ACLU Sues Penn Prosecutor For Empty Threat of Child Porn 590
TechDirt is reporting that the ACLU has stepped in on behalf of several teens facing the threat of child pornography charges in Pennsylvania for sharing nude pics of themselves. Unfortunately for a girl in New Jersey, she is facing much more than just a threat, as she was arrested yesterday for posting almost 30 explicit pictures of herself on MySpace for her boyfriend to see. "...the ACLU has sued the prosecutor on the girls' behalf, saying he shouldn't have threatened them with baseless charges — which haven't yet been filed — if they wouldn't agree to probation and a counseling program. The prosecutor says he was being 'proactive' in offering them a choice, but the ACLU says he shouldn't be using 'heavy artillery' to make the threats. As its attorney points out, teaching kids that this sort of behavior can bring all sorts of unwanted and unforeseen ramifications is a good idea, but threatening them with child-porn charges isn't the best way to do it."
Please ... (Score:5, Funny)
Pics or it didn't happen.
Re:Please ... (Score:5, Funny)
http://imgur.com/12GEE.png [imgur.com]
Re:Fuck you Linus and the horse you rode in on (Score:5, Interesting)
If minors can have sex legally with each other, which they can...
Actually, I wish I could find the link to the story that contradicts this.
A girl, 14, did the deed with her boyfriend, 13. Due to the state's laws, the girl was classified as a victim of sexual abuse. However, as she was the one who initiated the act with another minor, she was also classified as a sexual predator.
Still trying to figure out that one.
Re:Fuck you Linus and the horse you rode in on (Score:5, Insightful)
A girl, 14, did the deed with her boyfriend, 13. Due to the state's laws, the girl was classified as a victim of sexual abuse. However, as she was the one who initiated the act with another minor, she was also classified as a sexual predator.
There's nothing to figure out there: morons were writing the law. For one, having sex with within a few years of your age someone should't count (with consent of course).
Also, having a law that allows a girl to be classified as both victim and predator for the same act is seriously fucked up. Someone didn't think of the children.
and moron applying the law (Score:3, Insightful)
The judge is about as smart as a fireman not stopping a fire in a burning building because of a "no trespassing" sign.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To give valid consent (so the theory goes) you have to be able to assess the likely consequences of an action in light of an understanding of your true desires and intentions.
My two basic desires and intentions are survival and reproduction. Everything else is just the framework to make that happen.
Part of the problem nobody wants to deal with is that children become sexualized quite gradually starting at a very young age.
I think the problem is more likely the adults. They're embarrassed about it. They think the TV will teach the kids. By the time they want to give The Speech about bees and flowers, they could very well ask them for advice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This [denverpost.com] is probably the case you are referring to.
Luckily.. (Score:4, Informative)
Since that was 2006, I decided to see what they decided.. The Utah Supreme Court decision [utcourts.gov] (pdf warning) wasn't nearly as imbecilic as the prosecutor, trial judge or appeals court.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fuck you Linus and the horse you rode in on (Score:5, Insightful)
thats slightly MORE fucked up. Laws should not be made to encourage people to NOT report crimes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Still trying to figure out that one.
Easy. Rule 1 of sex crime laws: the woman is always a victim.
The Children? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Insightful)
What kind of world do we live in when the children won't think of the children?!
Noone under 18 is supposed to think sexually about anyone else. Didn't you get the memo? Neither did the world's teens...
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Funny)
Boy are you in for a sad realization....
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Funny)
You know, I spent a significant portion of my teen years trying to find women who were interested in sex before marriage. In retrospect, I think my energies would have been much better spent (in terms of the integral of happiness over my entire lifespan) if I had focused more on finding a woman who was interested in sex after marriage.
Actually, I'm probably wrong. I suspect that search is a variant of the halting problem, except with infinite input and an incomplete understanding of the "program" in question.
It's Ironic. Or is that tragic? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Funny)
Please, won't somebody think for the children!
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Insightful)
My children will not and would not do such a thing with their phone or facebook because I monitor what they are doing daily as well as other parents and kids. Any real parent would not let this happen.
Teens have been having sex since time immemorial, it's built into us as a species and it's why we are all here. Parents have only been trying to stop it since the onslaught of religion. The parents will inevitably lose in the long run. The sex drive is second only the hunger drive so if the teen has a full stomach then what do you think the next priority is?
Of course children need to be protected but they also need to be respected as fellow humans. Teach your kids birth control and responsibility but also realize that when they mature sexually they are sexual creatures just like everyone else. Let them grow up for chrissake.
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Funny)
so if the teen has a full stomach then what do you think the next priority is
Linux?
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Funny)
Yup...and this may sound strange, but, if the kids are shown how to be careful, and use contraception, I say, Kids GO have as much sex as you can while you are young.
