Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: More Kids face Child Porn Charges for texting nude pics

  1. #1
    Mourning in America madanthonywayne's Avatar
    Posts
    12,399

    More Kids face Child Porn Charges for texting nude pics

    Here we go again. This time 6 middle school kids face child porn charges because one kid took a nude pic of his girlfriend (age 13) and texted it to his friends. Now they all face child porn charges.
    FALMOUTH - Six middle school students could face child porn charges after a boy took a nude photo of his 13-year-old girlfriend and “sexted” it to his pals’ cell phones, cops said.

    The six boys, ages 12 to 14, will be summoned to Falmouth District Court for a hearing to determine whether they should be charged with possessing, exhibiting or distributing child porn in the form of a text message photo, according to The Cape Cod Times.

    Wendy Murphy, who lectures on sex crimes at the New England School of Law, said “sexting” almost has become an “epidemic.” Murphy said, “I know it seems heavy-handed to bring child porn charges. Law enforcement is using the only tool it has for what has become a huge problem nationwide.” http://bostonherald.com/news/regiona...ome&position=3
    This is getting ridiculous. Again, it's OK if they fuck each other. It's Ok if the girls abort any babies they conceive as a result of said fucking, but if anyone takes any pictures, we label them as sex criminals for life?

  2. #2
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,113

    Cool Ridiculous, desperate ... one or the other

    Quote Originally Posted by Madanthonywayne

    This is getting ridiculous. Again, it's OK if they fuck each other. It's Ok if the girls abort any babies they conceive as a result of said fucking, but if anyone takes any pictures, we label them as sex criminals for life?
    Yes, here we go again. And you're getting desperate.

    The girl is not of age to consent to the photo or its distribution.

    Any of your kids daughters?

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    Yes, here we go again. And you're getting desperate.

    The girl is not of age to consent to the photo or its distribution.

    Any of your kids daughters?
    And you're missing the point, again. By law the girl is of the age to consent to getting fucked, but not having a nude photo taken? Absurdity.

    Child pornography laws exist to prevent children from getting coerced and exploited by adults, because a blatant power imbalance exists between the two.

  4. #4
    Age 13 is old enough to have sex legally? whoa!

  5. #5
    Let us not launch the boat ... Tiassa's Avatar
    Posts
    30,113

    Cool Taking the broader view

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus66

    And you're missing the point, again. By law the girl is of the age to consent to getting fucked, but not having a nude photo taken?
    Actually, she's not. No state holds 13 to be the age of consent. And you appear to be confusing the concepts of age of consent and classification of crime (see Wikipedia for basic information on this distinction.)

    Child pornography laws exist to prevent children from getting coerced and exploited by adults, because a blatant power imbalance exists between the two.
    Are you asserting that minors are incapable of exploitative behavior?

    What we're looking at seems to be a hole in the law, an inability by authority figures to find another recourse. The tool they have is child pornography. Even I would agree that they need a better tool. Brain surgery and chainsaws come to mind.

    • • •

    We might furthermore consider the comparison to sexual intercourse and abortion. (Speaking of absurdity, that is.)

    The decision to engage in sexual intercourse occurs between two people. That a girl might consent to sex with Joe does not mean she consents to sex with Bill or Tom or Ralph. Furthermore, the actual sexual intercourse occurs between two people. The distribution of a photograph to several other people, quite obviously, involves other people.

    Were the girl of age, she could consent to having her picture taken, and give specific consent to its distribution. While some might argue that allowing her boyfriend to take a nude picture of her is her right, it is a tougher argument to make for its distribution.

    I occupy a middle ground on this issue. That is, I agree with psychologist Sari Locker, who said, "Clearly these boys are not sexual predators or pedophiles .... They're looking at a girl who's the same age as they are, and they have a healthy curiosity."

    So in the long run, child porn charges probably aren't the answer. But what is? Perhaps we should just leave it at "no-foul" and increase the simmering distrust between males and females? You know, it would be a very simple instruction to a girl: Don't ever, ever trust a boy to be a decent human being.

    How about you, C66? Have any daughters?

    (The ironic thing, of course, is that it used to be liberals who were accused of wanting children to fuck recklessly. Now it's my conservative neighbor, Madanthonywayne, who wants them to be porn stars.)
    ____________________

    Notes:

    "Legal Age of Consent'. Webistry.net. Accessed February 11, 2009. http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html

    "Ages of consent in North America". Wikipedia. Accessed February 11, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of..._North_America

    Gouveia, Aaron. "Cape Youths face charges for 'sexting'". Cape Cod Times. February 11, 2009. http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...NEWS/902110317

  6. #6
    In the long run, in the short run, in any run, child porn charges definitely are not the answer.

  7. #7
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    6,223
    This is much less interesting than the previous cases where two teenagers who were dating and legally having sex emailed nude pictures of themselves to each other. The fact that the pictures were being distributed to other people, and distributed by someone other than the person who was depicted in the picture adds new elements.

    That being said, I'm somewhat confused about how they could charge the kids who merely received the pictures, unless perhaps they could prove that the recipients requested them or something.

  8. #8
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    6,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    Actually, she's not. No state holds 13 to be the age of consent.
    I think his point was that she could legally have sex with the person who took the pictures, or for that matter any of the people who received the pictures. A few states have laws that make it illegal for anyone under a certain age to have sex with anyone, but usually the laws only prohibit someone over 18 (or 16, or whatever) from having sex with someone under a certain age. I believe in most states it's legal for two 13 year olds to have sex.

