, that's probably true. And parents can take photos of their kids in the bathtub being cute, that's true too.

However, putting such photos on a network, and especially sending them to minors (even if a minor is sending the picture) is CRIMINAL.

The taking of the picture isn't the crime. It's the sending the picture to a minor's cell phone which is criminal and it doesn't matter who does it. If you or I did it we'd be in such deep doo-doo that there's no escaping several years in prison.

So the question becomes simple: Should ANYONE in the USA be allowed to send graphic nude photos to a child's cell phone legally? YES or NO. No qualifications. No hemming and hawing. YES or NO, would you legalize sending porn to a kid's cell phone?

[NascarGirl2448]

Also, the guy from the ADF is clearly a complete moron. You think that the parents or the kids wouldn't be happy to attend a class in lieu of the kids being charged with felony possesion of child pornography?

Does no one remember the Giancarlo Wilson case for god sakes?

Nothing from "onenewsnow" is gonna be balanced. They are affiliated with the so-called American "family" association, which in reality is the ANTI FAMILY association. These people are anti any family that's not 2 hetero parents, regardless of actual family life. I have spent enough time on that site (and gotten a lot of good laughs at completely illogical rantings) to know that this bunch wants a theocracy and nothing short of that.

[Haplo]

Which is more important? The letter of the law or the spirit of the law?

Conservatives supporting labeling this as child pornography makes no more sense then liberals supporting labeling spanking as abuse and/or assault. After all the conservatives on here say the intent doesn't matter as "the law is the law."

Stupid is stupid regardless of which side of the political aisle it's coming from

[ChaosControl]

It's illegal to create child pornography. That's the law being broken here. I don't see any reason to change the law and allow anybody to create child porn for any reason.
No it isn't. It is a stupid teenager sending a picture to her boyfriend of her own body. Oh but by all means bring out the authoritarian police. People don't own their own bodies, mother government does. We must obey mother government for she has everything in our best interests.

I'd disagree with the ACLU on this and everything else they've ever come up with. They're evil liberals.
They're wrong on some issues, but their overall cause is a good one.


All hail mother government, all hail big brother.
Obey! Big Brother is Watching!

[gdoane]

Which is more important? The letter of the law or the spirit of the law?

The spirit of the law says no porn sent to a kid's cell phone.

Here's the law as it ought to be:

DO NOT SEND PORN PICS TO A CHILD'S CELL PHONE.

Here's the law as a liberal would put it:

DO NOT SEND PORN PICS TO A CHILD'S CELL PHONE unless you're a child too and the pics are of yourself and you think the other kid wants the pictures and then it's okay, you go porn star!

I like simplicity. Laws don't have to be very complex. There's no moral dilemma here. Anybody who sends pictures of nekkid people to a minor should fry. It doesn't matter WHO commits the crime, it's a crime. Basic, simple, and easy to understand.

This matter is being made far more complicated than it needs to be.

Send a nude picture to a minor, go to jail.

What's so complicated about that? What's to even disagree with?

Conservatives supporting labeling this as child pornography makes no more sense then liberals supporting labeling spanking as abuse and/or assault. After all the conservatives on here say the intent doesn't matter as "the law is the law."

Intent does matter. My personal mantra is "Intent Matters, And It Matters A Lot".

I believe that to be true and I stand by it.

So, what is the intent behind sending nude pictures to children? Is there any good intent there? What good intent can you find in sending explicit nude photos to a child's cell phone?

There's a stretch here that I just can't reach. Sending explicit photos to a child's cell phone just never does meet the goal of good intent.

Stupid is stupid regardless of which side of the political aisle it's coming from

So keeping porn off of a kiddie's cell phone is stupid on your planet?

I don't see any justification for this.

Intent doesn't work for me. Girls sending porn to a guy's cell phone have stepped well beyond the bounds of simple flirting. This is criminal behavior and if they get one digit wrong on their "sexting" they could easily be distributing their porn to you or I.

I don't think it's any secret that if an arrest is made then cell phones and computers get searched for evidence. If you get arrested and there are kiddie porn pics on your PC or your cell phone then you're in a serious "SUCKS TO BE YOU" situation.

I suppose you could try the "Heh-heh, silly girl must have misdialed and got the wrong number" defense like that would actually fly with a jury but the likely result if you're the unintended recipient of kiddie porn is that your immediate future is going to be bleak at best if you're busted with it.

Distribution of kiddie porn is illegal. I can't think of any good reason for legalizing it for anybody. There's no way that good intent can be found behind the why of broadcasting kiddie porn that I can think of.

[Marleysdaddy]

What a ridiculous rebuttal.

It wasn't a rebuttal...it was just a serious question...and your response suggests that you think Sean Hannity accepted help from moral degenerates.

[Haplo]

The spirit of the law says no porn sent to a kid's cell phone. The spirit of the law is intended to protect pre-teens and younger and pornography doesn't and shouldn't include every mother having pics of their tots in the bathtub. It is not meant to prevent someone 17 and 10 months from sending a pic of themselves nude or semi-nude to someone. It is about preventing a coach or teacher from installing hidden shower cams in the high-school locker room.

If that same 17 and 10 months old kid exposes themselves in person to their boyfriend or girlfriend is that also child pornagraphy? Or is that only when some form of media comes in to play?

Here's the law as it ought to be:

DO NOT SEND PORN PICS TO A CHILD'S CELL PHONE.I agree that should be part of it but with it must come a understanding and agreement over what is and isn't child and/or adult pornagraphy

Here's the law as a liberal would put it:

DO NOT SEND PORN PICS TO A CHILD'S CELL PHONE unless you're a child too and the pics are of yourself and you think the other kid wants the pictures and then it's okay, you go porn star!Close to the spirit of the law but no cigar.

I like simplicity. Agreed...too bad life isn't as simple as either of us would want it

Laws don't have to be very complex. Disagree. Otherwise you get crap like the zero tolerance policies

There's no moral dilemma here. Anybody who sends pictures of nekkid people to a minor should fry. It doesn't matter WHO commits the crime, it's a crime. Basic, simple, and easy to understand. No, there's no moral dilemma here but there is a absence of common sense on the part of the "compasionate conservatives". You really want to start frying all these high school kids who sent and received these pics? I thought additional government oversight (aka big brother) was a eeeeeeeeevil librul position.

This matter is being made far more complicated than it needs to be.Agreed. This is in no way a child pornagraphy issue or something the government should be involved in.

Send a nude picture to a minor, go to jail.

What's so complicated about that? What's to even disagree with? That it doesn't take into account the possibility of consent? That all this would do is swell the prison population and create more people that will never have a chance to be productive citizens because they were charged with a felony at the age of 17 for the horrible crime of getting a nakie pic of their 18 year old boyfriend or girlfriend?

Intent does matter. My personal mantra is "Intent Matters, And It Matters A Lot".

I believe that to be true and I stand by it. Sure could of fooled me. According to your posts in this thread you're willing to make criminals out of people that had no intent to abuse anyone

So, what is the intent behind sending nude pictures to children? Is there any good intent there? What good intent can you find in sending explicit nude photos to a child's cell phone? The same intent two 18 or 48 year olds might have in sending it to each other. We also must keep in mind that in some states two 17 year olds can get married with parental permission. Once married should they still be "children" in the eyes of the law? What about a 17 year old emancipated minor? Should that ability be recinded?

Should the situation ever be taken into account when enforcing rules and laws? You mods do it all the time on this board...

There's a stretch here that I just can't reach. Sending explicit photos to a child's cell phone just never does meet the goal of good intent. The only intent that needs to be met is whether permission was given by the receiver to the sender either expressed or implied.

So keeping porn off of a kiddie's cell phone is stupid on your planet? Hardly. But then I see a difference between a 17 year old having a pic of another 17 year old that they're dating and kiddie porn.

I don't see any justification for this. And I don't see any justification for charging these kids with child pornagraphy *shrug*

Intent doesn't work for me. Girls sending porn to a guy's cell phone have stepped well beyond the bounds of simple flirting. So much for "My personal mantra is "Intent Matters, And It Matters A Lot"". I agree it goes way beyond flirting but it doesn't reach the level of child pronagraphy either.

This is criminal behavior and if they get one digit wrong on their "sexting" they could easily be distributing their porn to you or I.By your own standard then, you'd have to turn yourself in to be fried for receiving kiddie porn if this happens. So will all relatives that receive a pic of jr. in the tub from the kid's mom. After all the law is the law as another poster on here said.