It is the most acceptable time for you to screw another teenager...while everything on them is pert, firm, tight and you have the stamina to go multiple times for hours.
It goes downhill, especially for men as you get older. You can't keep it up forever like you did as a teen...and older chicks? Well, face it...as we get older...gravity takes its toll and things start to sag and droop, and we all get fatter. And if you're older...and are caught screwing a teen, (assuming legal age), you still get looked down upon.
So, I say..DO it now!! Do it while you can. Enjoy it!! Just don't knock the girl up.
I don't know a single guy that is older, that ever has said to me..."yep, I screwed enough of them while I was young".
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Funny)
I've got some frostbite damage that agrees with him, sorry.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, no, we find shelter when sex isn't available, you see. As for the rest of what's involved in keeping warm, sex pretty much handles that by itself.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The girls are 14 years old. I don't know ANY thinking adult that would consider 14 as "sexually mature".
Sounds like you're the one not thinking.
Sexual maturity [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are both ignorant and stupid. A being is sexually mature when he or she can perform their part to procreate.
Being married and pregnant at 14 was very common before (Western) society decided sex was a sin.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Being married and pregnant at 14 was very common before (Western) society decided sex was a sin.
So was dying of childbirth at 16, or dying in general before 40.
Being married and pregnant at 14 was common when the father was 10-20 years older and wealthy, or a few years older and able to provide a living. Not when the father is 12 years old in ANY case, and not when the mother and father require 100% financial (and emotional) support from THEIR parents to survive.
This is not about prudish religions, it's ab
Re:The Children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Err, in other "primitive" (I get to wonder these days about that) cultures, sex was often in public. A phallus was a "lucky charm" and often sculpted or carved above house doors. In fact in some of these cultures, during the "consummation" of (equivalent of) a wedding, the young couple would do it in the centre of the village, to the cheers of merry onlookers, some of these onlookers held in the arms of their mothers because they could not walk yet.
So the argument that seeing other young/old/middle-aged people naked, never you mind having sex, is some new phenomenon is as phony as it gets. As to old-young, it was not uncommon for, say, 40 year olds to marry 14 year olds, or so the anthropologists and historians tell us.
So as someone else pointed out, this all has changed with the spread of religion, or more precisely a particularly repressed, bigoted and hypocritical one, i.e. Judeo-Christian flavour, which deems all sex as evil and human body as grotesque, shamefully inciting to "sin". This became the dominant philosophy during the European Dark Ages (not surprise there). And is has ever since been the dominant neurotic societal psychosis in the Western society, which these societies have now exported along with their military dominion and economic power to places where it did not exist until recently, such as Far East.
I personally think that the West is too far gone down this rabbit hole of authoritarian self-hatred and religious mind-control to undo easily. Since the mental state of the people making these "laws" is pretty much certifiable, I should expect the excesses of stupidity to multiply as rapidly as new technologies expose the depths of this lunacy. But as it is with all lunacies, the lunacy will survive until the lunatics obsessed by it die out or are made powerless, which with religious lunacies is, as history teaches us, usually only possible via violence. And so I expect great many kids with ruined lives and a vast number of victims of witch-hunts (some of the "think of the children" crusaders "estimate" that 60% of men are child molesters) to be sacrificed on the altar of religion-induced mental disease disguised as "law" for many, many years to come.
"Think of the children" indeed!
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your handle suits you well (maybe just not in the way you think it does).
Nothing should be done about this, because nothing wrong was done (at least by the defendants).
The issue against child pornography is that it damages the minor (psychologically or physically, or both). People in their later teens posting nude pictures voluntary isn't and shouldn't be any sort of issue.
The government response to this, as usual, is totally whacked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, some kids do tell their parents everything, and it can be very dangerous as there is such as thing as "too much trust". I'm no child psychologist, but in my limited acquaintances, those who were the closest to their parents were also the ones most likely to be dangerously gullible and taken advantage of by others, because they have not learned the risk inherent in (careless) honesty.
Re:The Children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't that what school is for? ^^
On a more serious note, you and GP are right. I am somewhat experienced in psychology, and small (and sometimes big) lies are an essential part of a working society. Take away the lies, and it completely breaks down. It is a kind of flexibility. To cope with the imperfection of humans.
Same thing with parents and children. Or with any other relationship.
Small lies -- as you may know -- can even save a relationship for a very long and happy time. (Or destroy it. ^^)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Insightful)
All I can say is good luck with that. I commend you for trying and I'm sure doing a very good job, but there can/will always be things your children are doing that you will not be aware of. I had two very involved parents who did a fabulous job of raising me; they were very involved with my life, knew all of my friends, attended the same church, knew many of my teachers, I was excited to share my life with them, etc.
