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

Each case has to be judged on its merits but the issue here is slightly more complicated. What if, the girl was forced to expose herself for the picture, what if the picture is forwarded to more people than the intended viewer? If by some roundabout method you unwittingly ended up with a picture of a naked 12 year old on your phone, wouldn't you be in possession of child porn?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That's why I stipulated that the picture had to be made with a willing participant. Otherwise, I definitely believe it should be punished.

Try to find out how it occurred and punish anyone who knowingly spread it beyond its intended recipients.

Yep. Even if I were 12 myself. The whole thing is just silly. We're just talking about pictures of bodies here, not even of sexual acts, particularly sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is by far the most dangerous, whether or not it is recorded; the reason should be obvious- it can result in pregnancy or stds. I believe this is the root reason why society tries to censure 'child pornography'. The idea is that we don't want to encourage kids into getting into problems that are beyond them. That is certainly a noble goal, but what a lot of people don't realize is that by criminalizing even pictures of their bodies alone, we're sending, in my view, rather absurd messages. What's next, banning all nude beaches? It seems to me that some nude places are now suggesting that only adults go. This type of reasoning is, in my view, rather horrifying.

I grew up relatively sexually repressed myself. It wasn't so much that people would -tell- me that I should be sexually repressed. It was rather in all these unspoken actions that took place around me. I woudn't wish it on anyone.

The one time that I had a pretty good time was when I went to camp when I was about 11. A bunch of boys, myself included, went to a remote island with 2 female councillors. There, the councillors decided we should all skinny dip (councillors included, which I'm sure enticed the boys

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). My character is strong and you must remember that I was somewhat sexually repressed, so I declined from taking off my swim suit, as did one other boy. Then the councillors went to hide the swim suits of all the boys who had taken them off. The boys in question were too embarassed to get out of the water, so they'd swim in the direction that the councillors were going; it was rather funny I thought ;-).

Anyway, when the swim suits were well hidden somewhere and the councillors came back, it was time to work on the holdouts; the other boy was easy work; he was rather thin and really didn't put up much resistance. I, however, went deep out into the water. No one was interested in chasing me out. After a minute or 2 of that, however, I was bored. I figured, what the heck, everyone else is naked, can't be so bad. So I willingly gave up my swimsuit

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

The only other thing I really remember is how beautiful I thought the concillors were, especially the blond one. The boys had a silly idea of putting a frog on one of their tushes (they were sunbathing stomach down) and the councillors (obviously) weren't impressed. Personally I thought the joke was in bad taste; what -I- wanted to do was touch them but I didn't dare.

Anyway, after a day or so, everyone got dressed again and we went back to the mainland. The councillors went topless right until we were approaching the canoe of the man who ran the camp, whereupon they put their shirts back on.

To this day, I don't know if the owner of the camp noticed they were topless from a distance, or if any of the boys told their story. I don't remember the camp councillors getting in trouble, but maybe they did. I imagine the boys -eventually- told someone though; it was certainly a pretty good story for me ;-).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously I was overstating it. I hold the lawmakers accountable for this.

Yes, it's ridiculous. It's two minors, but one of them is ME!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ofcourse, the lawmakers are elected by the people ;-). The laws will change. The old generations just have different value systems then the new ones. But the old ones are (for obvious reasons) leaving the scene and the new ones will take over. It's ironic in a way; I feel that I've been sexually repressed in some ways, and yet my parents are fairly liberal in some ways. Perhaps it's more that most people are sexually repressed. The thing is that I have a very highly developed conscience. It's why I absolutely detest lying, although I have come to believe that in certain extreme circumstances, it's the lesser of evils. Anyway, I think you could say that when I was young my peers were generally the adults; I wouldn't faun on teachers, but I was generally on their side. While I really disliked homework, in class, I'd be very engaged, raising my hand a lot and all. Anyway, the point is that I understood that sexuality was something that really wasn't talked about much in class; and there appeared to be this 'moral' taint to it, as if kids shouldn't do such things; I'm sure my parents influenced this as well; my mother was taught by nuns in a catholic boarding school, after all and the issue of masturbation was very embarassing to bring up (no one told me about it, I discovered it on my own).