I don't think it's any secret that if an arrest is made then cell phones and computers get searched for evidence. If you get arrested and there are kiddie porn pics on your PC or your cell phone then you're in a serious "SUCKS TO BE YOU" situation.Still depends, and rightly so, on the situation. Zero tolerance makes zero sense whether it be a asprin a kid's backpack, a box cutter in a car vizer or this.

I suppose you could try the "Heh-heh, silly girl must have misdialed and got the wrong number" defense like that would actually fly with a jury but the likely result if you're the unintended recipient of kiddie porn is that your immediate future is going to be bleak at best if you're busted with it.[/qoute]Do you believe in "innocent untill proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? It's the prosecution's job to show that you didn't "accidently" get it and that the sender meant to send it to you.

[quote=gdoane;53801431] Distribution of kiddie porn is illegal. I can't think of any good reason for legalizing it for anybody. There's no way that good intent can be found behind the why of broadcasting kiddie porn that I can think of.I agree wholheartedly! A teen sending a nakid pic of themselves to their teen boyfriend or girlfriend isn't what the child pornagraphy laws are intended to combat.

Please remember your own stated motto and try to apply it a little more evenly.

No matter how much you and I want the world to be simple and everything clear cut black and white, it isn't and never has nor ever will be that way.

[Samm]

I don't see it that way. The teen is under the age of consent and cannot give consent to take and distribute nude pictures of anyone, not even herself.

The person who can give consent for a minor, the parents, would be CRUCIFIED if they took nude pictures of their kids and sent them to another kids cell phone, wouldn't they? That would be like the villagers coming to the doorstep with torches and pitchforks if a parent did that!

So if it's so very wrong for a parent or guardian to do it, why is it any better for the child to do it?
Those laws are to protect the child from sexual exploitation. How can the child be both the victim and the perpetrator?

Any Prosecutor who indicts a child as a sex criminal for sending nude pictures of themselves to friends should be sat down in a chair and have some sense slapped into them.

[F9thRet]

I disagree Samm. The prosecutors have to follow the law, and as the law stands it is illegal to transmit Child porn. I would be more upset, if prosecutors decided what laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore.

Now a Jury might find the people innocent, due to extenuating circumstances , but that is how the court system is supposed to work.

I am surprised here how many ageist we have. Just because they are children they are not breaking the law? I thought the law was equal for everyone.

Stephen

[BillyBobUSA]

Which is more important? The letter of the law or the spirit of the law?

Stopping anyone from sending nude pics of a child is both within the letter and spirit of this law.


Conservatives supporting labeling this as child pornography makes no more sense then liberals supporting labeling spanking as abuse and/or assault. After all the conservatives on here say the intent doesn't matter as "the law is the law."

Think of it as voluntary child porn if yo want; it is still illegal and should be prosecuted.

Stupid is stupid regardless of which side of the political aisle it's coming from


What a totally pointless statement.

But then maybe I should give you some credit and assume yo are refering to yor own post, lol.

[BillyBobUSA]

Those laws are to protect the child from sexual exploitation. How can the child be both the victim and the perpetrator?

Same way one can be both victim and perpetrator with a suicide.

People victimise themselves all the time and the law should nail them for it when it violates the law.

Any Prosecutor who indicts a child as a sex criminal for sending nude pictures of themselves to friends should be sat down in a chair and have some sense slapped into them.

So now you are advocating using torture against our public servants?

:think:

Whats next; waterboarding cops running radar gun stops?

:lol:

Seriously, the prosecutors are doing their jobs. If you dont like it get the laws changed through the democratic process.

[Samm]

Same way one can be both victim and perpetrator with a suicide.

People victimise themselves all the time and the law should nail them for it when it violates the law.



So now you are advocating using torture against our public servants?

:think:

Whats next; waterboarding cops running radar gun stops?
:lol:

Seriously, the prosecutors are doing their jobs. If you dont like it get the laws changed through the democratic process.

The Prosecutor was going out of his way to make a point. He has complete discretion to not call for an indictment in such an instance. These types of "crimes" should be handled at a parental or school district level, not in a court of law. To encumber a child too young and stupid to know that they should not be sending nude pictures of themselves out on telephones and e-mail with a life-altering criminal record is itself ... criminal.

I stand by my assessment... the Prosecutor should be slapped silly until he sees the absurdity he has wrought. Unless, of course, you prefer waterboarding... ;)

[BillyBobUSA]

The Prosecutor was going out of his way to make a point. He has complete discretion to not call for an indictment in such an instance. These types of "crimes" should be handled at a parental or school district level, not in a court of law. To encumber a child too young and stupid to know that they should not be sending nude pictures of themselves out on telephones and e-mail with a life-altering criminal record is itself ... criminal.

Making examples has a long history in law enforcement.

It is a very effective way to get people to comply with the law.


I stand by my assessment... the Prosecutor should be slapped silly until he sees the absurdity he has wrought. Unless, of course, you prefer waterboarding... ;)


Yes, I do.

It's like a slipp 'n slide!

[Samm]

Making examples has a long history in law enforcement.

It is a very effective way to get people to comply with the law.

Nonsense. The abusive use of the law to "make an example" of someone... and this is exactly what this is... is an effective way to get people to disrespect the law.


Yes, I do.

It's like a slipp 'n slide!
Ok then... waterboarding it is, but if he does not recant, he is going to have to suffer the sense-slapping.

[Haplo]

Stopping anyone from sending nude pics of a child is both within the letter and spirit of this law.One 17 year old sending a pic of themselves to another 17 year old was never envisioned when child pornography laws were crafted. Yes due to them being minors it could fall within the letter of the law, particularly if the law is vauge on the definition of "child". It wasn't long ago there was a state that had to have emergency legislative action to fix a law that enabled parents to abandon teen age kids under a law that was meant for newborns but no age range was specified.

This is a perfect example of why the spirit of the law is more important then the letter of the law and why the leter of the law needs to be more precise.

Think of it as voluntary child porn if yo want; it is still illegal and should be prosecuted.I don't want to think of this as child pornography for the sole purpose that I'm too tired to act silly

What a totally pointless statement.Only when you seperate it from the paragraph that was above it.

But then maybe I should give you some credit and assume yo are refering to yor own post, lol.It's ok Bob, I understand why you would like to think this.

[terri910]

I don't want to think of this as child pornography for the sole purpose that I'm too tired to act silly

Sole reason.

[AeroEngineer]

Making examples has a long history in law enforcement.

It is a very effective way to get people to comply with the law.


Yeah, like using the Mann Act against Jack Johnson.

[gdoane]

Those laws are to protect the child from sexual exploitation. How can the child be both the victim and the perpetrator?

Any Prosecutor who indicts a child as a sex criminal for sending nude pictures of themselves to friends should be sat down in a chair and have some sense slapped into them.

Okay, I can see I'm going to have to be graphically direct to lead you to the point I'm trying to make here.

You are Al Bundy, father of the lovely Kelly Bundy. You go to make a phone call and decide to use your daughter's cell phone because your battery is dead, and you see a picture of a naked boy show up.

Some boy just basically flashed your daughter so what do you do about that? No jury would ever convict you.

This is not a victimless crime. KIDS ARE GETTING PORN SENT TO THEIR CELL PHONES.

If you sent porn to a kids cell phone, you'd be CRUCIFIED for it. Drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, buried alive and shot at dawn.

I can't believe you don't see the crime here. You have to be purposely blinding yourself to the fact that sending explicit pictures to a child is a crime in and of itself.

I get the point that the sender of the porn isn't a victim.

My point is that the sender of the porn is a VICTIMIZER. A creator of pornography, a distributor of pornography to minors, a criminal who deserves harsh and serious punishment for the crimes committed against minors here.

This is unacceptable behavior even for adults. Good grief, if somebody "sexted" a naked picture of themselves to my Mom and my Dad found out about it??? Words cannot express the horrors awaiting that perpetrator. My Dad couldn't get a job with the IRS because he doesn't have enough of a sense of humor for them.

There is a victim. A child is receiving unsolicited porn and even if it were solicited, the child isn't old enough to consent to receive porn. Sending porn to a child is a criminal act no matter who does it. It doesn't matter if it's adult porn, child porn, gay porn or straight porn, sending it to a child is a crime.

[mtdim]

Okay, so if I send your cell phone an image of me mooning you then you're not a victim by your logic, am I correct?

The elephant in the living room that everybody is seeming to miss is that sending explicit photos to a child's cell phone is a CRIMINAL ACT. Actually, sending explicit photos unsolicited to an adult's cell phone is a crime too, or if it's not it damned well should be.

Can you, as an adult, take nude pictures of yourself and e-mail them to kids, send them as photos to any cell phone number you have or put them on the bumper of your car?