However, there were still many things that I did that they never found out about that would have gotten me in MAJOR trouble had they discovered them. And it wasn't that they were bad parents or I was a bad kid; rather, I was a kid and needed time grow up. Part of that maturation process is doing stupid things and discovering exactly who you are. Hopefully along the way you also discover that you are not a stupid person who enjoys doing stupid things, which I definitely discovered about myself. But if you never have the opportunity to do stupid things, you might not be able to discover that you don't like them until you are out of the developmental period and you are expected to not do stupid things.
Re:The Children? (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever read Starship Troopers? No, not watched, but read the book. One of the themes of the book is similar to what you say. The author explains using a dog metaphor.
"Did you housebreak him?"
"Err . . . yes, sir. Eventually." It was my slowness in this that caused my mother to rule that dogs must stay out of the house.
"Ah, yes. When your puppy made mistakes, were you angry?"
"What? Why, he didn't know any better; he was just a puppy.
"What did you do?"
"Why, I scolded him and rubbed his nose in it and paddled him."
"Surely he could not understand your words?"
"No, but he could tell I was sore at him!"
"But you just said that you were not angry."
Mr. Dubois had an infuriating way of getting a person mixed up. "No, but I had to make him think I was. He had to learn, didn't he?"
"Conceded. But, having made it clear to him that you disapproved, how could you be so cruel as to spank him as well? You said the poor beastie didn't know that he was doing wrong. Yet you indicted pain. Justify yourself! Or are you a sadist?"
I didn't then know what a sadist was â" but I knew pups. "Mr. Dubois, you have to! You scold him so that he knows he's in trouble, you rub his nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so that he darn well won't do it again â" and you have to do it right away! It doesn't do a bit of good to punish him later; you'll just confuse him. Even so, he won't learn from one lesson, so you watch and catch him again and paddle him still harder. Pretty soon he learns. But it's a waste of breath just to scold him." Then I added, "I guess you've never raised pups."
"Many. I'm raising a dachshund now â" by your methods. Let's get back to those juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than you here in this class . . . and they often started their lawless careers much younger. Let us never forget that puppy. These children were often caught; police arrested batches each day. Were they scolded? Yes, often scathingly. Were their noses rubbed in it? Rarely. News organs and officials usually kept their names secret â" in many places the law so required for criminals under eighteen. Were they spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent psychic damage. ...
They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning â" a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he was punished â" and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation â" 'paroled' in the jargon of the times.
"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal â" and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder. You â" "
He had singled me out again. "Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house . . . and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken â" whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. ...
Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you tha
Re:The Children? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you a complete moron? WTF did the parents do? I assure you, at that age if all the kids are doing is sending nude pictures to their boyfriends they're practically saints.
The problem was not with them sharing the pictures with each other, it was them posting them to a PUBLIC website (myspace).
There is not much you can do to prevent kids from sharing pictures with each other (cell-phone image sending, physical copies, etc), but the kids obviously had un-supervised access to the internet to post these pictures in a very public place.
Also the only reason the kids would be "messed up now" is all this BS "think of the children" legal posturing.
Have you ever heard of the expression "pissing in a swimming pool"? It refers to what happens when you post something on the internet, it spreads.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because the digital pics don't need to be developed. Zero cost, and no jollies for the perv (or censorship/reporting to authorities by the prude) at the photo store.
I am actually hoping this case gets prosecuted (Score:3, Interesting)
Cases like this pose interesting and important Constitutional issues. Do teenagers have a first amendment right to take nude pictures of themselves? Or do these fall under the child pornography exception to the first amendment even when not for public display? This sort of thing gets threatened reasonably frequently, and I think that a court really should be forced to rule on it in the reasonably near future. Personally, I think that if you make a child a sex offender and a felon for behavior that would
Possession? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Possession? (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of that, they were for her boyfriend. They're sending them to ONE person. Isn't the whole law to keep children from being exploited? What if they do it by their own will?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Possession? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Or the reflexive criticism of the screamer of "groupthink", of which the parent is an example.
Or the reflexive criticism of the criticizer of the screamer of "groupthink", of which this comment is an example.
Or...
[stack overflow]
Re:Possession? (Score:4, Funny)
Dickhead Attorney
-1, Redundant
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't the whole law to keep children from being exploited? What if they do it by their own
Yeah, right. The purpose is to reassure sexually repressed old men who are afraid that kids today are getting more action than they were at that age, and appease Puritans who can't stand the thought of anyone ever actually enjoying anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nah... I think it can be explained easier than that. Remember the corrallary of Occam's Razor "Never attribute to Malice that which can be adequetly explained by stupidity."
Also, as has been in my email signature file for a long time "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it".
