Teens Prosecuted For Racy Photos

An anonymous reader writes with a story on CNet about two teens who were prosecuted under anti-child-porn laws in Florida for having made and emailed racy photos of each other. Both were under 18 years old, so the resulting pictures are clearly illegal; but the teens' intent was not to share the pictures with anyone else. An appeals court majority opinion found that emailing the photos from one of the kids to the other was a careless act that should, it seems, bring down the full weight of the law. A minority opinion argued that the laws were intended to protect children from exploitative adults, not from other children.

Comments

Strupod..

[IdleTime]

Utterly stupid. 18 year is way too high. Where I come from it's 15. When I was that age in the early 70's we fucked like rabbits.

IMNSHO, this is not an issue for the legal system at all.

Re:Strupod..

[Doc Ruby]

There is a real difference between the damage caused to a person when pictures of them in private situations, expecially sexual, are published. It's worse for kids.

And there is a difference between the damage done by showing the pictures, if any, and the damage done by being photographed, if any, and the damage done, if any, by being in the situation itself.

America's hypocritical (is there any other kind?) puritanism prevents its laws from recognizing these distinctions. With children increasingly able to photograph and publish, like anyone else, we will have increasing damage done by the laws that don't reflect what's right and how wrong.

Re:Strupod..

[rbochan]

But you see, here in The Land Of The Free (TM)*, the majority of the population see boobies and even sucks on nipples frequently for the first few months of their lives. Then they aren't allowed to see them again for 18 years.

*Void where prohibited by law.

Re:Strupod..

[HTH NE1]

The damage done to them by the law (branded as sex offenders for life, having to register their whereabouts on a public database, unable to freely choose where they live, work, and be free of harassment, barred from ever adopting or probably even raising their own children if they ever plan to have any) is far more devastating to their lives than if the pictures ever got out.

Don't think that just because they're minors now that their records will remain sealed. I wouldn't be surprised if there were already sex-crime exceptions to that.

IANAL.

Re:Strupod..

[daveb]

>It's puritanism gone mad.

that's a redundancy.

Think of the children!

[dsanfte]

So now even children are victims of ill-thought out, inane "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!~1~!" type laws?

My head asplode.

Re:Think of the children!

[TheMeuge]

This is clearly a case of not just prosecutorial misconduct, but malicious prosecution of the worst kind. The majority brief actually included a part where they justified continuing this charade because these pictures MIGHT harm this couple in the future. The gall of the two judges who wrote this opinion is incomprehensible, and their hypocrisy borders on sadism. I mean, it seems as if they view the mere possibility of this picture surfacing as being more damaging to these kids than being labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives?

I don't know what these kids did to piss the prosecution and the court off, but there is clearly malicious intent here.

Re:Think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there is such a thing as "Public interest" when it comes to state prosecution. Do you believe was the public interest was served by prosecuting these kids?

Re:Think of the children!

[TheMeuge]

I blame the judges and the prosecution for the same reason I blame every member of the SS for the atrocities they committed upon the Jewish population during WWII.

Just because the law exists, doesn't mean those who execute it are absolved of the responsibility. Ultimately, the responsibility for any action rests with the person who engages in it.

Re:Think of the children!

[vidarh]

One of the three judges apparently did not think they broke the law, so it's not nearly as black and white as you try to portray it. Furthermore, the majority opinion is using arguments that focus not on what they did, but about what they might do - it's certainly not clear that the majority of two judges have applied the law correctly.

Also, even if what they did violated laws on child pornography, there is the separate issue of expectation of privacy.

Regardless of that, the reason there is a system where people don't automatically get charged but one where district attorneys decide whether to press charges, is to attempt to ensure that justice is done - charges are dropped or not raised in the first place all the time when prosecuting a case isn't in the public interest.

In this case there is a law ostensibly intended to protect children, that have now instead been used to harm children. Whether or not it's the law, it's still malicious and spineless of both the prosecution and the judges not to stand up for these children instead of harming them by letting this case get this far.

That the judges who wrote the majority decision even went as far as claim that these children "could have" caused the pictures to be spread and cause harm to themselves that way is just plain disgusting - those two judges have done far more harm to these children than a few pictures would.

Re:Think of the children!

[toriver]

uhhh.. what they did was break the law.

They broke the letter of the law, not the intent of the law. Laws are interpreted by courts. Using a law designed to protect children to punish children instead is just bizarre.

Re:Think of the children!

[dgatwood]

Charging kids with sex crimes to prevent exploitation of minors is like f*cking for virginity.... There are three problems here:

1. The law fails to take into account the relative age of the two parties (the one who was photographed and the one possessing it).
2. The law fails to take into account that anyone who can be tried as an adult should also be competent to make decisions of a sexual nature.
3. The law fails to take into account whether the minor was in any way coerced (or even asked) to take the photos.

#1 is bad because the stated purpose for these laws is to prevent an authority figure (including any older person to some degree) from using that position of authority to coerce a minor into doing something damaging. A person of the same age, assuming neither party is mentally handicapped, just doesn't have the same effect. Now if peer pressure from a group of people were involved... well, that gets a little tricky, but there's no reason to believe that this was the case.

#2 is bad because it is a direct abrogation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. In effect, it says that the laws that protect you as a minor only apply when it is convenient for the state to apply them.

But by far, the worst one is #3. Based on that, if a kid sends someone nude photos, even if the recipient did not ask for them, the recipient could be charged with a sex crime. WTF? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Want to get that law changed in five minutes flat? Every high school boy or girl out there should send semi-nude photographs of themselves to their congressmen, then turn them in. I guarantee that such a flawed law will get corrected in a hurry.... :-)

I'm sure this case will get overturned on appeal, but I'm firmly of the opinion that the prosecution and the judge in this case should be the subject of a public flogging for gross misconduct. There's no excuse for ruining the life of a minor based on what amounts to a technicality in the law. For once, "think of the children" is exactly what we should be doing, and the only way to do that is to change this broken law.

Re:Think of the children!

[jamstar7]

You know, there is such a thing as "Public interest" when it comes to state prosecution. Do you believe was the public interest was served by prosecuting these kids?

Yup. If your view of children is rights-less chattels emancipated by the age of consent, absolutely. If your intent is to get legal sanction to brainwash your under-18 citizens with whatever viewpoint the State sees as desirable in order to maintain control of said under-18 citizens for life, you bet. If you have the money to influence your government to legitimise whatever Puritanical viewpoint you happen to be carrying, without a doubt.

Re:Think of the children!

[Anonymous Coward]

So in the vein of "Who Guards the Guards?" What recourse do we as the public have against these people who twist the intention of the law into a worse crime?

Well, there are only a few things to do. You can petition the legislature to impeach the judges. You can not re-elect the prosecutor and/or the local level judges who permitted this case to proceed. Of course, the legislature and the judges are all lawyers who watch each others' backs for the most part, and too many of your fellow citizens will be well-pleased to watch two teens who omigod HAD SEX get their lives ruined.

So if you really want things to change, you'll have to get with several people who agree with you, track down the people you consider responsible for all this, and kill them. This is called revolution -- and bloody revolution is the only way in history that people with authority who blatantly abuse that authority ever give up that power.

Oh, you're not really ready to revolt yet? For the most part, neither is anyone else. I'm not either, actually. Which is why nothing will change, and these two kids will suffer. But don't worry, just scroll on down to the next /. article, and try to forget.

Not children

[therpham]

1) 16- and 17-year-olds are by no means "children." 2) These laws were made to protect minors from older perverts, not from themselves. 3) This is stupid.

Re:Not children

[YrWrstNtmr]

1) 16- and 17-year-olds are by no means "children."

Some aren't. Most, maybe. But by no means all. And that is the problem. The law has to put a line somewhere. Not all kids develop at the same rate. So some are mature enough, and some aren't, at the arbitrary dividing line.

2) These laws were made to protect minors from older perverts, not from themselves.

Very true. But the letter of the law says "Anyone convicted of sending pictures of naked children..." Key word 'anyone'.

3) This is stupid.

Get the laws changed. (So that a very mature 17 year old can coerce his very immature 16 year old friend to pose nude) Problems, problems.

Re:Not children

[Rob Kaper]

In my opinion, there should be a third legal status in between "child" and "adult" for teens so shit like this doesn't explode.

Although I agree with that because there's a major difference between actual children and adolescents, that's not going to solve the problem. The problem here is not legal status but legal interpretation. A lot of freedom has been taken away from people this way because in the world of lawyers it matters not whether your actions harm anyone else or put anyone else at risk of harm. No, it solely matters whether they go against what has been written down.

Sure, technically this is child pornography and technically there's a risk these pictures made it to the public. In reality however this prosecution alone did more harm than the bit of candid photography ever could.

Re:Not children

[honkycat]

Literal readings of the laws (e.g., your "anyone" keyword) are utterly impractical. The intention of laws is (supposed to be) upholding justice, not simply ensuring that everyone jumps through the right hoop at the right time. You don't have to have an arbitrary dividing line. There are sentient beings involved in the legal process and it's quite possible to determine whether a nominal crime (i.e., a broken law) is one that should be prosecuted.

Here, this is clearly a case that should not be prosecuted. How is justice served by throwing the book at two minors who consensually broke a law designed to protect them from exploitation by adults? If, as in your last example, one had demonstrably coerced the other, then it would be sensible to prosecute the case. Note that it would ONLY make sense to prosecute one of them -- there's NO way it's sensible to prosecute them both just because the letter of the law allows it.

Re:Not children

[delirium of disorder]

1) 16- and 17-year-olds are by no means "children." 2) These laws were made to protect minors from older perverts, not from themselves.

I think that all human beings should have human rights, regardless of their age. One of these rights is the right to free speech and freedom of association. Anyone should be able to share any information and anyone should be able to have any consensual contact with another.

People think that it's uncommon to prosecute minors for sexually abusing themselves under statutory rape or child porn laws. This actually happens all the time. Child porn laws are not designed to protect minors at all. Most images and videos of minors having sex are made by teens in consensual relationships. Anyone who has been in high school in the age of digital cameras knows this. These laws are made by extreme religious fundamentalists who think that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. Since adults can vote, they have largely been unsuccessful in restricting adult sex (at least in the past few decades), however (even mature) minors have no say in government, so they can freely be subjected to to one of the sickest, most twisted sexual fetishes: abstinence.

So....

[EGSonikku]

Now if I try to commit suicide will I be charged with Attempted Murder?

Re:So....

[TheCreeep]

Along that line of thought, If a 17 year old masturbates, is it a form of child molestation?

Re:So then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the boys. The charges against the girls magically get dropped.

The real reason for these stupid prosecutions

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecuting teenagers for taking pictures of themselves naked and sharing strikes many as absolutely stupid. This is a victimless crime. Now, prosecuting others for sharing someone elses picture I can understand.

So why are these laws being applied when the photographer is the subject?

It's quite simple. If the uptight authorities don't do this, why, then you'd have teenagers all over the place taking naked pictures of themselves and passing them along. The whole world would be flooded with naked pics of teens!

Can you possible imagine what such a world would be like? Why, why, ahhh, oh nevermind.

Anyway, the religious authorities don't like this. That's what it boils down to.

Oh my. Now we're starting to sound like Iran.

Re:The real reason for these stupid prosecutions

[OctaviusIII]

Religious authorities should also be appalled at such a miscarriage of justice. When Christians embrace legalism rather than care you get crap like this. In my mind they've lost their faith in God and put it in the courts. I'm a Christian myself, and this sort of BS sickens me. I hope they can appeal.

The DA should be ashamed

[Kaboom13]

I can understand how these charges could be upheld, after all, a judges job is to uphold the law as it is written, not as they would like it to be. The person who should be ashamed of himself is the district attorney who is pressing charges on what obviously is an unintended consequence of a poorly written law. Is he so desperate for work, he has nothing better to do then go after two teens who are only guilty of being young and stupid? His job is to serve the public and see that justice is done, not waste their time and money on witch hunts. I wonder how many criminal cases got ignored or plea bargained so 2 dumb kids who took pictures of themselves could learn their lesson.