Let's just say HELL NO to that, okay?

So if you can't legally distribute nude photos of yourself as an adult to a child's cell phone (a crime which would have you so crucified as a pervert that Charlie Manson would get parole sooner than you) then why can a teenager send nude photos to a child's cell phone without severe consequences?

WHOM the nude photos are of really doesn't matter.

Look at the rules of this forum, for example. Post a nude photo on this board and I can pretty much guarantee they'll be deleted and the offender will be banned. It doesn't matter whom the photo is of. The fact of the matter is that transmitting pornography is against the rules.

If you want me to say that kids can photograph themselves nekkid then fine, that's probably true. And parents can take photos of their kids in the bathtub being cute, that's true too.

However, putting such photos on a network, and especially sending them to minors (even if a minor is sending the picture) is CRIMINAL.

The taking of the picture isn't the crime. It's the sending the picture to a minor's cell phone which is criminal and it doesn't matter who does it. If you or I did it we'd be in such deep doo-doo that there's no escaping several years in prison.

So the question becomes simple: Should ANYONE in the USA be allowed to send graphic nude photos to a child's cell phone legally? YES or NO. No qualifications. No hemming and hawing. YES or NO, would you legalize sending porn to a kid's cell phone?

The prosecutor in this case is charging them under child pornography statutes, not for distributing pornography to a minor. They got caught because they were sending the pictures around, but the actual illegal act they are being charged with is simply taking pictures of themselves. If we're going to charge children under child pornography statutes for taking pictures of themselves, we should also start charging them with sexually abusing themselves by masturbating.

The very notion that one can be convicted of commiting a crime against oneself is asinine. People should be able to take pictures of themselves doing anything they want, and they should be allowed to share those pictures with anyone who consents to receive them.

[Samm]

Okay, I can see I'm going to have to be graphically direct to lead you to the point I'm trying to make here.

You are Al Bundy, father of the lovely Kelly Bundy. You go to make a phone call and decide to use your daughter's cell phone because your battery is dead, and you see a picture of a naked boy show up.

Some boy just basically flashed your daughter so what do you do about that? No jury would ever convict you.

This is not a victimless crime. KIDS ARE GETTING PORN SENT TO THEIR CELL PHONES.

If you sent porn to a kids cell phone, you'd be CRUCIFIED for it. Drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, buried alive and shot at dawn.

I can't believe you don't see the crime here. You have to be purposely blinding yourself to the fact that sending explicit pictures to a child is a crime in and of itself.

I get the point that the sender of the porn isn't a victim.

My point is that the sender of the porn is a VICTIMIZER. A creator of pornography, a distributor of pornography to minors, a criminal who deserves harsh and serious punishment for the crimes committed against minors here.

This is unacceptable behavior even for adults. Good grief, if somebody "sexted" a naked picture of themselves to my Mom and my Dad found out about it??? Words cannot express the horrors awaiting that perpetrator. My Dad couldn't get a job with the IRS because he doesn't have enough of a sense of humor for them.

There is a victim. A child is receiving unsolicited porn and even if it were solicited, the child isn't old enough to consent to receive porn. Sending porn to a child is a criminal act no matter who does it. It doesn't matter if it's adult porn, child porn, gay porn or straight porn, sending it to a child is a crime.

Conversely, I can see I'm going to have to be direct to lead you to the point I'm trying to make here.

When a boy/girl sends a nude picture of themselves to another boy/girl:

1) it is NOT pornography;
2) they are not being exploited; and
3) being arrested and indicted on child pornography charges is a life-sentence punishment far beyond the nature of the "crime."

Child pornography laws were established to protect children. Arresting the very children who are the subjects of the pictures (pornographic or not) as child pornographers defies logic, common sense and decency. There are far better, less damaging (to the perpetrator/victim) means of dealing with this issue. The law is being abused and so are the subjects of the Prosecutor's vendetta.

This kind of abuse of well intended laws by ambitious or lame-brained Prosecutors only serves to diminish the law and spawn disrespect for the law by those who are being victimized by such abuse.

[gdoane]

The prosecutor in this case is charging them under child pornography statutes, not for distributing pornography to a minor. They got caught because they were sending the pictures around, but the actual illegal act they are being charged with is simply taking pictures of themselves. If we're going to charge children under child pornography statutes for taking pictures of themselves, we should also start charging them with sexually abusing themselves by masturbating.

The very notion that one can be convicted of commiting a crime against oneself is asinine. People should be able to take pictures of themselves doing anything they want, and they should be allowed to share those pictures with anyone who consents to receive them.

Children cannot consent to receive pornography. They are minors and do not have that ability. Therefore any porn sent to a minors cell phone was sent without consent.

[jimjames418]

There are laws about making obscene phone calls. I believe that this should fall under those laws.

[gdoane]

Conversely, I can see I'm going to have to be direct to lead you to the point I'm trying to make here.

When a boy/girl sends a nude picture of themselves to another boy/girl:

1) it is NOT pornography;

Yes, it is. That's why they're calling it "sexting" and not "art".

2) they are not being exploited; and

The sender is exploiting the recipient. It is very possible for minors to exploit other minors.

3) being arrested and indicted on child pornography charges is a life-sentence punishment far beyond the nature of the "crime."

Taking away a child's innocence by exposing him/her to pornographic materials is deserving of such punishment.



Child pornography laws were established to protect children. Arresting the very children who are the subjects of the pictures (pornographic or not) as child pornographers defies logic, common sense and decency. There are far better, less damaging (to the perpetrator/victim) means of dealing with this issue. The law is being abused and so are the subjects of the Prosecutor's vendetta.


Keeping porn from being distributed to children is all about protecting children. Sometimes a child has to be protected from a more evil child. This is just such a case.

This kind of abuse of well intended laws by ambitious or lame-brained Prosecutors only serves to diminish the law and spawn disrespect for the law by those who are being victimized by such abuse.

I think kids who are distributing obscene images have already been disrespecting the law quite a bit anyway.

[Broseph]

This district attorney is a moron.

All you have to do is ask WIIFM from the DA's standpoint. What's In It For Me?

He gets
1) notoriety
2) perhaps a boost to his career if the public accepts these kind of cases as good
3) more examples to thump his chest on for being 'tough on crime'

What happens if he decides to let this go?
1) Nothing, except the self-fulfillment of not ruining somebody's life over a victimless act between consenting parties... And somebody tell me the next time you see any prosecutor taking joy in that.

Humorously, he believes that offering these kids a class (and taking random drug tests for a period of time... what the hell does that have to do with anything?) that they don't need is being super generous. How generous of you to force them into a class instead of getting a felony conviction rather than, I don't know... letting people have their privacy. What a nice guy. Good for these kids for fighting it. Also, you have to question the school for searching these phones to begin with. A no cell phone policy does not give the school the right to search the phone. See: Klump v. Nazareth.

Maybe he should take a class on how to control his eating habits. After all, that will kill him before these girls sending pictures will hurt anyone.

His picture: http://wcexaminer.com/cfs-filesystemfile.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.21.21.Examiner+Apr+1+2009/skumanick-court-1.jpg

[mtdim]

Children cannot consent to receive pornography. They are minors and do not have that ability. Therefore any porn sent to a minors cell phone was sent without consent.

If someone wants to charge them with sending pornography to a minor, then fine (though we'd have to start charging all teens who share a dirty magazine with their friends :rolleyes:). But that's not what's happening here; they are being charged under child pornography statutes.

[gdoane]

If someone wants to charge them with sending pornography to a minor, then fine (though we'd have to start charging all teens who share a dirty magazine with their friends :rolleyes:). But that's not what's happening here; they are being charged under child pornography statutes.

Yeah? So?? They're distributing child pornography. Does it even MATTER which child the porno pic is of?

Guaranteed that if the cops come and seize a computer full of kiddie porn that they're not going to make a whole lot of effort identifying the kiddies before they charge the perp with possession with intent to distribute.

Far too much importance is being placed on whom the victim is, and our justice system simply does not work that way.

For example, if a thug commits an armed robbery against Donald Trump or against a homeless bum, the status of the victim is not a mitigating factor in the sentencing. Thugs won't get off any lighter for armed robbery for sticking to people who can afford to be robbed. That's not the way the United States Justice system works.

For another example, if a killer sticks to murdering 80-year-olds and he tries to use the excuse "oh, they were about dead anyway" do you think that's going to get him a lighter sentence? I DON'T THINK SO! That's not the way our justice system works at all!

Our justice system DOES NOT take into account the status of the victim in meting out the punishment for the crime, nor should it.