Its like explaining to a narcotics officer the problems with prohibition. He will tell you about the dangers of drugs, the way they have no quality control, the dangerous
Re:Possession? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Drug prohibition is a particularly good example; it's hard to get rid of because now enforcing it is a multi-billion dollar industry, but it wasn't at first, and it seems unlikely that that was the primary motivation of the people who originally pushed it through decades ago.
You are correct:
Origin, at least in the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for asking the question. Most people just assume that child porn has always been illegal and never give a thought to the basis for those laws.
I'm old and I've viewed porn since long before videotape existed as a consumer product. I'm also from the U.S., so my experience is limited to the laws in my country. I'll take a stab at answering your question because it's a very important one.
For most of the history of the U.S., child porn was legal. (Some will argue that child porn has always been illegal because obscenity has always been illegal and child porn is obscene. They have a point but not a practical one. There was negligible prosecution for obscenity in child porn cases in the past because they were hard cases to make and you couldn't be sure of a conviction. Thus,) Until the 1970s, child porn magazines and 8mm films were easily available in any large adult book store in any large city.
This bothered people for good reason. In those days, there was no amateur child porn. Film photography (no digital back then, remember) is expensive and developing film isn't easy. Almost no one took pictures of child porn unless they were doing it as a business. Further, there was no (essentially) cost-free distribution medium in those pre-internet days.
The bottom line is that back in those days, child porn was a business. If you possessed child porn, you had to have bought it. If you bought it, you were giving money to adults who were in the business of molesting children.
That's not a good thing.
In fact, it's such a bad thing that when we started making child porn illegal, the few objections on free-speech grounds (and there were some) were easily dismissed. The value of free speech, in these narrow circumstances, is not enough to overcome the legitimate interest of the state in protecting children. Remember, in this case, we're talking about the REAL protection of children. The act of buying child porn back then was functionally equivalent to paying a group of adults to rape kids. No court had a problem with outlawing it.
From that perfectly reasonable beginning, weirdness soon began to grow.
Simple possession was outlawed and nobody raised a fuss because, well, who cares, really? The few pervs who collected large amounts of the stuff were also the people most likely to buy more, so making their lives more difficult wasn't seen as a problem.
Remember, at that time child porn laws came into existence because child porn consisted of adults being paid to rape children. Child porn prohibition had a positive effect on reducing that problem and everybody was happy - except the pedos. In the immediate pre-consumer-internet period, child porn had ceased to exist as a commercial product. Essentially no one in the U.S. was selling it except for the U.S. Postal Service as a part of sting operations. About the only place to get it was alt.sex.pedophilia (and related groups); most of what was available there was simply scans of old nudist magazines. Child porn, for a while, was essentially dead.
Then, the consumer-level internet and ubiquitous digital media technologies came into existence. EVERYTHING changed. Comparing then to now:
Then, child porn was expensive to produce. Now, it's cheap.
Then, child porn was a business. Now, it's amateur hour, all the time.
Then, child porn exclusively involved adults molesting kids. Now, the most common forms of child porn involve children molesting themselves.
Then, child porn only saw the light of day because an adult sold it. Now, most child porn involves no adults at any stage of production or distribution.
Then, child porn was rare because it was difficult to physically distribute the magazines and films in quanti
Re:Origin, at least in the U.S. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just for the record, you're right. There are lobbyists who say these things.
However, these are new statements. Child porn was made illegal (in the U.S.) in the 1970s, worked its way to the Supreme Court in the early 1980s, and finally became illegal to possess in every state and under federal law in (iirc) 1990. During all that, no one brought up such arguments very widely, if at all. The argument that the availability of the material turned edge cases into full-blown pedophiles came later.
I have real problems responding to this. It's so insane, it's hard to come up with a good answer. For example, I'm male and straight but I can appreciate the male form as art. But no matter how many gorgeous Mapplethorpe photos of male genitalia I view, I'm never going to want to spend any time in close proximity to such appendages.
The notion that child porn can make anyone a pedo who isn't already one is just absurd. How do you respond to that?
Now, let's take it to a whole new level. There are people in the U.S. who are arguing to make child porn more illegal (or arguing that the reason that child porn should be illegal is) because viewing a photo of a child rape is the equivalent of raping that child again.
Notice that I put no qualifiers in the previous sentence. I didn't say "moral equivalent." I said "equivalent." There are actually nutjobs who will, with a straight face, tell you that the possession of a picture is or should be a crime EQUAL to the rape of a child.
We have now moved to the level of religious faith. The notion that looking at a picture is the same as committing rape is so far out there, so insane, so completely divorced from objective reality that there's simply no way I can conceive to counter their arguments.
