Sexting

[Michael]

Recently a couple of 'minors' in the USA have been charged with "child pornography" offenses due to taking and transmitting of 'racy' (not quite nude) photos of themselves to their friends via cell phone cameras and text messages.

This strikes me as bizarre - though a logical conclusion of our laws.

Anyone have any thoughts on this topic?

[The Drunk Guy]

Recently a couple of 'minors' in the USA have been charged with "child pornography" offenses due to taking and tranmitting of 'racy' (not quite nude) photos of themselves to their friends via cell phone cameras and text messages.

This strikes me as bizarre - though a logical conclusion of our laws.

Anyone have any thoughts on this topic?
How can a child be charged for child pornography? Can you charge a kid for statutory rape? Kids will be kids. Let this be dealt with by their parents, the way it should be.

[partofme]

I don't think minors should be able to be charge with any child pornography charges. If they can legally have sex with somebody then they should be able to legally have their photo.

[SMadsen]

LOL An interesting question.

Since a minor is in no position to give legal consent, regardless of his/her own initiative, isn't this a case of minors taking their own pictures and transmitting them without their own consent? Hmmm. If so then, yes, it must be sort of a logical conclusion of the laws. Although it's more like a hysteric reaction due to an issue covered in taboo's.

It reminds me of the reactions to an """incident""", as conveyed in another forum, about a kid hugging his teacher and, if I remember correctly, grabbing her tit in the process.

[partofme]

The problem is that people expect people to be "innocent" at the time they are naturally wanting sex more than ever. The human race spread fast because people are sexually charged when their decision making skills are at their lowest so natural selection has made us that way. To expect otherwise is to wish reality to be different.

[SMadsen]

Wow, it's apparantly also an interesting topic in quite different ways. 67 guests are currently viewing this thread!

[Michael]

Wow, it's apparantly also an interesting topic in quite different ways. 67 guests are currently viewing this thread!
Indeed... at this moment, there are 41 guests, viewing this thread! ;)

[partofme]

Indeed... at this moment, there are 41 guests, viewing this thread! ;)

There where 271 people online at one point today and I assume most came to this thread. Somebody might have gotten the wrong idea as to what was going on in here. :rofl:

[Michael]

How can a child be charged for child pornography? Can you charge a kid for statutory rape? Kids will be kids. Let this be dealt with by their parents, the way it should be.
I think this reply matches my own view on the issue. If the police became aware of this 'event', they should have informed the parents of the parties involved and left it at that. Bringing criminal charges just sets this up to be a media circus.

I think the police in this case are guilty of trying to "set an example" - which in this case, uses the minors in this case as a 'means to an end' that isn't justice for the kids - it is publicity for the police and the law. I don't see how the particular minors in this case are being properly served here.

[Michael]

There where 271 people online at one point today and I assume most came to this thread. Somebody might have gotten the wrong idea as to what was going on in here. :rofl:
Someone posted a random link to this thread at 4chan. That appears to be the source of the incoming wave of guests. I say "welcome". :)

[Donkey]

I think this is insane. The idea that a kid can be punished for sending a naked picture to another person their same age strikes me as wrong and a misapplication of child pornography laws.

Though it does raise an interesting question: what if some enterprising 13-14 year old were to try selling naked pictures of him/herself. I think the law would pretty easily shut it down, but for me it's a bit of a moral gray area (I'm speaking strictly of the actions on the kid's end).

[wphelan]

It really is insane to convict these kids as sex offenders. It's clearly not the same thing as a guy distributing child pornography, and to treat them the same is wrong. I guess the justification behind it is that these pictures could fall into other hands and subsequently be circulated among other people, specifically adults. However, I think that raises the question of whether the laws exist to protect children from being abused or to prevent adults from viewing these kinds of pictures. It's hard to see where the abuse is in this case.

[Americano]

Here's the majority ruling on the case:

"As previously stated, the reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated is by itself a compelling state interest for preventing the production of this material. In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment... Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.
Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos."