Therefore, it really doesn't matter which naked child the porno picture is of, because the victim isn't the basis for crime and punishment in the American system of justice. Criminals are prosecuted for crimes committed and not whom the crimes were committed against.

Like this clown from Arizona last month:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/westvalley/articles/2009/04/10/20090410gl-nwvmcpeak0411.html

Surprise, Arizona is a tiny bedroom community about 20 miles northwest of Phoenix. This jerk was a 5th-grade teacher in the City of Surprise and he came to the attention of the Federales because he purchased kiddie porn online.

Yes, Victor McPeak, a former YOUTH MINISTER as well as a Fifth Grade Teacher was caught red-handed with kiddie porn and a couple of his students were ready to testify against this 38-year-old perv.

Do the victims even matter in this guy's sentencing? Should we go and dredge up every name of every child he's got a picture of? Not really. We don't need to in order to determine that this slimeball should be in prison for a very long time and a registered sex offender for even longer than that (actually I'd be all for executing the worthless predator).

Victimizing Victor here was 38 years old at the time of his crime. Would his crime be any more palatable if he were 28? How about if he were 18? In fact, is there ANY age this guy could be where you'd find what he did to be OKAY?

I can't. And I don't think our justice system should look at the victim in order to determine if the crime was committed. That's not how we roll in American justice.

[Samm]

Yes, it is. That's why they're calling it "sexting" and not "art".
What the kids call it is immaterial. Nude photos are not pornography.

The sender is exploiting the recipient. It is very possible for minors to exploit other minors.
Exploiting? BS! Child pornography laws are intended to protect the children subjects of the pornography, not the recipient of the pornography... And in these cases, they are attempting to prosecute both the sender and the recipient as child pornographers.

Regardless... I repeat... nude photos are NOT pornography.

Taking away a child's innocence by exposing him/her to pornographic materials is deserving of such punishment.

If that is the case, why are they prosecuting the kids who receive the pictures? Besides, kids taking nude or partially clothed pictures of themselves and sending them to other kids is not really any different than children "playing doctor." It does not take away anyone's innocence.

But again... I repeat... nude photos are NOT pornography.

Keeping porn from being distributed to children is all about protecting children. Sometimes a child has to be protected from a more evil child. This is just such a case.

Yes... lets protect the children from themselves by branding them as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. :rolleyes:

But again... I repeat... nude photos are NOT pornography.

I think kids who are distributing obscene images have already been disrespecting the law quite a bit anyway.
I doubt that any of these kids ever considered what they were doing was considered illegal. How can they disrespect what they have no knowledge of? They can (and do) flash each other (or even have sex) in the privacy of their homes or other sanctuaries... to them, their phones are nothing more than a remote connection between private places.

As jimjames said, if any law is to be applied, it should be the laws regarding obscene phone calls which require the recipient to complain about the content of the call. If the sender (of their own image) is doing so of free will and the recipient is accepting them without complaint, there is no legal violation. Even then, if a violation of the law has occurred, the law should be applied simply to inform the kids that they are breaking it and the penalty should be no more than probation until they reach the age of adulthood. But if the law is used unreasonably; punitively... as IS the case here... they and their parents and anyone who believes in fairness by our Law officials will disrespect the law.

Now penalties imposed on the kids by parents and/or the school administration (if there is a violation of policy) are another matter. If it were my kid, they would lose their phone until they were 18.

[Greyclouds]

Yeah? So?? They're distributing child pornography. Does it even MATTER which child the porno pic is of?

Guaranteed that if the cops come and seize a computer full of kiddie porn that they're not going to make a whole lot of effort identifying the kiddies before they charge the perp with possession with intent to distribute.

Far too much importance is being placed on whom the victim is, and our justice system simply does not work that way.

For example, if a thug commits an armed robbery against Donald Trump or against a homeless bum, the status of the victim is not a mitigating factor in the sentencing. Thugs won't get off any lighter for armed robbery for sticking to people who can afford to be robbed. That's not the way the United States Justice system works.

For another example, if a killer sticks to murdering 80-year-olds and he tries to use the excuse "oh, they were about dead anyway" do you think that's going to get him a lighter sentence? I DON'T THINK SO! That's not the way our justice system works at all!

Our justice system DOES NOT take into account the status of the victim in meting out the punishment for the crime, nor should it.

Therefore, it really doesn't matter which naked child the porno picture is of, because the victim isn't the basis for crime and punishment in the American system of justice. Criminals are prosecuted for crimes committed and not whom the crimes were committed against.

Like this clown from Arizona last month:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/westvalley/articles/2009/04/10/20090410gl-nwvmcpeak0411.html

Surprise, Arizona is a tiny bedroom community about 20 miles northwest of Phoenix. This jerk was a 5th-grade teacher in the City of Surprise and he came to the attention of the Federales because he purchased kiddie porn online.

Yes, Victor McPeak, a former YOUTH MINISTER as well as a Fifth Grade Teacher was caught red-handed with kiddie porn and a couple of his students were ready to testify against this 38-year-old perv.

Do the victims even matter in this guy's sentencing? Should we go and dredge up every name of every child he's got a picture of? Not really. We don't need to in order to determine that this slimeball should be in prison for a very long time and a registered sex offender for even longer than that (actually I'd be all for executing the worthless predator).

Victimizing Victor here was 38 years old at the time of his crime. Would his crime be any more palatable if he were 28? How about if he were 18? In fact, is there ANY age this guy could be where you'd find what he did to be OKAY?

I can't. And I don't think our justice system should look at the victim in order to determine if the crime was committed. That's not how we roll in American justice.

You've made a very big strawman here. I'm sure that you know the cultural implications of a 38 year old man that hoarded explicit pictures of child pornography versus the 16/17 year old random sharing of sexual images of themselves to their boyfriend/girlfriend at the time.

Should I sue the mother sitting in the middle of the mall, quietly breast-feeding her infant because she's offending my personal sensibilities? Even better: should I draw charges of indecent exposure to a minor child on her? REMEMBER: it doesnt MATTER who the victim is, right?

Breastfeeding mothers, beware! You're being obscene to children!


Don't get me wrong, there ARE sex crimes and they should be punished appropriately. WE DO need much more discretion in such cases! Knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all responses are NOT the way to go about such things! OH and YES the legal system DOES discriminate based on age! Criminal records are sealed at the age of 18 and prior bad acts from those sealed records cannot be used against you later.





Imagine if you invite friends over to your house, your infant child soils a diaper, and you nonchalantly change the diaper in front of them. One bystander is APPALLED that you would expose your two month old child to them, and calls the police on you!

Should you be prosecuted for endangering the welfare of a child?


You have every human right to be offended by anything that you view; however, the legal system SHOULD exercise discretion in such matters. Teen sexting, if anything, should show PARENTS that teenagers are not responsible enough to own cell phones with cameras/picture messaging. Smart parents should purchase phones that do not have such features for their children IF they want to protect them from such things. Problem solved without locking CHILDREN up for 25 years.

[Marleysdaddy]

Teen sexting, if anything, should show PARENTS that teenagers are not responsible enough to own cell phones with cameras/picture messaging.

Ding-Ding-Ding! :clap:

What do we have for him Johnny?

[Samm]

Ding-Ding-Ding! :clap:

What do we have for him Johnny?

An 8x10 glossy of Mrs. Greyclouds "au naturale." ;)

[mtdim]

Far too much importance is being placed on whom the victim is, and our justice system simply does not work that way.

For example, if a thug commits an armed robbery against Donald Trump or against a homeless bum, the status of the victim is not a mitigating factor in the sentencing. Thugs won't get off any lighter for armed robbery for sticking to people who can afford to be robbed. That's not the way the United States Justice system works.


This is generally true, with one large exception; when the victim and perp are the same person. It doesn't matter if a thug commits armed robbery against Donald Trump or against a bum. But if Donald Trump commits armed robbery against Donald Trump, well that'll be treated differently.

The implication of charging these kids under child pornography statutes is that they victimized themselves. Legally speaking, such a thing should not be possible.

[angelicmadrigal]

Now if some adult gets that picture and keeps it for his own prurient interest.......that's entirely different story.
Or solicits them....eek!



But to prosecutor her?! For her 'own good'? :eh:
Cellphone privliges revoked I say....her parents really need to step in on that one. Now, if this had been other girls taking the pictures without her consent and mailing them around, I'd say THAT might be a time for prosectution.

[angelicmadrigal]

This is not a victimless crime. KIDS ARE GETTING PORN SENT TO THEIR CELL PHONES.
.

Let's rephrase that TEENAGERS are getting this stuff sent to their cellphones, and not agaisnt there own will. I bet lots of them already look at porn on the internet, they just happen to be staring in their own stuff, in this case.

