Kids charged with Child Porn for texting nude pictures of each other!

Sounds relatively good. I would give law enforcement a little more credit though; while I myself think it's absurd, I know there are many who don't. In a very real way, this becomes a political issue and I have a strong feeling that sometimes law enforcement charges people so that people don't get on their tail for not doing it. Alan Greenspan, a notable canadian lawyer, has made the case that this does indeed occur at times. I believe I remember one case where some teen females made a commercial website wherein they only wore skimpy clothing and I think they were -still- charged. Perhaps it was down south, can't remember.

I'd even argue with that contention, but I know that in the current political climate there's no way it would fly. I read a very good book on this whole issue of minor sexuality in general and the ways our society represses them, called "harmful to minors", by Judith Levine; there's some info on it on wikipedia here. It even won the 2002 Los Angeles Times book award. It's certainly controversial, but I firmly believe in what she has to say.

Some kids are actually thrown into what amounts to jail for engaging in sexual activities with their peers; it frequently doesn't even have to involve actual sexual intercourse. The book "harmful to minors" details some of the truly horrendously repressive stuff that has been done to some poor children.

Don't know about Tiassa, but I did, and I'm certainly not ashamed of it.

Yeah, truly absurd stuff. Hopefully more people will realize this soon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, but who's "common sense" should we use? My own answer to his question was:
Yes. Abolish the law that makes it a crime for people to willingly record the images of their bodies a crime.

I don't think it's a simple issue. However, in a fit of pique, this is how I previously responded to Tiassa's question:
"I don't care what a jury will say. Many act flocklike and I'm not interested in appealing to the flock. All I care about is what is right."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Personally I think we need more then 'common sense'. I think we need rationality, claims based on evidence. 'Common sense' is, in my view, frighteningly close to mob mentality and that's certainly not something that I would want to give a blank cheque to. In a democracy, we must give up some of our freedoms; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. -However-, if some are more enlightened than the majority, it behooves them to try to persuade the rest of the error of their ways, so that the laws can become more rational.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so, if i post a picture of a couple wrapped up in sexual intercourse for the purposes of displaying technique then it isn't porn?

if i post pictures of saggy boobs for the intent of discussing stretch marks it isn't porn?

 

What utter crap. Kids doing what kids have been doing for millenia, but who just happen to be using current technology and you are happy to have a screwed up legal system define it as 'child pornography' and then mark these individuals for the rest of their lives. This is insane, disgusting and immoral.

 

You'd be surprised what desperate smokers are willing to do for a cig.

 

What about you ?

 

Word.

I always thought the child pornography laws existed in order to protect young children from abuse and exploitation by adults. Apparently that is not so. Children can be charged with possessing child pornography if they take sexually explicit pictures of themselves, and imaginary children in imaginary sexual acts need our protection (witness the Lisa and Bart cartoon porn debacle). Welcome to your police state, folks, where what you can draw and take pictures of is tightly regulated by the nanny government.

The observation by Tiassa that they will probably get off in court is beside the point. The kids shouldn't have been charged in the first place.

 

Amen

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes. Exactly. Maybe the first one would be considered indecent?

 

Sure, 'indecent'. Let's just remember what indecent means. From Wikipedia:

Rationality need not apply; only flock mentality. You will be assimilated, resistance is futile type thing. Atleast I can be thankful that I'm not in Afghanistan, with the burkas and all. The same type of logic is being applied, you know, the 'exposing skin means you're indecent, vile, sinful, wanton, put your favourite religious wording here', it's just much stricter over there. What people need is more education; education that says that just because a person 'exposes' (more) skin doesn't mean they are living in some type of sin.

 

You sure appeal to "flock mentality" in a very typical and predictable way.

Think for yourself a bit.

 

You would prefer that I was inconsistent with my application of the term

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?

Aw c'mon swarm, surely you've seen that I'm now labelling you as more of a shepherd than a sheep. Surely you can afford the same courtesy to me

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

? Honestly, when it comes to subjects of this nature, I sincerely doubt that anyone but a leader type who feels relatively confident in what he or she believes in this area would even approach them in a discussion forum; there certainly haven't been all that many people who have shown an interest in continuing this thread.

 

You're a quack. Anyway, the quote you pulled from Wikipedia is about indecent exposure, not what indecent means.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I would prefer your arguments were more interesting instead of having you revert to an ad hominum crutch any time your opponent says something you construe as popular..

Its not about how much or little you "conform" or your social standing in your peer group.

 

I am a product of a Socialist nation, Soviet Union and Russian Federation. I am forced to live in harsh anti-social conditions of United States of America.

 

Who's forcing you to stay? Buy a ticket. Fly back to glorious Russia and end your suffering.

 

To the topic of the OP,

I have to say that charging minors with possession of child pornography is ridiculous, and everyone involved with this case should be fired. If the cops were watching me when I was a minor, I'd probably still be in prison for all the tang I got when I was underage. That's ridiculous.

And hell, I still have a tape somewhere of me getting a hummer from my girlfriend when we were both 16. Would that be possession of child pornography?

 

Agreed.

I don't know about that one. The problem goes much deeper then the cops. The cops may have reacted due to societal pressures and they were in fact enforcing the law. It's society and the law that must change here.

Laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Anyway, I agree.

If hummer is what I think it is (bj?), yes, it would be. Which just goes to show you the absurdity of these pornography laws.

 

As far as ad hominems go, I'd think that 'flock mentality' is going rather light. It's "stupid, moron, nut" that I find truly insulting. Personally, I think they should make a list of words that can -not- be used to describe your opponent. Anyway, my point is that you take some arguments as self evident. They're not, but I know that society has conditioned many people to feel this way. Thus, 'flock mentality'.

swarm, in general, the easiest thing to do is to conform. No thinking required, you can just say it's "common sense" and be done with it. It's much harder to argue -against- the mainstream point of view.