Anyway, what I"m trying to say is that in a very real way, I can understand all this sexual repressiveness and how it's affected our laws. Things like abstinence-only education and the idea that only parents should teach their children about sexuality, combined with the fact that many parents do precious little if anything to actually do so, are a product of this.

It's a gradual process, but slowly but surely it goes...

Lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Slowly but surely...

 

It is not a matter of degree, it is a matter of kind.

No, it actually is just as easy to argue against the mainstream, you just gainsay whatever is presented and then call them sheeple and pretend something profound happened.

It is evaluating both sides and the alternatives, and then separating the chaff from the wheat which is hard.

 

This is an internet age. if young people want to use the tools of electronics to distribute their love, than they should be free to do so. However the law is the law, as wrong as it is, it has to be followed, or else JAIL.

 

wikipedia defines ad hominem thusly:

You presented no factual claim, however. You attempted to justify certain laws by referring to what the laws themselves stated. There was no attempt to actually prove the justifications for the laws in question to be valid. So I simply attempted to describe what I felt was going on here- that you were appealing to a type of 'flock mentality'- that is, if the law says it is wrong, it must be wrong.

Perhaps I wasn't as eloquent in my previous responses as to what I was doing, but I think this time I have made it clear what I believe you did in your argumentative technique.

I agree on that part, which, I believe, is why we're still arguing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

So if Hitler was the president of the country you live in, jews would have to be gassed because hey, it's the law? I don't think so.

 

No. Hitler's society was crumbling anyways. Breaking the social contract you sign when you live in a country deteriorates from society, thus being immoral, as draq would say. Apologies to draq for answering a question addressed to him.

 

According to who? Certainly not Hitler and his 3rd reich, until the end. By the way, I think it's obvious that the immoral laws they had was made that society crumble.

Immoral laws deteriorate countries. Just because some people vote for x or y politician doesn't mean everyone has signed some type of social contract. There is only the recognition that if you break the laws, you can be jailed and/or executed, depending where you live (thank God I live in Canada, where the death penalty has been abolished). If the laws become so bad that hitler types would approve, the moral thing to do is to break them. The grey zone comes when things aren't -that- bad but they're pretty bad. Many people have walked these grey lines and I certainly haven't been immune. Personally, one of my favourite morals is, do unto others as you would have them do unto you; another way of putting it is try to not overly upset the people you deal with. Fairly simple and generally does wonders.

 

Oh please. Pretending that I'm not presenting factual claims to justify using term you obviously consider perjorative is just going to get you laughed at.

Whether or not I was successful on my side of the discussion is beside the point. You chose to invoke what you consider a derrogatory term to attack my credibility instead of arguing the actual case and the fact that you did belies your claim that what I said had no merit.

Be that as it may however, when you said you wouldn't want your daughter to be a prostitute, that was all that was needed to be said.

 

It's no pretense.

I disagree.

I did my best to describe the mindset you were using- that is, a flocklike mentality. The flocklike mentality has no need for actual evidence- simply saying that one is following the flock is sufficient.

In your mind, perhaps. I personally wouldn't think so, but if all you care about is what -you- think, well, perhaps this discussion is best left alone.

 

This is clearly a case of Kincaid Complex. Where those in condemnation of the activity have an interest in the seeing the media, but hide their hidden interest in underage porn by personal condemantion of it. Why would I say that?

They knew this text was absolutely harmless. They can not prove in anyway scientifically any harm done. They only way to get their jollies off is to justify bringing in the pictures and discussing it. This will insure they get to go over more cases like it. If it were not confiscatable, they would have to get these pictures illegally.

 

Yes, teens tend to be attracted to other teens. This really isn't news.