[gdoane]

Let's rephrase that TEENAGERS are getting this stuff sent to their cellphones, and not agaisnt there own will.

You don't know that and even if you did it DOESN'T MATTER because the child isn't old enough to consent to sexual relations ANYWAY. They're MINORS. Their will doesn't matter a bit. It doesn't even enter into the equation.

If a 38-year-old man sleeps with a 15-year-old girl, do you think her saying "I gave him permission" is going to keep Lothario here out of the hoosegow? NOT! Statutory Rape means the kid can't say "yes" even if she does.

I bet lots of them already look at porn on the internet, they just happen to be staring in their own stuff, in this case.

Again, that doesn't matter. They are beneath the age of consent so their consent doesn't amount to any sort of defense for the criminal deed.

[angelicmadrigal]

Again, that doesn't matter. They are beneath the age of consent so their consent doesn't amount to any sort of defense for the criminal deed.

Sure it does, they don't prosecute kids from looking at Hustler with their friends.

[gdoane]

Sure it does, they don't prosecute kids from looking at Hustler with their friends.

Okay, go share a Hustler magazine with your minor friends. Tell us how that turns out.

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is just the start of your troubles if you're caught.

[Greyclouds]

An 8x10 glossy of Mrs. Greyclouds "au naturale." ;)

Hahah, still single, but I'm guessing that she's out there somewhere...

... she CAN send me those "au naturale" pictures while she's at it though :lol:

I promise not to press charges ;)

[Greyclouds]

Okay, go share a Hustler magazine with your minor friends. Tell us how that turns out.

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is just the start of your troubles if you're caught.

You completely dodged the point of the previous post by Angelicmadrigal:

What if ANOTHER MINOR shows the Hustler magazine? Should THAT minor be locked away in adult prison and labeled a sex offender for 10 years?

It APPEARS that you're taking the "yes" side of the argument here. If you ARE all for locking away minors who expose their peers to sexual content and having them register as adult sex offenders, then how exactly are you protecting the children? By limiting future job offers that they may have? By forcing them to become homeless in some cities? By having them be harassed by the police every time something fits a "vague" description of their "mo?"

There ARE some people who MORE than deserve the sex offender label. I don't believe that any of them are below the age of 18, apart from the rare cases of adolescent forcible rape.

[Samm]

Hahah, still single, but I'm guessing that she's out there somewhere...

... she CAN send me those "au naturale" pictures while she's at it though :lol:

I promise not to press charges ;)

Sounds better than E-harmony.com. ;)

[gdoane]

You completely dodged the point of the previous post by Angelicmadrigal:

What if ANOTHER MINOR shows the Hustler magazine? Should THAT minor be locked away in adult prison and labeled a sex offender for 10 years?

Why shouldn't they be? It doesn't matter if it's an adult or child committing the criminal act against a child. A criminal act has been committed and the ounce of flesh must be made in payment.

It APPEARS that you're taking the "yes" side of the argument here. If you ARE all for locking away minors who expose their peers to sexual content and having them register as adult sex offenders, then how exactly are you protecting the children?

That's easy. By removing the bad and evil children from the midst of the good and pure children, the good and pure children may be saved.

It's much the same as a bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. The solution is to weed out the bad apples.

You were a kid, didn't you know any bad apples you knew better than to hang around? For me it was this bastard (literally, he didn't have a daddy) named Jake Marlin, a bullying creep who was always bigger than the other kids because he failed a couple of grades. His dumb ass wound up in the Adobe Mountain Reform School when he got caught setting a school bus on fire. Good riddance. The only people who missed him were the dopers who needed to find another dealer on campus.

Some kids aren't worth saving. It's better to just get rid of them and get them into the prison system and away from where they can pollute the other kids.


By limiting future job offers that they may have? By forcing them to become homeless in some cities? By having them be harassed by the police every time something fits a "vague" description of their "mo?"

Yep! Exactly! I'm sure that's about what became of Jake Marlin and the dirty little S.O.B. surely deserved it. It's better than letting the rotten egg pollute the whole nest.

There ARE some people who MORE than deserve the sex offender label. I don't believe that any of them are below the age of 18, apart from the rare cases of adolescent forcible rape.

I COMPLETELY believe some of them are below the age of 18. I know how evil children can be. If you leave kids to their own devices then you'll have a "Lord of the Flies" nightmare situation in no time flat.

I don't buy that kids can't be evil. I've known too many evil kids to believe that.

[Greyclouds]

Why shouldn't they be? It doesn't matter if it's an adult or child committing the criminal act against a child. A criminal act has been committed and the ounce of flesh must be made in payment.

So, enforcing the law is all about retribution? Is that what you're saying here?

Quick question: do you agree with our legal system's decision to NOT treat adolescents/children as full-fledged adult offenders, or do you believe that adolescents/children should be charged with adult time in adult prison facilities?


That's easy. By removing the bad and evil children from the midst of the good and pure children, the good and pure children may be saved.

It's much the same as a bad apple can spoil the whole bunch. The solution is to weed out the bad apples.

You were a kid, didn't you know any bad apples you knew better than to hang around? For me it was this bastard (literally, he didn't have a daddy) named Jake Marlin, a bullying creep who was always bigger than the other kids because he failed a couple of grades. His dumb ass wound up in the Adobe Mountain Reform School when he got caught setting a school bus on fire. Good riddance. The only people who missed him were the dopers who needed to find another dealer on campus.

Some kids aren't worth saving. It's better to just get rid of them and get them into the prison system and away from where they can pollute the other kids.

Wow. And how, pray tell, do we separate the "evil" children from the "good" children efficiently and effectively?

Also, are you telling me that you NEVER did anything that could be construed as "bad" as a child? I sure as hell did. I am glad that the one time that I skipped school did not result in someone giving me a criminal record (truancy) and therefore damage my chances of getting into graduate school later in life. Oh and I'm glad that my participation in high school lunch discussions of "getting laid" didnt result in me getting a "sex offender" status.

Let me guess though: you never talked about sex before the age of 18, and never to anyone below that age, right? Not even in inuendo?


Yep! Exactly! I'm sure that's about what became of Jake Marlin and the dirty little S.O.B. surely deserved it. It's better than letting the rotten egg pollute the whole nest.

You're "sure?" It might not have unless you are absolutely sure of the outcome.

One ne'er do well in my grammar school went on to become an entrepreneur. He now makes far more money than I do, and we've reconciled our differences. I'm glad that your interpretation of the law on sexual thought/discussions did not extend to him and royally ruin his life.


I COMPLETELY believe some of them are below the age of 18. I know how evil children can be. If you leave kids to their own devices then you'll have a "Lord of the Flies" nightmare situation in no time flat.

I don't buy that kids can't be evil. I've known too many evil kids to believe that.

I never said that. Kids CAN commit evil actions, but our legal system does not hold them 100% accountable. Children are IMPRESSIONABLE. Your above post even alludes to that.

Again, I look back, and if I applied your stringent interpretation of the law, then I would be in jail awaiting parole right now. I made out with a 16 year old when I was 17 in high school (nothing else happened, much to my chagrin at the time), and was caught by the school principle.

I would be a registered sex offender when I got out of jail. Is that really how you want to "deal" with our children? Would you stand up to your own legal scrutiny?

[gdoane]

So, enforcing the law is all about retribution? Is that what you're saying here?

There is crime, and there is punishment. If you don't want punishment then don't commit crime.

Quick question: do you agree with our legal system's decision to NOT treat adolescents/children as full-fledged adult offenders, or do you believe that adolescents/children should be charged with adult time in adult prison facilities?

No, I don't agree with the stupid system. I think it's ridiculous that a kid can be 17 years and 364 days old and be a minor and then MAGICALLY be an adult the very next day. It defies all logic and common sense.

Kids know right from wrong pretty well by the age of 5 years old. If they didn't then they wouldn't be in public school at that age.

Wow. And how, pray tell, do we separate the "evil" children from the "good" children efficiently and effectively?

Same way you tell the difference between good and evil adults. By their fruits you shall know them.

Also, are you telling me that you NEVER did anything that could be construed as "bad" as a child? I sure as hell did. I am glad that the one time that I skipped school did not result in someone giving me a criminal record (truancy) and therefore damage my chances of getting into graduate school later in life. Oh and I'm glad that my participation in high school lunch discussions of "getting laid" didnt result in me getting a "sex offender" status.

I still have my medal from High School for Perfect Attendance. I never missed even ONE DAY of school. I think my perfection should be rewarded far more than some punk kid who skips classes and makes trouble.

Let me guess though: you never talked about sex before the age of 18, and never to anyone below that age, right? Not even in inuendo?

I was a virgin until I was married at 24 years old. I've also never done any illegal drugs, never drank underage and I don't have any tattoos, body piercings or bumper stickers.

You're "sure?" It might not have unless you are absolutely sure of the outcome.

You could say the same thing about smoking. George Burns (actor/comedian 1896-1996) smoked cigars every day and lived to be 100 years old. Even with this exception, the rule is that if you smoke six cigars a day every day that you're probably not going to live to your naturally expected lifespan, much less 100.

One ne'er do well in my grammar school went on to become an entrepreneur. He now makes far more money than I do, and we've reconciled our differences. I'm glad that your interpretation of the law on sexual thought/discussions did not extend to him and royally ruin his life.

Too bad it didn't ruin his life and preserve the opportunity for someone far more pure and deserving.

I never said that. Kids CAN commit evil actions, but our legal system does not hold them 100% accountable. Children are IMPRESSIONABLE. Your above post even alludes to that.

That's because of a cultural holdover where parents were supposed to be hard on their kids. Now that spankings aren't even allowed that's all got to change radically.

Again, I look back, and if I applied your stringent interpretation of the law, then I would be in jail awaiting parole right now. I made out with a 16 year old when I was 17 in high school (nothing else happened, much to my chagrin at the time), and was caught by the school principle.

You're lucky it wasn't Mother Nature who caught you or you could be on the hook for 18 years of child support after doing the baby dance.

I would be a registered sex offender when I got out of jail. Is that really how you want to "deal" with our children? Would you stand up to your own legal scrutiny?

They're not "our" children. I want the good children to do well and I want the evil children kicked to the curb and out of their way.

[Dem]

gdoane, what do you mean by "pure children"? I don't think there is such a thing as a "pure" child.

Anyways, I don't think kids should be labeled sex offenders for being kids. Would you really want to ruin a kids life, for sharing a nude picture of themselves? I don't think the government should be getting into these kinds of situations, this falls under the parents realm.

[gdoane]

gdoane, what do you mean by "pure children"? I don't think there is such a thing as a "pure" child.

I believe in good and evil.

A pure person always chooses good, and an evil person always chooses bad.

The Bible teaches the concept of original sin, that bad parents beget bad children. There's a corruption of blood. For example, Adam and Eve raised Cain, the first murderer on record because they were pretty bad parents.

Anyways, I don't think kids should be labeled sex offenders for being kids.

I don't think producing and distributing child pornography falls into the realm of "being kids". I think the kids who pull this crap need to be thrown into the deepest darkest dungeon and informed without any question that they're exactly the subhuman amoral sort of bastards who are turning America into an infestation of decay from within.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. To neglect the duty of protecting children for the STUPID reason that it's just kids that are victimizing other kids is inexcusable.

You protect kids no matter WHOM the enemy is.

You're not even entertaining the idea that the enemy could be another kid. MAJOR TACTICAL ERROR.

Kids can be victimized to the point that they victimize other kids. This would explain most illicit drug sales in public school facilities.

I don't really see a lick of difference between a kid selling dope to a kid or a kid texting porn to a kid. What's the difference between a kiddie dope dealer and a kiddie porn pusher anyway?

Would you really want to ruin a kids life, for sharing a nude picture of themselves? I don't think the government should be getting into these kinds of situations, this falls under the parents realm.

Okay, let's just dissect your query:

I'm not the one ruining a kid's life or anybody's life, the ruination is self-inflicted. I don't have the nude picture of the kid, I'm not doing the publishing of the picture, so I'm not involved in this vile crime in any way.

Do you agree that publishing naked pictures of children is a crime?

This is a yes or no question. Naked pictures. Children. Published. Crime. Yes. No.

[Samm]

Gdoane, somehow you have single handily sucked all the enjoyment out of debating this issue. :frown:


Lighten up a little for gosh sakes... these are kids we are talking about... kids who's brains are not fully developed, kids who have not yet formed the decision making skills of adulthood, kids who need protection, guidance and discipline; not everlasting damnation. :neutral:

[AeroEngineer]

Gdoane, somehow you have single handily sucked all the enjoyment out of debating this issue. :frown:


Lighten up a little for gosh sakes... these are kids we are talking about... kids who's brains are not fully developed, kids who have not yet formed the decision making skills of adulthood, kids who need protection, guidance and discipline; not everlasting damnation. :neutral:

**** that, lets send all the brats to hell. :twisted:

[Seanachie]

I don't comprehend how anyone would find any 'joy' whatsoever in debating this subject. This topic has and will continue to generate great passion from every aspect of the debate. Hopefully, every aspect will produce a consensus that translates into laws that will address this subject fairly with the adequacy to prevent the topic of this discussion from happening in the future. If someone simply enjoys debate only for sake of debate regardless of substance in this instance; so be it. Each to their own ideas of what they find joy in. I choose to bypass anyone who finds any 'joy' whatsoever in the vernaculars of this discussion. I find none in the serious nature of this debate, not a single solitary instance.

[Dem]

I believe in good and evil.

A pure person always chooses good, and an evil person always chooses bad.
Lets say your child lies about something. Is your child then evil? There is no such thing as someone always doing good, or always doing bad.

The Bible teaches the concept of original sin, that bad parents beget bad children. There's a corruption of blood. For example, Adam and Eve raised Cain, the first murderer on record because they were pretty bad parents.
What about Abel, he turned out to be a pretty good person.


I don't think producing and distributing child pornography falls into the realm of "being kids". I think the kids who pull this crap need to be thrown into the deepest darkest dungeon and informed without any question that they're exactly the subhuman amoral sort of bastards who are turning America into an infestation of decay from within.
I think it does. Teenagers have pretty much discovered their sexuality by the age of 14, every biological urge is telling them to mate.

Is a teen who views porn evil? If not, then why would a teen that views a picture of his naked girlfriend be?

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. To neglect the duty of protecting children for the STUPID reason that it's just kids that are victimizing other kids is inexcusable.
Except your not really protecting children in this case, you are harming them.

I don't really see a lick of difference between a kid selling dope to a kid or a kid texting porn to a kid. What's the difference between a kiddie dope dealer and a kiddie porn pusher anyway?
The kid selling dope is deliberately hurting someone, while the kid texting a nude photo of themselves to their boyfriend/girlfriend aren't hurting anyone.

Okay, let's just dissect your query:

I'm not the one ruining a kid's life or anybody's life, the ruination is self-inflicted. I don't have the nude picture of the kid, I'm not doing the publishing of the picture, so I'm not involved in this vile crime in any way.
But you are ruining the kids life, you would carry out an unjust sentence for something as minor as teens showing off a nude photo of themselves to their bf/gf.


Do you agree that publishing naked pictures of children is a crime?

This is a yes or no question. Naked pictures. Children. Published. Crime. Yes. No.
Yes and no. Is it pornography to have a naked picture of your toddler, while your giving him/her a bath? There was a story recently where a mother was almost made a sex offender because she had photos of her 3 year being given a bath, should she be a sex offender?

[Marleysdaddy]

The Bible teaches the concept of original sin, that bad parents beget bad children. (emphasis mine)

I think you are the only person who thinks that is the doctrine of original sin.

I've certainly never met anyone else who thought that...

[gdoane]

Lets say your child lies about something. Is your child then evil? There is no such thing as someone always doing good, or always doing bad.

Weeds create oxygen, but they're bad.


What about Abel, he turned out to be a pretty good person.

Abel was kicked out of Eden and had to live East of Eden same as his crummy parents.


I think it does. Teenagers have pretty much discovered their sexuality by the age of 14, every biological urge is telling them to mate.

I have no respect for savages who only listen to their biological urges. Human beings are predators, hunter-gatherers and our biological urges tell us to kill too, so do we defend killing as a biological urge? I don't THINK so!

Is a teen who views porn evil? If not, then why would a teen that views a picture of his naked girlfriend be?

A teen who seeks out such things is a juvenile delinquent and basically evil. The teen who lusts after his naked girlfriend is going to be next year's deadbeat Dad and we taxpayers are going to be footing the bill for his Paradise By The Dashboard Light.


Except your not really protecting children in this case, you are harming them.

Pulling weeds may harm a plant but it does make for a nicer garden.

Some kids are weeds. Especially the crummy ones from single parent homes who spend most of their time basically unsupervised and capable of doing things like porno shoots in their own homes while the parents are clueless.

When cops served search warrants on the homes of Klebold and Harris (the Columbine High School Massacre perps) they found GUNS ON THE BED in their bedrooms. Apparently Mommy and Daddy missed the ARSENAL their kiddies were collecting.

These parents let their boys go out in public wearing black lipstick and ghoulish makeup. It's really not much of any wonder why their kids turned out to be mass murderers and terrorists.

The media blamed video games. What a joke. No, the blame is on the parents. All the time, every time. Some parents raise weeds.


The kid selling dope is deliberately hurting someone, while the kid texting a nude photo of themselves to their boyfriend/girlfriend aren't hurting anyone.

Sending graphic photos to a child isn't hurting anyone? You'd go to jail if you did it. Why? Because it's a crime which harms children. Your argument doesn't fly. A child getting spammed with porn is harmed.

But you are ruining the kids life, you would carry out an unjust sentence for something as minor as teens showing off a nude photo of themselves to their bf/gf.

Pulling a weed ruins the weeds life too but so what? I don't care about the weeds. The bullies and sluts and druggies in our schools need to be kicked to the curb and to HELL with them. We need to concentrate our resources on the good kids and not all kids are good.

The kids you'd 'save' are the same little bastards who beat up other kids for their lunch money, who set up cliques and pick fights, and I think those kids should be thrown out on their worthless asses.

Yes and no. Is it pornography to have a naked picture of your toddler, while your giving him/her a bath? There was a story recently where a mother was almost made a sex offender because she had photos of her 3 year being given a bath, should she be a sex offender?

Pictures are taken to share. Taking pictures is a form of publication. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Should somebody who would write a thousand words about their naked child be labeled a sex offender? HELL YES.

[Greyclouds]

There is crime, and there is punishment. If you don't want punishment then don't commit crime.

That is FINE. That is our system of law! However, the punishment should fit the crime!

If I execute you for jaywalking, I'm guilty of NOT making the punishment appropriate for your offense.


No, I don't agree with the stupid system. I think it's ridiculous that a kid can be 17 years and 364 days old and be a minor and then MAGICALLY be an adult the very next day. It defies all logic and common sense.

Kids know right from wrong pretty well by the age of 5 years old. If they didn't then they wouldn't be in public school at that age.

Same way you tell the difference between good and evil adults. By their fruits you shall know them.

Dude, by 5 years old? Alright, go out and ask the nearest 5 year old about the intricacies and ethical violations that are caused by insider trading. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse, right?

By 14 years old, you had never committed one "sin" or offense right? Not even in error?


I still have my medal from High School for Perfect Attendance. I never missed even ONE DAY of school. I think my perfection should be rewarded far more than some punk kid who skips classes and makes trouble.

This ISN'T about rewarding. I had perfect attendance too; I don't believe that I should be coasting through life on laurels because of it. Nor do I think that people who skipped a single day should be forever imprisoned in jail.


I was a virgin until I was married at 24 years old. I've also never done any illegal drugs, never drank underage and I don't have any tattoos, body piercings or bumper stickers.

Good for you. Have you ever broken the speed limit on the highway? Have you ever driven home with any alcohol in your system?

Tatoos and other sorts of decorations are not against the law... do you believe that they should be?

Have you ever hit someone in anger? Have you ever lied to someone?

DO NOT ANSWER ANY OF THESE RHETORICAL QUESTIONS! I am using them to illustrate the point that YES, you have probably done something illegal. Had you been punished, should you have your entire quality of life degraded for doing so?


You could say the same thing about smoking. George Burns (actor/comedian 1896-1996) smoked cigars every day and lived to be 100 years old. Even with this exception, the rule is that if you smoke six cigars a day every day that you're probably not going to live to your naturally expected lifespan, much less 100.

So, you admit that there ARE exceptions to the rule. Cool.


Too bad it didn't ruin his life and preserve the opportunity for someone far more pure and deserving.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement, I'm sorry to say. I'm not even a Christian anymore and I believe far more in the power of reconciliation and remorse than this statement implies.


That's because of a cultural holdover where parents were supposed to be hard on their kids. Now that spankings aren't even allowed that's all got to change radically.

I'm not going to touch this one. Physically harming a child has long-term psychological effects if done to excess. What's the "excess?" It depends on the child, so therefore it is unreliable as a means of parental control.


You're lucky it wasn't Mother Nature who caught you or you could be on the hook for 18 years of child support after doing the baby dance.

I said "making out." Kissing does not cause pregnancy. I was a virgin until the age of 19 if you must know.

However, appearance of impropriety (as you illustrated right here), could have forever ruined my life. Imagine if I was charged with statutory rape, yet I was COMPLETELY INNOCENT of it!

Imagine if the first time you kissed a woman, charges were brought up against you for public lewdness.

Do you see how far it could go?


They're not "our" children. I want the good children to do well and I want the evil children kicked to the curb and out of their way.

Are you a Calvinist, per chance?

[Greyclouds]

<snip>

The kids you'd 'save' are the same little bastards who beat up other kids for their lunch money, who set up cliques and pick fights, and I think those kids should be thrown out on their worthless asses.
<snip>

You have just labeled every single child in our education system as a delinquent.

Should we round them all up and boot them all out of school?

Everyone has committed crimes/sins. I do not know you, but I am confident enough to state that by popular Christian dogma, this means YOU too.

Punishments for those offenses should fit the crime. The death penalty (or an indirect equivalent) should not be the universal punishment.

[Dem]

Weeds create oxygen, but they're bad.
The term weed is subjective. A weed is an unwanted plant, I could call a sunflower a weed, if it was an unwanted plant in my garden.

Abel was kicked out of Eden and had to live East of Eden same as his crummy parents.
Abel was born out Eden. As far as I know the Bible doesn't mention Abel doing anything bad, in fact he pleased God with his offerings.

And if we are to bring religion into this. You are a "weed" as well, since all people are sinners.

I have no respect for savages who only listen to their biological urges. Human beings are predators, hunter-gatherers and our biological urges tell us to kill too, so do we defend killing as a biological urge? I don't THINK so!
Murder is not a biological urge.

A teen who seeks out such things is a juvenile delinquent and basically evil.
So teens who view porn are evil?

The teen who lusts after his naked girlfriend is going to be next year's deadbeat Dad and we taxpayers are going to be footing the bill for his Paradise By The Dashboard Light.
Way to generalize.

Pulling weeds may harm a plant but it does make for a nicer garden.
Depends on what you consider a weed.

Some kids are weeds. Especially the crummy ones from single parent homes who spend most of their time basically unsupervised and capable of doing things like porno shoots in their own homes while the parents are clueless.
Wow, more generalization.

When cops served search warrants on the homes of Klebold and Harris (the Columbine High School Massacre perps) they found GUNS ON THE BED in their bedrooms. Apparently Mommy and Daddy missed the ARSENAL their kiddies were collecting.
I don't know whether that is true or not, there is a lot of myth surrounding the incident. But I don't think you can blame the parents.

http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/do-we-blame-the-columbine-parents/

These parents let their boys go out in public wearing black lipstick and ghoulish makeup. It's really not much of any wonder why their kids turned out to be mass murderers and terrorists.
More generalization.

One of them was a psychopath, and the other extremely depressed.

The media blamed video games. What a joke. No, the blame is on the parents. All the time, every time. Some parents raise weeds.
Sometimes bad kids can come from good parents.

Sending graphic photos to a child isn't hurting anyone? You'd go to jail if you did it. Why? Because it's a crime which harms children. Your argument doesn't fly. A child getting spammed with porn is harmed.
Teens viewing porn harms no one. If a teen takes a naked picture of themselves, and sends it to another teen, it again harms no one.

If I forced a teen to get naked, of course I would go to jail. If the teen had consented, I would still go to jail, since by law they are unable to make that decision, even if the teen is not harmed.


Pulling a weed ruins the weeds life too but so what? I don't care about the weeds. The bullies and sluts and druggies in our schools need to be kicked to the curb and to HELL with them. We need to concentrate our resources on the good kids and not all kids are good.

The kids you'd 'save' are the same little bastards who beat up other kids for their lunch money, who set up cliques and pick fights, and I think those kids should be thrown out on their worthless asses.
You had a rough childhood didn't you?


Pictures are taken to share. Taking pictures is a form of publication. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Should somebody who would write a thousand words about their naked child be labeled a sex offender? HELL YES.
Wow. Exactly what is wrong of taking a picture of your baby, while giving it a bath?



If we lived in your world, I'm guessing 95% of the worlds population would be in jail.