Bottom line: There are people out there who would lock you up for the rest of your life for the thoughts you hold in your head. Some of them hold public office. That's something that really shouldn't happen in democratic societies. That's the sort of mindset that's required to put people in jail for possession of cartoons.
It's time to be very, very afraid.
Re:Possession? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the thing, if I can get arrested for looking at it, she should be charged.
Theoretical scenario, I'm a priest. Decide to reach out through my flock via myspace. Through some click-click-clicking, I end up on that damn myspace page and immediately hit the back button. I'm not a techie, so I don't clear the cache. Someone down the road with a grudge accuses me of molesting them as a child. The police swoop in and examine my computer. 30 instances of child porn! I'm going to jail. Even if I'm ultimately exonerated, a quick google search of my name by any parishoner in the world will see "Priest charged with 30 counts of child porn" about twenty times.
Scenario two. Student is pissed off because she got a B+. That should be an A-. So she gets my cellphone number somehow and sends me topless pictures. Then claims I molested her. Even if the molestion charges don't stick, the child porn charges could.
So until the day that fourteen year-old can take pictures of herself, publish them, sell them, and I can't get into a shitstorm for possessing them (not that I want to, accidents happen), hell yeah she should be charged.
Re:Possession? (Score:5, Insightful)
drugs (Score:5, Interesting)
Its like explaining to a narcotics officer the problems with prohibition. He will tell you about the dangers of drugs, the way they have no quality control, the dangerous ways they are produced, house fires, stuff thats too pure killing people, stuff thats adulturated killing people....
I saw something in the news earlier on this, the tide may be turning: "New York to ease its landmark tough drug laws [google.com]".
Yet never once can you expect acknowledgement that if it was legal and regulated, then phizer, phillip morris, and glaxco-smith-kline would produce standard product, at known purity, at reasonable prices.... and solve ALL of those problems, leaving behind the medical issue of addiction, thats really one for the doctors.
CNN has been going on about the War on Drugs and what's happening along the Texas border with Mexico. Every tyme I see something about it I think it wouldn't be a problem if drugs were not made illegal. Legalizing drugs would cut down on crime. And practically empty the prisons in the US, the US has the largest prison population [wikipedia.org] in the world and half of the prisoners are there for drug offenses. Setting free those who were convicted of non-violent drug offenses then many will become tax paying employees and would help with the budget deficit. As would taxing drugs.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you think these people started selling drugs in the first place? Because that $90K Oracle DBA Manager job was so unfulfilling?
What makes you think they were selling? Maybe some DBA liked bolivian marching powder on the weekends.
Have you tried to find a job with a felony conviction on your record lately?
Yeah, I remember when a felony meant something. Now it could mean you played a DVD on linux.
But don't think that closing the War on Drugs is going to be the end of the problem. All that's going to do is stop whitewashing over the rot and decay. Once we quit hiding behind this silly "War," the real work is going to begin.
True, but it will reduce the impact of the problem. It will also defund the drug cartels pretty much overnight.
Re:Possession? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose you think everyone who ever supported any laws against child pornography was motivated solely by a pure and noble desire to Protect The Children. Yes, that motive is probably the dominant factor in most cases, but it doesn't exist without a cultural context. If that's really all there is to it, then why is the age cutoff set so absurdly high, so that for every one of us, several years elapse during which we are physically mature or nearly so and experience essentially adult sexuality, but we are officially forbidden to express it? It isn't just pornography. Why are age of consent laws with high age cutoffs so widespread (16 or higher in every state of the US, and there are 12 states where it's 18)? Do the supporters of those laws really, honestly believe that no one under 16 has ever genuinely consented to sex, or do they just think they really *shouldn't* consent and so their sexual freedom is acceptable collateral damage? Why do so many jurisdictions have higher ages of consent for homosexual acts than for heterosexual ones, if not that they see 'deviant' queer sex as even more threatening than the hetero variety for which they must grudgingly concede the necessity? Why are there jurisdictions where *adults* are not recognized as able to consent to BDSM, and where this is still actively [wikipedia.org] prosecuted [wikipedia.org]?
Why does this prosecuter believe it is his place to 'be proactive' and actively seek to harm this girl 'for her own good'? Where are there social structures established to enable and encourage him to do this, and people willing to stand up and defend him for it? Can't you imagine a world where the prevailing reaction to this sort of thing is 'Ah, to be young and in love', and where the impulse to control and repress is seen as threatening?