I can only assume he wants to pad the numbers, so he can claim he busted another "kiddie-porn ring" and kept our children safe. It really scares me that in the article, the judges use a lot of reasoning along the line of the pictures "may have" been shown to others later, or the computers "may have" been hacked laster, or something, somehow "may have" gone wrong. When did abstract possibilities becomes illegal? I believe people should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, but I don't see how they can be held accountable for what happens only in the wild speculation of some judge.

Re:The DA should be ashamed

[kharchenko]

I usually sympathetic to the judges that are bound by the letter of the law, but quotes from the judges opinion in this case left me fuming:

"Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own."

They could've ended up selling photos ? Well for that matter this judge could've ended up buying them! Since when have we started punishing people for things they could potentially do (but clearly have not attempted to)?

Or how about lacking "maturity" - the whole case is built on the fact that they are minors ... how hypocritical it is to punish them for lack of maturity!

I love this part of the majority opinion:

[NeutronCowboy]

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives.

Yes, let's protect potential future damage to their lives or careers by ending them early! What the fuck???? I can't believe that this was an actual reasoning.

This is unbelievable on so many levels. As the monitory opinion states, it's ok to have sex, as long as you don't document it. Protection from hypothetical damage allows for doing actual damage. Consensual, legimitate and accepted practices can lead to association with scum of the earth practices.

The more I see, the less I think I'll raise kids in the US.

Insane...

[flajann]

This is yet another example of how insane the laws are. In reading the article, the opinions read like "could have sold them" or "could have caused trauma/harm to the 'minors'".

Of course, prosecuting the minors in this way for what was an innocent act on their parts, throwing them in jail for years, sticking them on sex offenders lists, and marring them for live will cause no harm to them at all.

This is just beyond crazy. A sheer sign that our country has gone way down hill. And you know what? These prosecutors will probably get a pat on the back, promotions, and the like. It's nothing to them to destroy the lives of these two teenagers just to forward their own careers.

Time to worry

[Realistic_Dragon]

What happens when some smart ones start emailing photos to their teachers along with a message saying "here are the photos you demanded not to tank my grades" and BCCing the FBI?

That's the kind of scary crap you get when you don't consider intent when deciding on guilt.

Re:Out of date

[NeutronCowboy]

That's fine and dandy, except no one got raped or killed. This was consensual.

Just Wait Until Your District Attorney Gets Home

[Doc Ruby]

The laws are to protect children from exploitation, whether by adults, other children, other children acting for adults, or whoever. It's not a "gotcha" for adults, it's protection of children.

However, parents are to protect children. Disciplining children by the law is a total failure of the parents. While that happens, it must always be the last resort. And always include legal charges against the parents.

Re:Wrong tag, should be Politics not YRO

[Orozco]

Also, the majority opinion makes a big deal about the ease with which the pictures could have been obtained by a third party because they were emailed. The judge who wrote the opinion talks about how the teens' computers could have been hacked, their ISPs could have retained copies of the email, the email could have been intercepted by hackers, and also that "Computers also allow for long-term storage of information which may then be disseminated at some later date." The majority opinion seems to have decided that since computers were involved, this is somehow more serious than using traditional photography. The minority opinion says that this rationale is stupid (paraphrased :).

Why is this on Slashdot again?

[alan_dershowitz]

Is "this news for nerds" because they used email? Or because of racy nude teen photos? The density of posts designed to whip up righteous nerd frenzy is getting old.

Yes yes, the law can affect nerds too. I can also get that news anywhere.

Jesus

[static0verdrive]

I started getting it on at 15 as well. If I wanted to send a picture of myself back then, that would have been my business. "Land of the free" my ass.

Re:Jesus

[Ranger96]

Speaking as a parent of 7 and 5 year olds, when they are 15 and want to send naked pictures of themselves to their 'friends', it will be MY business. Especially since law enforcement has decided (wrongly) that it is their business as well.

Re:Jesus

[ResidntGeek]

Parents are notoriously bad at knowing what's their business.

Re:Jesus

[BakaHoushi]

Is it just me, or have people forgotten that being young is ABOUT making stupid mistakes, and parents should just be there to help when need be? At 16, is it really that big a deal if two people saw each other naked? Even if it is a "mistake," I think I put it somewhere on the list around "dropping can of fruit on foot" and "forgetting wallet at home before driving." Humans are sexual creatures. Denying people under 18 the right to express this in any way other than masturbating to a Victoria's Secret/Sports Illustrated/Whatever magazine seems too cruel to me (because if someone 17 sees a Playboy magazine, he might just blow up his school, amirite?).

What we have here is a clear example of a law punishing two teens for being human teens. These laws were passed, supposedly, to prevent some rapist from having his way with a little girl, and posting it for all to see (See my use of pathos there?). Not to arresst teens for being horny. (Here's a protip: I'm guessing before the magical Internet came about, some kids might have even developed their own naked photos and later handed them to someone in PERSON! Or, how about this. Some teens actually get naked in the SAME ROOM! And they might even DO things!)

I don't know. I'm just angry that we, as a people, are being treated this way. Where's the good old fashioned yell, "I'm as mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore?" Where are the judges who take a look at this case, say, "Well, this case is fucking stupid, and so is the law. *gavel* You're free to go, and here's $10,000 from every senator, for making you sit through this bullshit?"

Re:Jesus

[lukas84]

The teenage pregnancy problem is because of lack of sex education. You'd need to talk plain text to these kids at an appropriate age (12 or so), about what sex is, what can happen, and how to prevent problems which might arise when having sex, like pregnancy, STDs, etc.

In fact, i don't see teenage pregnancy as a big risk. Pregnancies usually doesn't kill people, it just requires you to deal with a child or an abortion. AIDS isn't so forgiving.

Re:Jesus

[anagama]

These teens are just another example of kids who had no clue, thinking they knew what was best for themselves, without having any idea of what acting responsibly is all about.

Get real. The GP's point was not that they were making good decisions, it was that their bad decision was inconsequential (it was that great line about dropping a can of fruit on your foot). Seriously, you need to analyze this. Should kids get a criminal record for every dumb thing they do? I did lots of dumb things in my time (although I've never considered losing my virginity at 15 one of them). Despite my mistakes, I somehow managed to get through college and graduate school, run my own small business, and have a rich hobby-life on the side as well. Maybe the kids ought to be grounded or have their network privileges revoked for a couple weeks, but a criminal record? Insanity.

As an aside, if our laws become so draconian that it's impossible to not be a criminal in some way, might that encourage people to just become rapant law breakers? When you can't win, why try?

Re:Jesus

[Belgand]

While I see (although I do disagree with) you opinion, it is not entirely relevant to this particular case. In this case the claim that these kids "knew it was against the law" is not the point. The point is that they are being prosecuted in a manner that is inconsistent with the intent of the law (and, while IANAL, the minority opinion supports this). These are laws that are designed to prosecute people that prey on children. When we move into post-pubescence, though we often encounter a host of different problems (and part of the problem behind failing to legally distinguish between pedophilia and ephebophilia along with a host of other related issues): is this a relationship between a teen and an adult and generally considered to be the case that the teen knows what they're doing (unlike in most pedophilic interactions) but in which the teen is making poor decisions and generally being manipulated? Or is this the case of, as in this case, two teens of similar age doing what comes naturally to... well, by definition every post-pubescent.

This distinction is critical because in the first two cases we are dealing with adults taking advantage of (either intentionally or not) someone younger than them. In the latter situation we do not have that same problem. The law is clearly focused merely on preventing the former scenario. This would be tantamount to prosecuting a 17 year-old for owning a naked picture of himself. If he looks at himself naked in the mirror is he getting a hot one-on-one live sex show?

Further, to put this in the context of your statements, that parents will be held legally accountable for the actions of their children, this entire issue isn't at all relevant. True, you focus almost exclusively on teen pregnancies which are a slightly different issue, but in this case there is no parental liability. These were photographs made in private for personal use. Thus, according to your reasoning -"if 'someone else' is held accountable for the actions of a 17 year old, that 'someone else' gets to dictate the rules" - my interpretation would be that the person being held legally responsible is to be provided with decision-making authority. Since there is no parental accountability in this case the parents would have no right to dictate whether the teens can or cannot do this.

Re:Jesus

[j-turkey]

Are you just arguing with the gpp or are you agreeing that these teenagers should be prosecuted for violating child-porn laws? These were two consenting teens who would otherwise be legally allowed to engage in sexual acts under Florida law (where they are being prosecuted). After some quick research, the age of consent in Florida is 16 as long as both partners are under the age of 24.

The story seems to indicate that the images were not created for the purpose of sale or distribution. The images were privately emailed, and the two mutual sender/recipients were both arrested for producing/directing/promoting child porn and the boyfriend for possession.

You've clearly outlined how the teenage sex can be risky behavior. However, I do not believe that this is reason for laws preventing consenting teenagers for having sex. Furthermore, in this case, there is no such law. These kids broke a law designed to keep kids safe from adult predators. There was no adult involved in this, they were not coerced, and story indicates that the images themselves were not of the kids doing anything illegal (e.g. sex between adults and minors, or images intended for distribution). The fact that both of these teenagers being prosecuted on a BS technicality which is (IMO) far outside of the spirit of the law is disturbing to me. To me, this amounts to overzealous prosecutors attacking children for creating and possessing forbidden data. It is shameful to me that our government would do this.

Re:Jesus

[Iron Condor]

Let's look at the numbers of teen pregnancies right now, shall we? It is the other side of the equasion you are presenting, after all.

No, it is not. To the contrary.

When I was sixteen, my mother made sure that there were condoms in the house and that I knew where they were. Of course that wasn't in the US. And of course where I come from teen pregnancy is an issue that people mostly read about on the internet, not something that happens a whole lot to real people.

As long as people like you pretend that folks need to be treated like they cannot be held responsible for themselves, people will act irresponsibly. Allow them to take responsibility and they will gladly accept it -- and be much better people for it.

Re:Jesus

[Trepalium]

Wrong. Abstinence only sex education has become more and more popular in recent times, and specifically excludes all discussion of condoms and other forms of birth control. The rational for the program is that "traditional" sex education encourages these children to become sexually active, so not talking about contraception and instead focusing on pleading with the children to abstain from sex has become what the program has become about instead. Frankly, the "education" from these programs is worse than no education at all, because not only does it fail to provide the children with any useful information, but also gives them something to rebel against. I have the distinct feeling that the support these programs get is less about education and more about social engineering via propaganda than anything else.

Re:Jesus

[bhiestand]

Should kids get a criminal record for every dumb thing they do? Since criminal records get expunged when you turn 18, these kids won't get one. What is your point? I'll respond, even though that's an idiotic thing to say. Even if these kids don't have to register as sex offenders, and their records get "expunged", the records still actually exist. If they ever try to get a security clearance, which is required for a lot of cool jobs, they will have to explain their convictions of child porn peddling.

Of course, even if there wasn't a single reason for them not to get a criminal record your argument of "Why shouldn't they?" would not give any credence to the idea that they should.

Re:Jesus

[canadian_right]

Abstince only sex education makes as much sense as removing seatbelts from cars because the seatbelts will encourage speeding.

Not surprisingly, I disagree

[msobkow]

I don't think it has to be malicious at all. For one thing, the judges had to avoid setting an ugly precedent.

Let's say the photos were made legal, returned to the youths, and no conviction performed. Now there are legal "child porn" photos in their position.

Snap forward a few years until they're 21, and one of them is desperate for money. And sells their legal photos of their own underage antics. Are those still legal child porn as set by the precedence?

I think the judges just avoided being blunt about the concern.

Re:Not surprisingly, I disagree

[Wordsmith]

Although it's a sickening scenario, that actually probably should be legal.

Child porn isn't illegal because it's sick to get your rocks off looking at a child. In fact, when we're not talking about pre-pubescents, it's biologically natural to be turned on by someone attractive - even if responsible adults understand why teens probably aren't really emotionally ready for sexual encounters, and don't have the wherewithall to consent to such encounters with adults who've got far more life experience.

Child porn is illegal because creating it involves subjecting a minor, who by definition can't consent to sexual activity, to sexual activity. The porn is a product of that process. Making it illegal to buy, sell and possession child porn is akin to making it illegal to do the same with stolen goods, or goods created in illegal sweatshops - it's a way of eating away at the root wrongful activity.

But when a person makes himself or herself the "victim," that logic breaks down somewhat. Is there really a victim at all? Especially if the choice to sell the pictures comes when the person is an adult, and theoretically responsible for his or her own actions? I can't imagine we'd want to create a precedent where cynical 16- or 17-year-olds are stashing away pictures of themselves to turn a quick buck when they turn 18, but if that's going to be illegal, we really need a different rationale.

And teenagers

[porkchop_d_clown]

are notoriously bad at understanding the whole "parenting" concept.

Ranger is right.

from my observation

[alizard]

not understanding parenting concepts is a trait they have in common with their parents.

Re:from my observation

[Original Replica]

True. There is the arguement that if you can't instill morality and responsibility in the first 15 years, what makes you think that a few more will make the difference? By the time I was in highschool my parents knew they could trust my judgement, they would still want to know what I was up to, but they had stopped making choices for me. For contrast, we all know what happens to kids that come from over structured housholds when they get to college. I think it's called "Girls Gone Wild".

Re:from my observation

[Anonymous Coward]

I may not be a woman, but I came from an 'over-structured' household and yeah, I went a little nuts at college too. I drank like crazy for about 6 months and then ended up nearly dead at the hospital, which cured me of my alcoholism and introduced me to the wide world of debt (medical bills). My folks wanted to know every detail of every person I could ever conceivably hang out with and down to the minute wanted to know where I was going and when I'd be home. When I got to be about 16, I decided I knew better than my parents and started to lie about where I was going just so I could have an unstructured night with friends (eg, let's go to Bob's house for a bit- ok now let's go to Joe's house for a bit). Aside from saying I was somewhere I wasn't I always behaved and didn't do anything they wouldn't approve of- I just got sick of the micro-accounting and control. Anyway- you're spot on about what happens. I had sex with my first girlfriend around 15 too (like someone higher up in the thread here), and it didn't ruin me- we knew to be safe. The over-strictness even inspired a little of it- we went so far as to do it with my folks asleep upstairs just to 'stick it to the man' no pun intended.

College is safely long over, but I definitely think back with some regret. I wish my parents had been less strict, but not one of those parents that just lets their kids do anything- kids love it but later it gets them. I agree that if you haven't put the foundations in place by even 12, without some real help kids are 'doomed' to get in trouble of some kind (pregnancy, the law, etc)- but that a certain diminishing amount of control must extend until college and until that time nearly everything is the parents' business- but not to the point that it requires a pre and post outing interrogation/debriefing. They certainly have a right to know, but an obligation to let their kids learn and live too.

If you're too young to consent

[aussie_a]

If you're too young to consent to having sex then you're too young to be prosecuted under laws relating to children and sex. Surely someone can't be so young that they don't understand the issues and yet old enough to be prosecuted by the law?

How about this one

[GotenXiao]

Age of consent in the United Kingdom is 16.
You have to be 18 to view pornography.

So, in short; you can go out and fuck like rabbits and spread your genetic code, but god forbid you see any naked pictures.

Re:Separation of powers

[geminidomino]

You do realize that saying the lawyer-speak equivalent of "this law is fucking stupid" IS the baliwick of the Judicial branch, don't you? You might have heard of the Mighty Council of Super Lawyers Lamda Force 9... at least, that's the anime name... They're probably called something different in Real life. Hell, they're so uber-powered they can make laws go away COMPLETELY by comparing it to an old piece of paper! Impressive stuff...

There is more than just "seperation of powers" involved. There is a theoretical setup "checks and balances" (although in reality, it works more like it was designed by Blizzard, and the president gets to be the Shaman) where the dickhead lawyers in the legislative branch can make a dickheaded law, and the courts (theoretically) have the power to fix it. Just because a traitor and his cabal of asshats want to call them "activists judges" DOESN'T actually mean that that's not thier JOB.