[Samm]

I don't comprehend how anyone would find any 'joy' whatsoever in debating this subject. This topic has and will continue to generate great passion from every aspect of the debate. Hopefully, every aspect will produce a consensus that translates into laws that will address this subject fairly with the adequacy to prevent the topic of this discussion from happening in the future. If someone simply enjoys debate only for sake of debate regardless of substance in this instance; so be it. Each to their own ideas of what they find joy in. I choose to bypass anyone who finds any 'joy' whatsoever in the vernaculars of this discussion. I find none in the serious nature of this debate, not a single solitary instance.
Enjoyment in debate vs. joy in the topic are two entirely different things. I find NO joy in the fact that some pompous prosecutor is trying to turn stupid kids into permanently branded deviates.

[Marleysdaddy]

gdoane,

I'd still like to know how you developed that interesting interpretation of what 'original sin' is...

[Aristophanes]

These kids did a bad thing. but here is the thing, kids haven't changed, just the technology. When I was 14, there were plenty of 14 year old girls I would have been happy to see naked. 14 year olds looking at other 14 years isn't a deviant behavoir, it is expected.

That is not to say that kids shoudl be emailing the photos around, but that is technology for you.

To prosecute under the child pornography laws, regardless of the requested sentence would ruin these kids. Can you imagine filling out that college admissions slip and saying "yes I've been convicted of felony child pornography?"

I mean come on.

In other words, kiddie porn doesn't bother you so long as it's only kids taking the pictures and drooling over each other.

Gotcha.

[mtdim]

In other words, kiddie porn doesn't bother you so long as it's only kids taking the pictures and drooling over each other.

Gotcha.

I don't think anyone has said that it doesn't bother them. Most people have expressed the belief that the parents should act to put a stop to it. What people in this thread are opposed to is the legal prosecution of horny teenagers for getting naked; it would be ruining the teens' lives in the interest of.... protecting them?

[BrittleBullet]

I don't think anyone has said that it doesn't bother them. Most people have expressed the belief that the parents should act to put a stop to it. What people in this thread are opposed to is the legal prosecution of horny teenagers for getting naked; it would be ruining the teens' lives in the interest of.... protecting them?

That seems rational.
Expect your opinion to be unpopular...

[Joeybear23]

In other words, kiddie porn doesn't bother you so long as it's only kids taking the pictures and drooling over each other.

Gotcha.

It is interesting that the ACLU is trying to defend behavior by minors that will get them arrested when they hit adulthood...

[AeroEngineer]

A teen who seeks out such things is a juvenile delinquent and basically evil. The teen who lusts after his naked girlfriend is going to be next year's deadbeat Dad and we taxpayers are going to be footing the bill for his Paradise By The Dashboard Light.


I lusted after my teenage girlfriends all the time...

And now that you bring it up, I'm lusting after a few of them right now.

[Samm]

It is interesting that the ACLU is trying to defend behavior by minors that will get them arrested when they hit adulthood...

Sending nude or partially clothed pictures of yourself (as an adult) to your adult girl/boy friend will get you arrested? That is news to me. :eh:

[Samm]

I lusted after my teenage girlfriends all the time...

And now that you bring it up, I'm lusting after a few of them right now.

If you are a teenage boy and you are not lusting after teenage girls there is something wrong with you. ;)

[Marleysdaddy]

Sending nude or partially clothed pictures of yourself (as an adult) to your adult girl/boy friend will get you arrested? That is news to me. :eh:

Uh-oh :shhh:

[BrittleBullet]

gdoane,

I'd still like to know how you developed that interesting interpretation of what 'original sin' is...

It was pretty unorthodox.
:think:

[gdoane]

I don't think anyone has said that it doesn't bother them. Most people have expressed the belief that the parents should act to put a stop to it. What people in this thread are opposed to is the legal prosecution of horny teenagers for getting naked; it would be ruining the teens' lives in the interest of.... protecting them?

No, protecting other kids FROM them.

If it were an adult sending pornographic materials of any sort to a child's cell phone then he'd be prosecuted for harming a minor.

Therefore, when a minor sends porn to another child's cell phone then he/she should ALSO be fully prosecuted for harming a minor.

It's a simple question of "CAN ANYONE DISTRIBUTE PORNOGRAPHY TO CHILDREN LEGALLY?" and the answer is a very obvious and resounding "NO!"

The law doesn't exist to protect kids. It exists to exact retribution from those who would harm kids.

[CaptC]

Which is more important? The letter of the law or the spirit of the law?

I am moved to ask-What's more important: the actual vote or perceived "intent" of the voter?(see Dubya's 1st election) :think:

Conservatives supporting labeling this as child pornography makes no more sense then liberals supporting labeling spanking as abuse and/or assault.

According to the U. S. Annotated Code, nude pictures of ANYONE can be and shall be termed pornography.:exclaim:


After all the conservatives on here say the intent doesn't matter as "the law is the law."

I am neither liberal nor conservative and I agree that the law is the law, however, the way some people interpret the law is a bit shaky and biased toward their own agendae. :wall:

Stupid is stupid regardless of which side of the political aisle it's coming from

No arguement with that one.:clap:

[Samm]

According to the U. S. Annotated Code, nude pictures of ANYONE can be and shall be termed pornography.:exclaim:



Nonsense.



(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means— (i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

A girl/boy sending a picture of themselves nude to any other person, is not automatically pornographic by the US Code.

[Joeybear23]

Sending nude or partially clothed pictures of yourself (as an adult) to your adult girl/boy friend will get you arrested? That is news to me. :eh:

Sending, or even possessing, pornographic images of minors will... and rightfully so.

It shouldn't matter who initiated the photos.

[Samm]

Sending, or even possessing, pornographic images of minors will... and rightfully so.

It shouldn't matter who initiated the photos.

The premise is that of sending a nude or partially nude photo of yourself, not of some other person. If you are an adult, the photo is of an adult.

But as I have said so many times before... nude and partially nude photos are not pornographic... unless they meet the description in the US Code that I posted below. And even if a kid does send a photo of what society would consider child pornography, that is unlawful because society wishes to protect children. Children are deemed (under the law) unable to fully reason as an adult and thus require our protection; so how can you prosecute them for an adult crime against minors when by definition, they are not adults? And if you charge them as an adult, they it stands to reason that they were equal to an adult when they took their own picture, thus the photo is not of a child. You should not be able to have it both ways.

This whole situation is absurd... :neutral:

[Joeybear23]

The premise is that of sending a nude or partially nude photo of yourself, not of some other person. If you are an adult, the photo is of an adult.

But as I have said so many times before... nude and partially nude photos are not pornographic... unless they meet the description in the US Code that I posted below. And even if a kid does send a photo of what society would consider child pornography, that is unlawful because society wishes to protect children. Children are deemed (under the law) unable to fully reason as an adult and thus require our protection; so how can you prosecute them for an adult crime against minors when by definition, they are not adults? And if you charge them as an adult, they it stands to reason that they were equal to an adult when they took their own picture, thus the photo is not of a child. You should not be able to have it both ways.

This whole situation is absurd... :neutral:


You're creating a loophole for child predators to say that the supbject of the photo took it himself or herslef, and thus does not constitute child pornography, since, as you state in your argument, that it is not an "adult crime against minors"

[Samm]

You're creating a loophole for child predators to say that the supbject of the photo took it himself or herslef, and thus does not constitute child pornography, since, as you state in your argument, that it is not an "adult crime against minors"

So by your assessment, a child who takes a nude picture of themselves is a child predator because they were a child when they did it? :eh:

No wonder you buy into this insanity.

[Joeybear23]

So by your assessment, a child who takes a nude picture of themselves is a child predator because they were a child when they did it? :eh:

No wonder you buy into this insanity.

No.
Read what I typed.

My contention is that the ACLU, lawyers, judge and jury all need to be extremely careful when setting this precedent. Because by the very nature of this case, when a minor takes a sexually explicit photograph of himself or herself, anyone in possession of that photograph will be in possession of child pornography. You cannot make a blanket ruling that it is "okay" if the minor took the picture himself or herself.

[Samm]

No.
Read what I typed.

My contention is that the ACLU, lawyers, judge and jury all need to be extremely careful when setting this precedent. Because by the very nature of this case, when a minor takes a sexually explicit photograph of himself or herself, anyone in possession of that photograph will be in possession of child pornography. You cannot make a blanket ruling that it is "okay" if the minor took the picture himself or herself.

Ok... sorry... I did not notice that you had moved the bar. That "blanket" statement was made in context with this case. There is no indication that any adult was involved either in taking these pictures or in soliciting them. Clearly if a child was acting under the influence and/or direction of an adult the situation would be entirely different.

But again... nude or partially nude photos, except as defined in the US Code I posted, are NOT pornography, child or otherwise. These kids are guilty of nothing more than stupidity, which given their age is not at all abnormal.