So, yeah, I'll agree that the genuine desire to protect vulnerable children is a big motivator, but that's not even close to the whole of it. There is a pervasive and deeply rooted attitude in this culture that sexuality is somehow less than legitimate, and this leads to the idealization of childhood as a time of 'innocence' before sexual awareness begins. Thus, there is an intense reaction to anything which seems to threaten that mythology, so we get not merely a ban on child pornography, but one which defines anyone under 18 as a 'child' and makes this absurdity possible. We get not merely an age of consent, but one which ignores the very possibility of the genuine sexual expression of a large class of people. For that matter, consider abstinence-only sex education. A lot of people on the socially conservative side of this give a very convincing appearance of believing, or at least wanting to uphold, an official myth that no one under the age of 18 ever has a sexual thought unless 'corrupted' by adults.
Re:Possession? (Score:4, Insightful)
More than just photographs, she is also in possession of a 1:1-scale articulating sculpture of a naked child's body. All children need to be thrown in jail for this offense!
Re:Possession? (Score:5, Funny)
Exactly (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the real perverts are the people who have turned this into something naughty and sick.
nude babies (Score:4, Interesting)
When I was a child and growing up, seems like everybody had pictures of the kids in the tub or whatever, and it was fairly common to see a neighbor's 2-year-old running around naked. There was absolutely nothing sexual about it and nobody even thought twice about it.
Not only did we run around naked when I was growing up but we also played Doctor. Even today, and I'm middle aged, I don't have a problem with naturalism [wikipedia.org].
I think the real perverts are the people who have turned this into something naughty and sick.
You hit the nail right on the head.
Falcon
I encourage the /.'ers to RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
... so you don't miss the part about the 14 year old girl in New Jersey who has been charged with possesion of pictures of herself.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And not just this one, ANY article could contain image of 14y/o naked or partially/fully clothed! that's it from now on I'm not reading any articles, its the only way to be sure!
5th Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:5th Amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely! This is a case of public indecency and nothing more. There's absolutely no reason for these prosecutors / police to have lept to the "register as a sex offender and go to jail" big guns. You don't ruin a young girls life for having made one dumb decision about how to use the Internet unless it literally destroyed someone's life.
On a more important note, throwing around the term "child porn" really hurts our sense of moral outrage at real child porn which is a business half a step removed from human trafficking; physical, mental and psychological abuse; and lots of other things that we really should be aiming the big guns at!
Only today... (Score:5, Insightful)
Only today can someone be sent to jail and put on a sex offender's registry for sexually abusing themselves. Clearly, she is a danger to children and shouldn't be allowed to live within 2000 ft of a school building or daycare for the rest of her life. And certainly, every time she applies for a job this should come up on her background check. Oh, and don't forget to force her to notify her neighbors that she's a sex offender.
I am so tired of the "let's make an example of them" mentality that is used to justify this crap.
Re:Only today... (Score:5, Funny)
Only today can someone be sent to jail and put on a sex offender's registry for sexually abusing themselves
I'm glad they couldn't charge me when I was a kid for sexually abusing myself.......I did it quite often.
Re:Only today... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only today... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've got a thought, maybe it's a crazy one or maybe it's a good one, I don't know. Every law that congress passes should have a section titled "Purpose" which describes, in detailed but plain English, what the goal of the law is. When cases go to trial, the judge and jury review the law and also the stated purpose of the law and unless the trial is fulfilling the stated purpose, no crime has been committed.
This does two things. One, it prevents wanton abuses of the system by those looking to make a name for themselves or make an example of others. Two, it requires that lawmakers actually stop and think about what the law is intended to do and, hopefully, think about whether the more technical portions of the law actually will achieve that aim.
Re:Only today... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Every law that congress passes should have a section titled "Purpose" which describes, in detailed but plain English, what the goal of the law is. When cases go to trial, the judge and jury review the law and also the stated purpose of the law and unless the trial is fulfilling the stated purpose, no crime has been committed.
That's a neat idea. Amazingly, it's been considered before. Even more amazingly, that's almost exactly what happens!
Except it's only done if the law is ambiguous, in which case judges attempt to work out the intent of the law by looking at committee reports, conference reports, floor debates, changes to the bill during the legislative process, and, in a pinch, hearing minutes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that a CP conviction, and being forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life would screw up somes life more than nude pictures on the internet would otherwise do.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good news! (Score:5, Funny)
Well, as you know, sex offenders are very likely to reoffend. Sex offenders who offend against children are extremely dangerous today. This prosecuror is doing his part to change that.
By making these girls sex offenders abusing themselves, well... soon they will be too old to reoffend! Thus drastically lowering the recidivism rate for sex offenders!
Don't you think it would be great if we could lower the number of sex offenders who reoffend later? Shit, measures like this could result in a 90% drop in reoffence rates!
-Steve
Probation? (Score:2, Insightful)
the ACLU has sued the prosecutor on the girls' behalf, saying he shouldn't have threatened them with baseless charges -- which haven't yet been filed -- if they wouldn't agree to probation and a counseling program
Probation? That's still an admission that she did something illegal. If you don't own your own likeness, that's a problem. It would not be the first time the ACLU completely missed the point. (Yes, I'm still glad they exist, on the balance.) Counseling is only really an admission that she did something not socially acceptable... which is therefore an acceptable statement to make. But even probation is an obscene punishment for distribution of your own likeness.
Re:Probation? (Score:5, Informative)
It was the DA, not the ACLU, who proposed probation and counseling.
Re:Probation? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you parsed the sentence wrong.
You are 100% correct. I realized sometime after I wrote it, and decided to just let it go rather than comment if nobody noticed. Unfortunately, somebody did, so here we are.
Now that I have RTFA [wired.com]... heh... I guess this is the relevant passage:
This relates to the Tunkhannock School District case where phones containing pictures of semi-nude girls were confiscated; the letters followed. One could conceivably consider them blackmail letters; confess to a fairly serious crime and do probation for it (as noted, election time is coming up; looking tough on child porn is always good political capital) or we'll haul you into a real court. I think the question of whether he would actually have drug them into court at all is a good one to ask here. I think that charging your constituents' kids with serious crimes is not a great way to ingratiate yourself to them, though.
No, bad laws make them criminals.
How does this qualify as pornography? (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:How does this qualify as pornography? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your understanding is incorrect but very understandable. The problem is that what is and isn't pornographic is highly subjective. Generally, as far as child pornography is concerned, it is merely enough that the pictures are of someone under 18 years of age and "intended to arouse sexual desire". Which does seems appallingly vague. In this case though, it seems pretty clear that the pictures were intended to excite her boyfriend.
The questions here are:
1) Can a person sexually abuse his/her self?
2) Is the purpose of child pornography laws to punish for the harming of the particular child in the photographs or to shut down the child porn network itself? I can imagine an argument that although she wasn't harmed in the taking of these pictures, these pictures do harm society by supplying material to a network of people that do harm children.
3) If she's to young to consent to the pictures because she can't make rational decisions regarding her sexuality, why can she be charged for making a poor decision regarding her sexuality?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My understanding is that something has to include sexual acts to be considered pornography. Nudity, by itself, is not pornography.
Where have you been the last decade? You don't have to read through the respective laws to know that the term can, and typically does, mean most anything. A casual reading of headlines would inform you that people have gone to jail for taking pictures of fully clothed minors, and those registered as offenders, for example, have gone back to jail for looking at pictures of fully
Seriously, what is going on here?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Teenagers having sex and taking naked pictures of themselves is now a nationwide problem?!
No. Millions of people losing their jobs is a nationwide problem. Teenagers taking naked pictures of themselves is a non-issue. These aren't exploited kids being molested or stripped against their will. And I guarantee you at least one of these prosecutors streaked, went skinny-dipping, etc. in their youth. This is just ridiculous. Don't we as a nation have better things to be worried about than a teenager getting naked for another teenager?!
Re:Seriously, what is going on here?! (Score:5, Funny)
In the (paraphrased) words of Lewis Black...
"This issue is right up there with the question of, 'Are we eating too much garlic as a people?'."
Re:Seriously, what is going on here?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, our failure as a nation has been to pretend their viewpoint has merit (everyone is a beatiful snowflake after all) instead of calling those people stupid, and ignoring everything they say.
This makes sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Children posting nude pictures of themselves (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't the first case like this. There was A.H. v Florida [wikipedia.org], which made national headlines. Unfortunately, it ended badly for the teens in question.
Re:Children posting nude pictures of themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
The most retarded part of the ruling:
Second, the teens had no reasonable expectations that these pictures would never be shown to a third party, whether by accident or because of bragging rights because they are young and naive.
The kids claimed that they thought they had an expectation of privacy.
The state decided that they could not have an expectation of privacy because they were naive...
So if you don't have a complete understanding of social norms, statistics on average teenage activity, privacy and security of cell networks, email, image sharing sites, and social networks, you are incapable of having a reasonable expectation of privacy?!?
And some how, magically, you gain all of that knowledge on your 18th birthday?
-Rick
Smash the state. (Score:4, Insightful)
At least half of all high schoolers are sexually active (along with a larger proportion of college students, some also teenagers). When I was in high school, I remember most of my sexually active peers had digital pictures of themselves or their partners. This was true of males and females, gay, hetero, and bisexual. The number has probably increased recently now that everyone (middle class and above) has a camera phone.
I think young people need to fight back for their right to love each other and express themselves. These should be basic human rights. In the west we decry female genital mutilation because we believe that it is a basic human right to experience pleasure and to have full control of our own bodies. We need to apply the same standard to all of our post-pubescent population. As someone in their mid twenties, I can tell you that plenty of my peers in high school were more responsible in their sexual activity than my peers now. Maturity has more to do with individual personality than age.