The people being censored were teens themselves. This whole thing reveals the dark side of the law- how our laws on sexuality, allegedly to 'protect' children, can actually harm them even more. Judith Levine, author of the very well written book "Harmful to minors", which chronicles this dark side, delves into the topic of this thread in her article What's the Matter With Teen Sexting?. Here's an excerpt:
Seranko and other authorities argue that such pictures may find their way to the Internet and from there to pedophiles and other exploiters. "It's very dangerous," he opined.

How dangerous is it? Not very, suggests a major study released this month by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet Studies. "Enhancing Child Safety and Online Technologies," the result of a yearlong investigation by a wide range of experts, concludes that "the risks minors face online are in most cases not significantly different from those they face offline, and as they get older, minors themselves contribute to some of the problems." Almost all youth who end up having sex with adults they meet online seek such assignations themselves, fully aware that the partner is older.

She finishes her article stating:
Maybe the "issue" is not sex but adults' response to it: the harm we do trying to protect teenagers from themselves.

Who is your 'they' in your "that's what they say"? Just because people think that the law goes overboard at times doesn't mean they're hell bent on breaking the law. I think you would do well to examine what's going on here- teens are being punished for simply taking pictures of their own bodies and sending it to people of their own age (who are also punished). As Frank Herbert once said:
The one-eyed view of our universe says you must not look far afield for problems. Such problems may never arrive. Instead, tend to the wolf within your fences. The packs ranging outside may not even exist.

 

I'll rephrase what I said before. This is the classic "I'll-show-you-mine-if-you'll-show-me-yours" game. Nothing unusual. Nothing criminal. Nothing harmfull. It's just a bit different because technology is being used to carry out the harmless game. The authorities know there is nothing wrong and cannot in any way prove harm exists in such an activity. This leaves one fundamental reason for taking such a case or bringing a case, a conscious or unconsciouis interest in underage sexual situations. The interest is not harmfull, but it is considered pedophilic and therefore condemned. But as long as they are case workers or judges they couldn't be sickly interested, could they? Yes, when you can't provide a basis of harm for a simple "I'll-show-you-mine-if-you'll-show-me-yours" game. Obviously they want to discuss this for their own jollies.

 

This whole thing is much to do about nothing. Sometimes we need to exercise a little common sense.

 

The law has been perverted plain and simple, as has the roots of the term 'pedophilia'. As faqs.org, in its pedophilia article states:
The word pedophilia originates from the Greek words paidos, meaning child, and philia, meaning love.

By this definition, most people are pedophiles, because most people love children. And so, 2 innocent words were transformed into something entirely different.

And so it goes with the law as well- the law, originally intended to protect children from child predators is now busy condemning the very children it was meant to protect.

Again, who is this 'they' in your 'that's what they say'? I personally think the subject of this thread is a sign of what you might call societal blowback- first, everything was done to 'protect' the children; but it's now gone so far that instead of protecting them, it's harming them, as Judith Levine so eloquently demonstrated in her book Harmful to Minors.

 

She is another nut who uses her "interests of the children" to increase cases. She is pushing forward legislation that in no way benefits victims and actually increases cases that have no objective basis. Anyone can say they are raped and they get money. Anyone pissed off enough can lie and the lie will be taken as truth. Not to mention the cases where therapists tamper with peoples memories and get them to think they were victimized. Once this occurs the fact that someone thinks they are remembering it means it really occured. Therefore the abject discovery laws she covers. it's all meant to create cases, not protect vicitms.

 

You callous dismissal of her speaks volumes for me. Did you actually -read- her book Harmful to Minors?

 

Increase cases of what?

Why do you think she is pushing forward such legislation?

I wouldn't put it that way, but I agree that when a woman cries rape it can be very hard for a man to defend himself. Canadian Lawyer Eddie Greenspan has spoken of this issue in his book "The Case for the Defense".

I actually agree with you there. What I don't understand is why you think that Judith Levine supports any of this stuff.

I wouldn't go that far. I think it's more the pendulum swinging too much in one direction (trying to protect), so much so that it's harming society more then protecting it.