More:


"Under a 1995 ruling in a case called B.B. v. State, the Florida Supreme Court said that a 16-year-old could not be found delinquent for having sex with another 16-year-old."


http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html

[Dominick]

[...] Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. [...]
Is mere nudity -if that's what this is about- 'sexual conduct ? :confused: Smells of puritanism.

[Donkey]

Is mere nudity -if that's what this is about- 'sexual conduct ? :confused: Smells of puritanism.
Over here a breast might as well be a bestial orgy.

[partofme]

Over here a breast might as well be a bestial orgy.

I still can't get over how long people went on and on about the whole Janet Jackson thing during the Super Bowl. People acted as if their children would automatically be sent to hell for seeing a nipple and that nothing could ever be enough to punish CBS for what it had done.

[Americano]

Is mere nudity -if that's what this is about- 'sexual conduct ? :confused: Smells of puritanism.

The article stated "digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior". If the judges were fundies, unspecified sexual behavior could have been them holding hands while unmarried.

[The Drunk Guy]

Here's the majority ruling on the case:

"As previously stated, the reasonable expectation that the material will ultimately be disseminated is by itself a compelling state interest for preventing the production of this material. In addition, the statute was intended to protect minors like appellant and her co-defendant from their own lack of judgment... Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.
Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos."


More:


"Under a 1995 ruling in a case called B.B. v. State, the Florida Supreme Court said that a 16-year-old could not be found delinquent for having sex with another 16-year-old."


http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
Protect them from themselves? Protect them from their goddamned moron parents who gave them a fuckin' cellphone in the first place.

[Americano]

Protect them from themselves? Protect them from their goddamned moron parents who gave them a fuckin' cellphone in the first place.

As they're minors the parents should bear legal responsibility. No one sues the kid who causes property damage as he isn't legally responsible. The state taking control of minor children morality under criminal law appeal court decisions?

[The Drunk Guy]

As they're minors the parents should bear legal responsibility. No one sues the kid who causes property damage as he isn't legally responsible. The state taking control of minor children morality under criminal law appeal court decisions?
You know what's worse? No one cares. Sure, we do, but who are we? A bunch of eccentrics and recluses.

How can we combat the government's behavior on this?

[SMadsen]

The article stated "digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior". If the judges were fundies, unspecified sexual behavior could have been them holding hands while unmarried.
Sad, really, but .. :lol:

[Americano]

You know what's worse? No one cares. Sure, we do, but who are we? A bunch of eccentrics and recluses.

How can we combat the government's behavior on this?

Unless you're going to personally pay for a lawyer to appeal it to a higher court the only potential challenge would be if it interests the ACLU. Judges in most instances are part of the 'good old boys' club. I tried to Google personal info on the judge who wrote the majority opinion to see if he's a fundie, but all I could find was professional info.

[Michael]

How can we combat the government's behavior on this?
The same way we 'fought' against the government's behavior in invading Iraq and with torture/rendition.

That is to say, information and public discussion. Keep up the pressure and public noise. Call them out for the moralizing authoritarians and hippocrites that they are. Eventually, public opinion can be swayed to a more rational position. It just takes lots of time and energy.

[Greendruid]

Though it does raise an interesting question: what if some enterprising 13-14 year old were to try selling naked pictures of him/herself. I think the law would pretty easily shut it down, but for me it's a bit of a moral gray area (I'm speaking strictly of the actions on the kid's end).

Seriously! I gave you guys all a day to comment on this one. Was this a pun Donkey or did you just totally miss that one? :rofl: The things you college boys experiment with!

[Donkey]

:p It was unintentional.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Can you charge a kid for statutory rape?

Yeah. Heard in the news recently that two underaged kids are being charged with statutory rape for engaging in consensual sex with one another.

Had to be talked out of mailing suspicious white powder to the courthouse in question.

[Michael]

Yeah. Heard in the news recently that two underaged kids are being charged with statutory rape for engaging in consensual sex with one another.
Few things show the obsession with morality that is contained in our legal system as clearly as cases like this one.

Had to be talked out of mailing suspicious white powder to the courthouse in question.
Glad to hear you were talked out of this! :)

While I may agree with your passion, the method isn't ideal.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Few things show the obsession with morality that is contained in our legal system as clearly as cases like this one.

I like to think that I am all about morality, and indeed I welcome the government's efforts to attempt to promote moral behavior in the citizenry. Unfortunately, this debate in this country seems to break down nicely between two camps: one that does not believe in morality and wouldn't want government involved in it even if it did, and the other side which has the morality of a retarded child and no regard whatsoever for the consequences.

And I agree with you, our legal system seems altogether too preoccupied with punishing what it sees as "immoral" behavior, and not anywhere near focused enough on correcting said behavior and replacing it with proper moral conduct.

[Michael]

I like to think that I am all about morality, and indeed I welcome the government's efforts to attempt to promote moral behavior in the citizenry. Unfortunately, this debate in this country seems to break down nicely between two camps: one that does not believe in morality and wouldn't want government involved in it even if it did, and the other side which has the morality of a retarded child and no regard whatsoever for the consequences.

And I agree with you, our legal system seems altogether too preoccupied with punishing what it sees as "immoral" behavior, and not anywhere near focused enough on correcting said behavior and replacing it with proper moral conduct.
I was trolling for you! :D

Now you know that I'm one of those who doesn't like the government involved there at all. ;)

However, I will agree that IF the government were to try to be in the morality business, then focusing on "encouraging proper moral conduct" is way more likely to be successful than "punishing immoral conduct".

Whenever I see an undue interest in "punishing immoral conduct" I get suspicious about motives. Encouraging good morality is rarely one found there.

[The Drunk Guy]

While I may agree with your passion, the method isn't ideal.
He's right. Too many innocents. Plus you get put on a watch list. Perhaps hiring a homeless guy to take a shot at the presiding judge would be more accurate.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Now you know that I'm one of those who doesn't like the government involved there at all. ;)

Yes. I believe we've argued about this before. At the very least, I can say that you are someone who believes in proper moral and social conduct-- even if your politics are far too liberal for my tastes. ;)

However, I will agree that IF the government were to try to be in the morality business, then focusing on "encouraging proper moral conduct" is way more likely to be successful than "punishing immoral conduct".

Yes, certainly. And that's where I feel many "conservatives" fail. They are not interested in the root causes of immoral or criminal behavior, and they think that harsher and harsher punishments are all that is necessary to correct it. They're not willing to accept that government power can be applied as anything other than a bludgeon.

Of course, there are some areas where I think punishment is more effective. Mostly areas where the motive isn't material and where re-education isn't likely to adjust the person's attitudes.

[Michael]

New twist in this case... apparently a couple of the girls caught up one of these cases in Pennsylvannia have launched a federal suit to get the charges dropped.

Source (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/27/earlyshow/main4896577.shtml)

What I find most disturbing here is that the news article (see link) announcing the "news" of the lawsuit barely even mentions the lawsuit or any pertinant legal facts of the suit beyond the headline. The news article just goes straight for the purient/voyeur/pedophile angle in paragraph one and that's the whole news story - just an excuse to reprint all the juicy details of the original case - in detail. This is fucking pathetic - journalism at its worst.

This all shows up what looks to be the real agenda here. The laws against child pornography are not meant to criminalize minors - they are there to prevent adults and commercial enterprises from taking advantage of them for pleasure and profits. But in this case, these same laws are being used to prosecute minors themselves who have not engaged in any commercial enterprise (or actual pornography!).

Moral crusading is the only reasonable interpretation here. Adults in authority are objecting (in principle) to an activity they don't approve of and abusing the legal system to enforce this moral viewpoint for the purpose of 'making an example' of these particular teen girls. I think the girls are quite right to sue against this abuse of the legal system for moral crusading against youth sexuality. The DA appears to have an agenda here and that is not 'upholding the law' in the strict sense of that term.