Sexual images are a form of expression like any other. There is no reason that free speech should not apply to it as much as anything else.
we need a chart (Score:5, Funny)
adult takes photos of a nude minor - illegal
nude adult takes photos of a nude minor - more illegal
adult takes photos of nude adult - sexy
minor takes photos of a nude minor - illegal
minor takes photos of nude self - illegal
nude minor takes photos of adult - ?
nude minor takes photos of nude adult - ?
parent takes photos of nude infant - generally legal
infant takes photos of nude parent - probably funny
stranger takes photos of nude infant - OK only if it's Ann Geddes
traffic camera, security camera, sporting event camera crew takes photos of nude minor streaking - ?
adult makes drawing of nude minor - probably from Japan
So we have a few spots that need clarification.
Holy crap that is a good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Best possible way to get this law stuck down - get a high school student to go nude in front of the city hall security camera, and then file child pornogrpahy charges against city hall, and a lawsuit.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
6th amendment! (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's assume that this can be generalized -- the kid's lawyers in a child porn case can't have the pictures because that would still be distribution by the DA. Also, let's assume that we're going to be showing them to the jury, so that they can determine if the picture in question is actually child porn.
The 6th amendment, abridged for brevity's sake: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to...be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation"
In a case like this, the pictures are at the heart of both the nature and the cause of the accusation -- and actually seeing the pictures is necessary to determine if it is pornography.
Seems to me child porn laws are illegal, given at least one of the statements in the two posits above is true.
but IANAL.
Re:I wonder.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, since "my body, my choice" (abortion) law applies to teenagers, I'd personally say that the same should apply to this situation. If they want to take or distribute nude photos of *themselves*, then there shouldn't ANY "way to do it", best or not. The government should butt the heck out of the situation.
Re:I wonder.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Taking naked pictures of yourself and distributing them is, arguably, stupid; and kids are hardly renowned for their wisdom; but that doesn't mean that the state needs to become involved.
Coercive power is all well and good when dealing with crime; but it is a lousy tool for teaching responsibility. "Hey, kid, the consequences of your actions are so severe that, in order to teach you that actions have consequences, I've had to impose a bunch of synthetic consequences on you. Enjoy life on the sex offender registry."
If, in fact, their actions have consequences, then I suspect that the kids will learn about them soon enough, no need to impose artificial ones. If they don't turn out to, then there is no need(or ethical reason) to impose any. Their parents should definitely have the "doing stupid things is a bad idea" talk with them; but the DA can GTFO.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, these actions can have consequences and, these days, they could turn into long term/permanent consequences. I'd draw a com
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should the government really just be completely hands free in this?
Yes. Nudity should never be a crime.
YOU'VE GOTTA PROTECT THE CHILDREN! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't come down hard on a teenage girls sending nude pictures of themselves to their boyfriend, they could possibly eventually hypothetically in the future end up having problems because of it, somehow.
Instead, let's throw them in jail and brand them as sex offenders.
Better not leave it to chance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The consequences of what? Being sexually mature but living in a society that pretends you aren't?
Re:I wonder.. (Score:4, Insightful)
A meeting with the girl, the guy, both sets of parents the DA, a teen counselor, and ideally a judge. Make it mandatory for all. Although it's technically a crime by the letter of the statute, it is probably not by the intent of the legislation writers. An explanation that it could be considered a crime; how the pictures could be misused, how they're not private (anything in the internet can get out), and how the future might not look favorably on what they consider a prank or what a 14 yo thinks is harmless fun.
Really, the legislature should address this in a sound fashion by identifying it as a different class of offense - ideally only for digital transmission (since polariods have always been around, and hard copies generally aren't forever) - and as a very low level misdemeanor that includes the potential for a fine and/or community service only, and drops of your record when you hit 18. This isn't life or death here, and it's not exploitation, but it does carry some inherent risks. Treat is as the foolishness of youth that it is.
Tell the parents and go away (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the most sensible British judges, Pickles J, once commented in dismissing a case that there are many things that people do which are annoying, stupid etc., but so lo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know that nearly 100% of violent offenders consumed a drink containing at least 60% dihydrogen monoxide within the 24 hour period before their crimes?
In fact, 100% of those who are under the influence of alcohol at the time of their arrest also had dihydrogen monoxide in their blood stream.
-Steve
Juries cannot nullify anymore... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Will you be able to render a verdict using only the judge's instructions on how the law is to be applied."
I was under oath, and obligated to raise my hand indicating that I might not be able to do this. When I was questioned about my response, I had to answer honestly to the point that I could not follow the Judge's instructions if I felt the law was being applied in an unfair way. I was immediately dismissed.