    The usual justification for outlawing pictures of underage children is that it encourages people to try to have sex with them, which would be illegal. But if it's legal for the people possessing the pictures to have sex with the person depicted in the pictures, justifying the prohibition gets much trickier. Which isn't to say that it isn't still illegal, just that the rational used to justify the law is now somewhat strained.

  9. #9
    This is were the law has reared it's ugly head of psuedo-science, imposing moral prefernces upon the population. The human body is not filthy to scientists or natural thinkers. Society has had a perverse psychology imposed upon them about sex in general indicating it is somehow nasty fundamentally; theirin lies the nature of the problem which propogates psuedo-scientific law regarding sexual acts and media.

    In order for any act to be criminal you must find empirical evidence of harm. These young adults are have a good time and moral outrage is ruining their normal, natural fun. I'd smack the prosecuter and judge hard for aggravating these yound men and women with their fucking bullshit morals if I had the upper hand here. My message to them: Keep you filthy perceptions of harmless fun and games to your perverted self!

  10. #10
    It's going to be interesting what the punishment will be, because it surely will be revealing an imminent contradiction.

    People 18+ get punishments for this type of activity close to what a murderer gets. In their eyes this punishment fits the crime. Juveniles are treated differently. The crime is taken just a serious, but due to their age there is a sliding scale that decreases the punishment.

    If they are consistent with their sliding scale these boys will be spending years behind bars. This won't happen because it will no doubt create a public uproar.

    If they don't do anything, then young adults will mock the law and continue doing it, getting notoriety for what they believe to be their sexually popular bodies. This won't happen, because the moralists within the legal system have an agenda to keep the human body in it's naked depiction criminalized. They surely will not want to be scoffed by what they call criminal 13 year olds.

    This leaves hand slapping by comparison of similar minor and adult punishments for like crimes. This inconsistency will no doubt show the 18+ consequences to be out of proportion.

    Due to inexpensiveness of quality recording technology the rich and poor, young and old are able to capture our experiences better than we ever have. No longer is it memory that fades with time and age, but it can be permanentized digitally and remembered in authenticity for our entire lives, cherished into our later years.

    The way things are going at the present moment only implies if you tape your sweetheart on the special night you had with her for the first time and you possess it as an adult and it is found on you computer hard drive by the moral authority you will be facing prison, listed as a sex offender and pedophile. . It is clear, as we move into the future we cannot let the moralist use their radical ideals that destroy the constitutial rights of individuals to free expression and dictate our ability to use technology to improve our recall of precious and joyous moments of our life. It is an assault on expression, privacy, happiness, our lives.

    Who are they to be dictating in essence what we remember? If they had the control, they would no doubt enter our minds and destroy every thought they found repulsive to their moral agenda. It is our brain cells that hold these memories, our hard drives, our memory chips. Stay the fuck out of our lives and quite making young people feel guilty for harmless natural drives and good ole fun and games.

  11. #11
    MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Betrayer0fHope's Avatar
    Posts
    2,311
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiassa View Post
    Actually, she's not. No state holds 13 to be the age of consent. And you appear to be confusing the concepts of age of consent and classification of crime (see Wikipedia for basic information on this distinction.)



    Are you asserting that minors are incapable of exploitative behavior?

    What we're looking at seems to be a hole in the law, an inability by authority figures to find another recourse. The tool they have is child pornography. Even I would agree that they need a better tool. Brain surgery and chainsaws come to mind.

    • • •

    We might furthermore consider the comparison to sexual intercourse and abortion. (Speaking of absurdity, that is.)

    The decision to engage in sexual intercourse occurs between two people. That a girl might consent to sex with Joe does not mean she consents to sex with Bill or Tom or Ralph. Furthermore, the actual sexual intercourse occurs between two people. The distribution of a photograph to several other people, quite obviously, involves other people.

    Were the girl of age, she could consent to having her picture taken, and give specific consent to its distribution. While some might argue that allowing her boyfriend to take a nude picture of her is her right, it is a tougher argument to make for its distribution.

    I occupy a middle ground on this issue. That is, I agree with psychologist Sari Locker, who said, "Clearly these boys are not sexual predators or pedophiles .... They're looking at a girl who's the same age as they are, and they have a healthy curiosity."

    So in the long run, child porn charges probably aren't the answer. But what is? Perhaps we should just leave it at "no-foul" and increase the simmering distrust between males and females? You know, it would be a very simple instruction to a girl: Don't ever, ever trust a boy to be a decent human being.

    How about you, C66? Have any daughters?

    (The ironic thing, of course, is that it used to be liberals who were accused of wanting children to fuck recklessly. Now it's my conservative neighbor, Madanthonywayne, who wants them to be porn stars.)
    ____________________

    Notes:

    "Legal Age of Consent'. Webistry.net. Accessed February 11, 2009. http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html

    "Ages of consent in North America". Wikipedia. Accessed February 11, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of..._North_America

    Gouveia, Aaron. "Cape Youths face charges for 'sexting'". Cape Cod Times. February 11, 2009. http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pb...NEWS/902110317
    13 yo and 14 yo can do it in some states man. You googled the wrong phrase.

  12. #12
    Short story on the Tiassa posts - get rid of the men/boys except the faggity useless ones.

Similar Threads

  1. By Syzygys in forum Human Science
    Last Post: 01-05-09, 10:58 AM
    Replies: 120
  2. By lixluke in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 11-30-07, 03:00 PM
    Replies: 888
  3. By iam in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 07-27-06, 11:34 PM
    Replies: 7
  4. By charles cure in forum Religion Archives
    Last Post: 10-09-05, 06:50 PM
    Replies: 233
  5. By vincent in forum World Events
    Last Post: 09-20-05, 08:51 AM
    Replies: 0

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •