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..

[mikael]

Rabbits live in holes, Trolls live in hills, caves and mounds - probably this is the closest thing that slashdot has to offer next to having a +1 - Rabbit moderation option.

Re:Strupod..

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, not only should this COUPLE be left alone by the law, but I should have a good look at the pics to make sure they weren't doing anything illegal...

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..

[FernandoBR]

Those nipples I sucked during that time... well, I'd rather NOT see them again... Don't you agree?

Re:Strupod..

[HTH NE1]

Actually, they can post about it; doing so just undoes their moderation without a return of points.

Or they can post about it anonymously from a browser that doesn't have their cookie.

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..

[Anonymous Coward]

If the lifelong effects you suggest are true, then the situation is insane. It's puritanism gone mad.

Re:Strupod..

[daveb]

>It's puritanism gone mad.

that's a redundancy.

Re:Strupod..

[sparkz]

I assume that the poster is a USAian.

Your country was founded* by Puritans.

Feel free to emigrate.

Better still, vote for a President in ownership of his (or her) own brain. Go on, take a chance on it!

*well, invaded by, but - after all - that is the American Way

Re:Strupod..

[mctk]

And it said the same thing twice.

Re:Strupod..

[sulfur]

Very true. I never understood why different parts of human body are considered taboo. What is the difference between tits, and, say, legs? In some countries they prohibit women to show they legs (i.e. to wear skirts) on public. Analogy is very relevant, but we consider they laws/morality wrong.

Re:Strupod..

[that this is not und]

The American Kennel Association.

They don't name a 'dog' Britanny. They name a whole 'breed' of dogs Britanny.

We named him Eliot. (well, my wife did. I call him 'stupid' sometimes.)

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!

[Original Replica]

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

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? I would agree that this prosecution, and labeling as sex offenders has done considerable damage to these minors. Can you criminally prosecute a judge for malicious abuse of power? And as a side note: Will this be taken off of their records when they turn 18? After all they are minors.

Re:Think of the children!

[Workaphobia]

> "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 remember anything in the article referring to registered sex-offender status. Speculation or source?

Re:Think of the children!

[Vicissidude]

It isn't malice to lock up these child child-pornographers; its the LAW.

Bullshit. If these two were 5-year-olds that were NOT having sex, but just taking pictures of themselves, then you would not call the cops in. You'd take the camera away, destroy the film, and tell them not to do that again.

We are treating these 16-year-olds differently because they ARE old enough to know what they're doing. And since they're old enough to know what they're doing, they can be tried as adults. That alone should be enough to negate the kiddie porn charges for the pictures of themselves.

Are you proposing that laws should be selectively enforced on an adhoc basis?

To a certain degree, yes. The cops and judges did their jobs and performed their roles as the system intended. However, the DA is there to make sure that justice is served. The DA is granted the right to select which cases are prosecuted and which are not. The DA should have shut this one down as soon as he heard of it.

Re:Think of the children!

[jandrese]

I don't know about their laws, but around here convictions for any child pornography charges of any kind will get you put on those lists. There is no judicial discretion in the matter. Since they are minors it might be possible to have their names erased at 18 like with other crimes, but since I've never heard of minors getting prosecuted for child pornography (they're usually the victim!) I'm not entirely sure. As usual, the internet is not your best source for legal advice. Take everything with a grain of salt.

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!

[Sj0]

Actually, the reality of the situation is that if the police caught those 6 year olds, they COULD be charged, and most likely WOULD. They'd then be sent to perverse brainwashing camps that are designed to first convince them that they are sexual predators, then destroy their self-esteem and tell them that they can never be trusted, that they're worthless human beings, that they're irredeemable.

This is part of a moral panic in America about 'Children who molest'. Every time I think about what Americans are doing to innocent children, I get very mad.

I urge every slashdotter who reads this to go out and learn more about this phenomenon. Ethical Treatment for All Youth documents what's happening to kids across America right now in situations like this, and the devastating consequences.

Re:Think of the children!

[dorsey]

That's what jury nullification is for.

Re:Think of the children!

[ubernostrum]

I don't remember anything in the article referring to registered sex-offender status. Speculation or source?

Speculation, but speculation that's exceedingly likely to be correct. Look up the case of Glenarlow Wilson, a child in neighboring Georgia who will be registered as a child molester for the rest of his life, after serving a mandatory 10-year prison sentence -- because, at the age of 17, he had consensual oral sex with a 16-year-old girl. Georgia law at the time drew no distinction whatsoever about the age of the "molester"; any oral sex involving a minor, even if the partner was also a minor, was felony child molestation and left no room for judicial discretion in sentencing.

Re:Think of the children!

[AK Marc]

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.

And I blame the jury the same as I blame the guards in concentration camps. The jury could have easily prevented a conviction. Why would 12 people agree that a self-pic is child porn? I think the Fully Informed Jury Association is a pile of nuts, but there are times when jury nullification should be used.

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!

[dgatwood]

Laws that don't allow for circumstantial sentencing should be abolished outright. There is never a reason to pass a law that does not take circumstances into account. It is not a question of whether the law will be abused, but a question of when, how, and how frequently....

On the other hand, I feel that with the exception of a handful of very basic laws (rape, murder, theft), all laws should be required to have a sunset provision that makes them expire unless renewed. That would force heinous laws like this one to at least get rehashed every ten years or so....

Re:Think of the children!

[RESPAWN]

Probably depends on the state and the laws involved. I remember reading an article in a paper in GA last year, about a local Atlanta woman who is still registered as a sex offender because she gave some other kid a blow job in a high school classroom when they were both minors. She was now being forced to move due to a new GA law which prohibited registered sex offenders from living within 15 miles of a school bus stop. I don't remember the details, but apparently her case was complicated by the fact that she was technically performing an act of sodomy. IIRC, More recent ammendments to the sodomy law would allow future offenders to drop their registration after a time period, but her case was not grandfathered in.

So, getting back to the point, hopefully these two teens will be allowed to stop registering at some point in their lives.

(On a personal note, I don't feel that we should punish women for giving blow jobs. In fact, I feel quite the opposite. Any woman who routinely gives blow jobs deserves to be rewarded! :-P)

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!

[edschurr]

If a job is absolutely going to be done whether you do it or not, then why not take advantage of it and make some money? Pragmatism at its finest! Responsibility then would fundamentally rest on the society that created such an atmosphere, and not on the individual.

There are possible confounding factors but they can be contrived away to keep possible the evaluation of this idea.

Thinking out loud here.

Re:Think of the children!

[oopsdude]

The DA is granted the right to select which cases are prosecuted and which are not.

Yes, he/she can. But only when it's a matter of whether or not they have a case or not; whether the law is just as it applies to a particular case is not up to a DA to decide. It's up to a judge or jury to decide if the law should be changed. (Or the lawmakers, but I'll be damned if they won't cry, "Think of the children!" and drown out the cries of reason.)

Here's a list of the various court officers' functions:

• Defense attorney - represents the defendant to the best of his/her ability. Does not decide for him/herself whether or not the defendant is actually guilty.
• District attorney - represents the state (the law, as it currently stands) to the best of his/her ability. Also does not decide for him/herself whether or not the defendant is actually guilty. They represent THE LAW, even if they personally don't believe in it. They chose their own career. (I know I switched pronouns.)
• Judge/Jury - decides whether or not the defendant is guilty.

The DA does not get to decide who to prosecute based on his/her interpretation of the law, just as a defense attorney doesn't get to decide who to defend. (I understand that in our system, private attorneys do get to decide, but if all we had were public defenders, they would be two sides of the same coin.)

Selective enforcement is worse than full enforcement or zero enforcement. It opens the door to racism, sexism, all sorts of other -isms on the part of the state, and turns DAs into the judge and jury. (Extortion, too. Think about it.)

Think the law is unjust? Change it! Take it to the Supreme Court, or petition your lawmakers. I know that it's a very imperfect system, but it's better than the alternative. I'm not cynical yet.

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.

So then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they going to start prosecuting 17 year olds who have sex with mutual statutory rape?

Re:So then...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:So then...

[Anonymous Coward]

And those caught masturbating will be charged with sexual abuse of a minor.

Re:So then...

[mazarin5]

It happens all the time; often times charges are pressed against just the boy by the girl's spiteful parents. The boy's parents had no recourse because counter-charges were invalid. At some point when I when in high school, Ohio changed the law so that it was impossible to press charges against just one or another. Both kids would be prosecuted for "raping" each other if they were younger than 16. At first I thought the move was absolutely insane, until I realized that it was the only fix for the problem that a politician in Ohio could get away with; it would take a very special kind of jackass to send his own daughter to jail because he didn't like her boyfriend. Fortunately, there's also an exception for age difference, so a 18 year old fucking his 17 year old girlfriend can't get ambushed. It's a more rational setup than I gave it credit for when it affected me.

Re:So then...

[Chmcginn]

Well, hopefully they won't make the sentences consecutive. Otherwise I'd have been put away till about the time the sun starts to expand into a red giant...

Re:So then...

[Chmcginn]

So, here's a question... do convictions of sex-related crimes by minors give them sex offender status once they become adults?

Cause if this 17 year old & 16 year old have to register as sex offenders for the next five years, I would imagine that worse than almost any potential psychological trauma from having your ex-(boy/girl)friend show their friends some nude pictures of you...

Re:So then...

[Anonymous Coward]

You get caught that often!?

Re:So then...

[BakaHoushi]

*Sigh*

You just don't GET it. Sex is UNNATURAL, EVIL, and masturbation is a GATEWAY to ORAL SEX and even INTERCOURSE!

If God had intended for us to have sex, and to masturbate, He would have given us external sexual organs which are proven to help people feel better and healthier when stimulated on a semi-regular basis. He would have given us the desire to do this ourselves, and we'd have plenty of examples in nature to suggest that around the age of puberty, it is desirable and perfectly normal. But you don't see monkeys masturbating in zoos, just like you don't see 16 year old girls and boys with fully-functioning genitals who instinctively want to use them! ...Oh wait...

(Joking aside, I have plenty of images on my computer that could technically be called child pornography. Granted, none of minors in these pictures are of non-relatives, not in a situation where nudity might not be acceptable [such as, say, a delivery room, which, last I checked, had plenty of nude kids, and photos taken, but do not somehow get labeled as dens of indecency], or of people who even EXIST [anime ain't real, senators]. But hey, I have pictures of kids on my PC which could, theoretically, inspire someone to rape a child someday. Just like how I could, theoretically, get struck by lightning right now, inside, in sunny weather.)

Re:So then...

[squarefish]

there's a 17 yo kid in GA that recently got a mandatory 10 year sentence for receiving a blowjob from a 15 yo girl.
if he'd fucked her, it would only be a 1 year. he was having a party with friends and a girl he'd never seen before walked into their hotel room and started blowing him- he didn't ask for an id, but he did break the state's anti-sodomy law regarding teens and he will be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life. too many links to provide- just google Genarlow Wilson

Re:So then...

[Anonymous Coward]

So, here's a question... do convictions of sex-related crimes by minors give them sex offender status once they become adults? Yep. A LOT of "sex offenders" fall under this. A 17 year old with a 16 year old. Sex offenders. For life. Even if they end up getting married and staying married. 20 years later are still considered sex offenders and show up in public databases under Meghan's law and are prohibited in some states to live within a certain distance of schools, parks etc.

Re:So then...

[dubl-u]

there's a 17 yo kid in GA that recently got a mandatory 10 year sentence for receiving a blowjob from a 15 yo girl.

I think you're talking about Genarlow Wilson. IMHO, he got completely shafted. There's a great article about him. Were I in the DA's district, I'd be rounding up an impeachment petition right now. It's a fucking travesty.

The prisons

[iminplaya]

are hungry for more bodies. The system works.

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

[therpham]

Oh, and by "not children" I didn't mean legally, I meant physically and emotionally and all that.
In my opinion, there should be a third legal status in between "child" and "adult" for teens so shit like this doesn't explode.

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.

Re:Not children

[honkycat]

This MUST be allowed because to do otherwise makes drafting of good, sensible laws essentially impossible. You simply can't delineate every reasonable exception to a law and expect justice to be served.

Do you think justice is served by this court upholding the letter of the law? Remember, I'm asking whether it's JUST, not whether the law is being obeyed.

Literal readings of laws without regard for the context in which they were passed leads to problems. First, you end up with loopholes -- behavior that is clearly intended to be illegal but which is technically within the letter of the law. Second, you end up with cases (like this one, perhaps) where activities that were not intended to be criminal are inadvertently illegal. This could be considered a reverse loophole -- one that gets you INTO trouble rather than out of it.

The courts should make every effort to err on the side of the defendant when interpreting laws, I believe. This is consistent with the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine. This means that loopholes, while unfortunate, will be respected until they're closed by additional legislation. It also means that reverse loopholes should NOT be treated with the full force of law simply because a law was poorly crafted.

Laws are not passed in a vacuum. There are transcripts of the debates and discussions that occurred, and the bills that introduce these laws frequently explain the reasons for instituting them. The courts SHOULD use this information to divine the intent of the legislature when faced with a case where a literal reading appears not to lead to a just outcome.

In this case, a minority felt that the legislature did not intend to criminalize this behavior based on the history of the law. I can't say first-hand, but I'm inclined to believe they did their homework before penning that opinion. Given that, I would argue that the majority who chose to throw the book at these teens are the ones "legislating from the bench." Sure, they've got the letter of the law behind them, but it doesn't appear that the legislature crafted the law they intended to craft, at least based on the minority's opinion. Given that the judge's law is to uphold justice, the majority has simply failed in their duty.

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?

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.

Florida Age of Consent

[Catmeat]

According to the Wikipedia article on age of consent in North America - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_No rth_America two 17 year-olds in Florida can legally have sex. It's just they can't take and send dirty pictures to each other.

SHUT DOWN MYSPACE.com

[celardore]

This is the next step forwards. It is obviously only teenagers and pedophiles using this site. Best stop it at source. Shut down Myspace, faceparty, and anything else that teens can be involved with on the net. If we stop children using these sites, then we stop pedophiles using them too. Problem solved, right?

AC because this post will likely be moderated troll, when in fact I intended it to be insightful. id: 844933

Re:SHUT DOWN MYSPACE.com

[celardore]

when wanting to post as AC, remember to check the 'anonymous' option.....

Re:SHUT DOWN MYSPACE.com

[mazarin5]

Don't worry. I like the phrase "Faceparty." I think I'll host one next weekend.

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!

Tough Call

[mathmathrevolution]

There's really no way to speculate about whether or not a crime occured without actually seeing the allegedly obscene images. For the sake of clarity can somebody post these so-called "racy pix" or email them to me (mfoley@hotmail). thx

Re:Tough Call

[mazarin5]

Sorry, Senator. They were girls.

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:Time to worry

[Phrogman]

Are you not reading the news lately and in particular the OP? The teacher who received pictures like this from some student attempting blackmail will be in an immediate bind: If they don't report the pictures and it comes out, they will of course suffer the consequences of seemingly requesting illegal pictures in return for special treatment. However, if they do report it they will immediately be implicated in the same - sure, with no evidence, but that doesn't seem to matter these days. As with this situation, merely suspecting the possibility of being guilty will be enough to cause a massive uproar, investigation, etc. The teacher in question will no longer be trusted by any Schoolboard or Parent, even if exonerated later on. Their lives will be torn apart by the legal system - who to be fair would have to investigate them as a matter of course - and the results will be devastating.

I suppose its only a matter of time before this happens as well, given the tools are readily available, and paranoia and misunderstanding concerning internet technology is high. At least when it happens, the concerned individuals will still be likely to get a trial - no matter how biased it might be - which is better than if they were "Enemies of the State" and could just be thrown into Guantanamo without recourse to a trial or lawyers :P

The US seems to be on a long, slippery road to losing complete sight of its ideals and founding principals, I sincerely hope that it can turn around and find them again

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:This shouldn't be prosecuted.

[mazarin5]

Hell I remember when I was 16 ... and whoever is reading this, so do you.

Sorry, I can't recall you. I'm sure we had fun anyways.

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.

Re:Just Wait Until Your District Attorney Gets Hom

[flajann]

So in order to protect these two kids you'd throw them both in jail? They took pictures of themselves, not other kids. They only distributed the pictures to each other, not to the world. Can you please explain to me how their acts constitutes "exploitation"? I'm missing something here.

Reminds me of an interesting case I read once

[bouis]

A guy over the age of majority sleeps with a girl under the statutory age. He's charged with statutory rape-- after she snuck into his house and quite literally slipped into his bed naked. She got charged and convicted of... conspiracy to commit statutory rape and as an accessory to her own rape. The appeals court in that case overturned the conviction and held that as a matter of law she couldn't be charged, because, you guessed it, the laws were intended to protect her.

However, I somehow doubt that that's going to be the holding in this case. If being under 18 gave you license to take and distribute nude photographs of yourself, you can only imagine the consequences. Actually, I think they did an episode of Law & Order about this.

It's actually much, much worse than that...

[Chmcginn]

Reading the full majority decision, the judge effectively wrote that there's not a reasonable expectation of privacy on any pictures/video/whatever placed on one computer & transferred to another. With no reasonable expectation of privacy, you don't even need a warrant in order to search it.

So it's Florida that leads us to the police state... I woulda guessed California or Boston, at least after the last few months...

What if...

[flajann]

What if I took a picture of myself when I was 16 and decided to distribute the picture once I became an adult? One cannot argue that it's to "protect me", since I am no longer a "child". The child is no more. Exploiting myself? I'm no longer a child. It's my body; am I not allowed to do with it whatever I want?

This is just hypothetical, of course, but it does illustrates many issues here. The teen case is similar to this scenario; and perhaps we'll need an actual case to make the laws sane again. Of course, anyone who does this will risk everything.

But then again, this old song of "protecting the children" is a wash, anyway, made worthless by those who have the power to judge and prosecute, but do not exercise sound judgement.

And the really sad fact? There are real children who are really being exploited, and these silly laws do nothing to help them. It's all a joke-- a wash, where the guilty goes free and the innocent are punished to make it appear as though the system "works".

Gotta love the USA.

Good thing neither was caught masturbating...

[volpe]

They'd have been charged with child molestation.

Re:Out of date

[b1scuit]

Good thing rape and murder are quite illegal regardless of how old the rapist/murderer are. I don't know what world you live in where rape and murder aren't adequately addressed in the letter of the law, but perhaps they should redirect a little effort away from prosecuting things that don't really hurt anyone to handling those things that do. If anyone is guilty of harm here, it's the people responsible for dragging those two poor kids through all this shit. But hey, protecting these two kids by ostracizing them with the sex offender label for the rest of their lives might well be a part of your world. Lotta different worlds out there.

I hope I never wander into yours though.

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

[phulegart]

It might be just you. But I seriously doubt it.

There are other considerations. 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. In 2002, for example, the teen birth rate was 43 out of every 1000 women aged 15-19. Now, for those 18 and 19, who are legally considered to be responsible for themselves (in the eyes of the law), it's not nearly as much of an issue for those teens under the age of 18. When an underage teen gets pregnant, the state has to get involved for SUPPORT issues. inordinate numbers of teen moms go on welfare programs. Yes, there are moms of all ages on welfare. But are the new grandparents of this little baby supposed to now support this family, just because the mom is still a child herself?

Unfortunately, that legal cut-off age is 18. Not 17, not 16, not 15. Yes, it is an arbitrary age, but it carries a whole host of baggage with it. Parents can be held liable for the actions of their underage children. Should some precocious 15 year old girl be allowed to legally decide that she wants to get into porn, just because SHE thinks she is old enough? Didn't Tracy Lords already show us the error of this kind of thinking? Ok, so she was 16 when she started.

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. That's what that arbitrary age of 18 was set for. Because they SHOULD have gained enough experience to be responsible for themselves by then, and they are now held legally accountable for their own actions. So if "someone else" is held accountable for the actions of a 17 year old, that "someone else" gets to dictate the rules.

So what happens if teens are allowed to make their own decisions? Why shouldn't parents be allowed to kick them out of the house to go and make their own way in the world at that time? Why should parent's have to pay for the teens mistakes, if the teens are allowed to just do whatever pops into their little undeveloped minds? Just how many grandparents are raising their grandchildren, because the moms and dads are not remotely mature or old enough to raise their own kids?

This is what allowing unfettered exploration of sexuality leads to. it isn;t about keeping kids down and not allowing them to do fun things. It is an attempt to teach them some measure of being responsbile. These kids got caught breaking the law. They knew it was against the law. They should face the consequences.

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

[penix1]

It goes far beyond that. Remember, these kids not only have a criminal record but by law they must register as sex offenders and be tracked the rest of their lives. Publicly humiliated by having that tracking posted to the Internet and never get a job because of it especially if that job is anywhere near other kids...

It does raise an interesting quandary though. Now that they are sex offenders, does that mean they are restricted from going to school?

B.

Re:Jesus

[PopeRatzo]

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

Thank goodness. I've met enough kids whose parents "mind their own business" and they end up really eff'ed up. Part of being a parent is sticking your nose in your kids' beeswax. It's called "caring".

I had a policy with my daughter. I let her know when I was "snooping" (such as calling her friends' parents to introduce myself when she was going to spend the night, or stopping by her school to make a pest of myself). Never did anything like that behind her back. And you know what? She was cool with it. I didn't have to sneak around and read her diary or collect the hair from her brushes to check for drug traces (those tests were just coming out then). And she knew that I cared enough to try to protect her, even though we both knew I couldn't protect her from everything.

I made myself part of my daughter's life (as did her mom, my wife). I also let her know that I loved her more than the oxygen I breathe. Then, I rolled the dice. If she did something stupid, I explained to her why it was stupid, and her mom made sure to talk to her about sex early enough (and believe me, her mom knows sex). Occasionally, when she'd bring a boy home, I'd happen to be cleaning my collection of combat knives or demonstrating my dog's attack training. Now my girl is 18 (for another week or so) and has never been pregnant and there are no visible track marks or bruises. Most of it was luck, but I have never regretted making myself part of her world. It's too easy to just be passive and too absorbed in my own world and then I'd have to leave it up to chance to make sure she makes it to 18 without too much damage. I couldn't live with that, so I did it the way my parents did it, and it turns out they weren't as stupid as I thought. Like the old saying goes, "my parents got smarter as I got older."

Now that I got that out of the way, some prosecutor needs a stern talking-to for going after two 18 year-olds trading cheesecake photos. He probably never played doctor or got any himself, so now he doesn't know his pecker from his elbow, but he's got the statute memorized. We need to have much smarter people than are currently involved in the justice system for minors. We've got way too many young ones who are having their lives messed up with brushes with the legal system, while a whole bunch of at-risk kids get ignored. "Getting tough" was never the answer and "zero tolerance" is for manufacturing quality control, not dealing young humans.

Re:Jesus

[Wonko the Sane]

We're not freaks about sex; religous idiots are freaks about sex, and we suffer for it.

It's harsh to say it, but when stories like this come up I start thinking that maybe the world would have been better off if the Romans hadn't run out of lions.

Re:Jesus

[644bd346996]

Teaching teenagers how to be responsible is very very hard. Neurologically speaking, it is always an uphill battle, and frequently only time can impart wisdom. When you consider that most parents don't have the time or willpower to be tough when they should, it is hardly surprising that teen pregnancies are so common.

But back to that kind of teaching being hard: of the several teenage Eagle Scouts I know, only one is currently capable of getting along in life independently, and barely (his cooking is pretty bad). Also related to scouting, it is very interesting watching a very mature 13 year old become a raving pyromaniac for a few years, and then go back to being a respectable young man and often a good leader. In most cases, if you can get a kid through the teenage years without too much legal trouble and no bad car accidents, they will end up fine, and it can be hard to imagine the person as they were during the wild teenage years.

Re:Jesus

[Wansu]

  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?

Amen. We'll soon end up with half the country guarding the other half.

Draconian laws aren't the only problem. Over zealous prosecution is an equal contributor. Today's careerist prosecutors are judged by their conviction rates. There's no telling how many people are railroaded by the Mike Nifongs in our criminal justice system.

Re:Jesus

[ckedge]

What the FUCK is wrong with you!!!

You're such a zelous anti-sex absitnence religious nut that you think locking boys and girls who see each other naked in prison for 10 years and ruining the REST OF THEIR ENTIRE LIVES by putting them in a database of sex offenders ... IS REASONABLE!!?!?!

When I was 16, I could see myself naked. When a girl is 15, she can see herself naked. When a 15 year old boy and a 16 year old girl get together - they can see each other naked - and there's no way in hell that should be THIS illegal!!!

Yes somewhere between 16 years of age and 6 years of age there needs to be a cut-off.

If you want to prevent old men from raping young people, fine. If you want to make it illegal for old men to exploit young people by dealing in child-pornography - fine. But there's no way in hell a 16 year old taking a picture of himself or herself should be illegal. Yes maybe it should be a tiny bit illegal if they distribute it to anyone else. But not "ruin the entire rest of your entire fucking life" illegal. If anyone else distributes that picture, that's right back to full blown child-porn illegal.

FFS - this is why you need Supreme Courts - to put the totalitarian nazi's back in their fucking places. 16, 26 - CITIZEN WITH RIGHTS. Maybe not full rights, but this is stupid simple shit.

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

[ozborn]

The teenage pregnancy problem is because of lack of sex education.
Considering that teenage sex and pregancy was the norm for most of human history I'd say the problem has more to do with society being unable to turn teenagers into financially viable and independent adults until long after they are sexually mature.

Re:Jesus

[BakaHoushi]

What's your point? The above posts, including my own, state quite clearly that doing this was a mistake. And perhaps, someday, she would be embarrassed. And all that jazz.

The question is why should they be tried for CHILD PORNOGRAPHY? I'm entirely serious. These laws are designed to prosecute people who rape children. Taking a photo of yourself and e-mailing it to someone is HARDLY comparable.

Even IF it ended up in the wrong hands (And that's nota big deal to me. Child pornographers want pre-pubescent girls. Not "just technically a minor, but barely."), shouldn't we be blaming the guy who steals these photos? Blaming the girl is like blaming a car-jacking victim for leaving a car unlocked, or a mugging victim for having her wallet out in the open.

Re:Jesus

[Frozen Void]

How much rational people can get from believing in invisible gods that run the show?
Psychotic devotion and complete faith in stories with very dubious origins centuries ago.
Nothing rational.Thats what true "religion" is:a glorified mass cult.

Re:Jesus

[gordo3000]

uh, generally it was a teen girl paired with a much older, financially responsible man. It just happens that in teh last 50 years, most of the world has rebelled again a 14 year old girl getting married to a 25 year old guy. The girl still isn't/wasn't a viable, independent financial entity but she does have a husband who is/was theoretically at that level.

so you're kind of comparing two different social structures.

Re:Jesus

[ElleyKitten]

Yes, making and sending those pictures will have consequences, but that's no reason to make even worse consequences for them. Sending her to jail will do nothing to prevent those pictures from going up all over school. Sending her to jail will probably not even prevent other girls from doing this, because if you're too dense to think that maybe your boyfriend will show all his friends when you break up then you're too dense to think you'd go to jail. If the police left them alone, they'd learn the consequences. It wouldn't be nice, but if you can't protect teens from the consequences of being dumb then you at least shouldn't make them much much worse.

Re:Jesus

[mpe]

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?

Especially considering that similar aged people who have done much more harmful "dumb things", e.g. caused serious (even fatal) injuries to innocent bystanders through incompetent operation of motor vehicles, encountering less serious consequences from the criminal justice system.

Re:Jesus

[Khyber]

"So what happens if teens are allowed to make their own decisions?"

We finally learn the harsh realities of life and GROW THE FUCK UP, thank you very much. I was homeless at 16 with my father - you think I didn't have to make a decision for myself and my family to do what was necessary to ensure our survival? You're damned ignorant if you think otherwise, because my father was too distraught and 'shell-shocked' to do much other than wallow in self-pity.

Back in the founding days, a man was considered a MAN the moment he was able to reproduce, and sometimes EVEN YOUNGER (given the death of head of household.) Remember, our founding fathers regularly had women far, FAR younger than themselves. 40 year olds marrying 14 year old women. Yet in this day and age - oh, NO! Think of the children!

Teenager = old enough physically to reproduce. We were designed this way, there's no reason for a law to restrict us in regards to how the fuck we were naturally created. There is no reason, whatsoever.

Re:Jesus

[canadian_right]

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

Re:Jesus

[An Onerous Coward]

I applaud you on putting forward a truly mind-bending thought. It took me a surprisingly long time to recognize that I mostly agreed with it.

But I don't see a good solution to the problem, because the biggest problem is that modern society is just so friggin' complex, that there is no way to educate a fifteen year old in such a way that he/she has a good shot at succeeding in a way that we commonly think of as "independent". Once we've taught them the sort of basic maturity that can allow them to value their own long-term interests and the interests of others (a sometimes impossible task), we still have to teach them a laundry list of knowledge and skills: basic household and auto repairs, how to do their taxes, how to balance a checkbook, how to pay their bills, how to plan and shop for and prepare nutritious meals, how to clean up after themselves, how to manage their time, how to use the Internet, how to drive safely, how to be responsible and effective at their chosen occupation, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Again, that's assuming that the desire to be an honest, hardworking, successful person already exists.

Without restructuring of society to abstract away all the tricky bits, it's more than even the most astute teenager can be reasonably expected to handle.

So, we're faced with the problem: How do we protect them from the consequences of their actions until they've learned enough to manage all of life's various risks, without impeding their maturation, while respecting their autonomy.

The abstinence-only crowd has one solution: teach them not to do the things that would cause these negative consequences. Don't have sex. It's a simple approach, easy to comprehend. But the bankruptcy of that approach is revealed when you start asking advocates about the exceptions. What happens to those who don't get the message? The more I study their reactions to that simple question, the more clearly I think I understand their conception of the world. They are the "good" people, with a message that other "good" people will accept and act on. If the message is taught loud and long enough, all the other good people will avoid sex before marriage. The rest of them, the ones who don't heed the message, are seen as either acceptable collateral damage or bad people who deserve all the misery and suffering life can offer.

Sounds harsh, yes. But when I see conservative, religious folks getting fighting mad because somebody wants to take some very simple, very effective precautions to reduce a consequence of "inappropriate" sexual behavior, what else can I conclude? Take the recent insanity over the new HPV vaccine. HPV is an STD that a majority of women will contract at some point in their lives, which is known to raise the risk of cervical cancer. Several states are working on laws that would use the education system to deliver the vaccine to young people. Critics of these plans say that we mustn't carry them out, because vaccinating a sixth grader is tantamount to telling them that it's fine for them to be having sex.

It seems that the goal of reducing the amount of sexual activity is more important to such people than protecting kids from the harm these kids could inflict on themselves through their behavior. It's like saying that we shouldn't disarm some of the mines in a minefield, because people would be more likely to walk through it.

The alternative is to protect kids from the potential consequences of risky behavior, as the proponents of comprehensive sex ed suggest. The criticism of that position is usually of the "if we remove all consequences to their behavior, then how will they learn?" It's a strong argument in many other domains. The argument is weaker in the case of sexual activity, because most of the consequences of sexual activity can be minimized or eliminated, leaving an exciting and pleasurable activity in its wake. What they really seem to be asking is, "if our children can engage in consequence-free sex, what leverage do we have in our ques

Re:Jesus

[StikyPad]

AIDS only ruins one life. Teenage mothers ruin two.

Having a child when you're not prepared is worse than an STD. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the root of the problem -- lack of education and/or access to contraception/protection -- but motherhood essentially ends the education and/or career development of the unprepared parent. Its consequences reverberate through society in the form of welfare and increased crime, whereas STDs pretty much only affect the individual. Given the choice between curing all STDs and preventing all unwanted pregnancy, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter. Fortunately the solution to both was introducted almost 100 years ago with the latex condom.. now if we could just get people to use them.

eh, the US over-reacts one way...

[c6gunner]

....and here in Canada we go to the opposite extreme. Here an 80 year old man can legaly have sex with a 14 year old girl (or an 80 year old woman with a 14 year old boy I suppose), and can even document it if the images are intended for personal use and are not shared with others. Now, which one of these systems is better?

Discuss.

Re:eh, the US over-reacts one way...

[oSand]

I'll tell you when I'm 80

Re:eh, the US over-reacts one way...

[JamesTRexx]

Mind if I'll get back to you on that when I'm 80 and found a willing 14 year old girl?

The Real Question...

[matthewcraig]

The real question is whether they will be prosecuted as adults. Only then would the trifecta of contradiction be complete.

Re:Out of date

[MillionthMonkey]

A minority opinion argued that the laws were intended to protect children from exploitative adults, not from other children.

That's fine in a world where we don't have underage rapists and killers. But that's not our world sadly.

You mean kids under 18 are free to rape and murder anybody they choose unless we charge them with rape for having consensual sex with one another? There's no way to distinguish those two situations from each other by statute?

How do you figure, Senator?

18 years is too old to be prosecuted as a child molester if your "victim" is also 18. You can molest a 14 year old, but another 17-19 year old? I don't think so! Someone who's your age isn't approaching you from the position of power or authority that can be abused by an adult much older than you. Two kids playing doctor don't deserve to be charged as if each was ten years older than the other. This kind of molester is not your age practically by definition. And with this type of abuse, your molester cannot be abused in kind by you, also practically by definition. Child abusers abuse children, not each other.

They need to let you ripen a bit, so you have the kind of relationship to your victim that an actual abuser might have. The law should at least compare your ages, i.e. subtract them, instead of stupidly comparing each kid's age separately to 18 to determine the guilt of the other. Who wrote this law? This is a bug. Are all Florida's laws this poorly written? I'd be fired for writing code that did that. I should go into politics; it seems like a much easier coding job although you have to dress nicer and give a lot of bullshit speeches.

They must have been putting the acid in the water

[lowell]

This country that I live in is sick. It has some sort of psychosis, some widespread mental disorder; this disorder affects judgment and reason. It is an illness to remove logic and reason so easily to "protect the children". We are all sick for allowing things to get this bad. These lawmakers and judges and politicians all come from our society, so we get what we deserve. We let these things happen without actually righting the wrongs or fixing the problems. We are all to blame for this. We are in the death throws of our nation. The end is near and we don't deserve anything more than to wither. It is our fault, we could have stood up a long time ago, but we just laid down and let them fuck us.

Like BSD we are all dead.

Re:Madness!

[Valtor]

The definition of a document as being child pornography or not has nothing to do with the identity or age or the artist, writer or photographer. Exactly, I'm well aware that technically this is child pornography. But the problem here, is that the definition of child pornography is not clear enough. It certainly should not apply to a case like this one.

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

[msobkow]

Sub-conscious slip of the fingers: that should have been "possession", not "position."

Taken further, a precedence could have sparked an entire industry of teens archiving photos they intend to sell as soon as they reach a legal age to do so. Not a battle anyone would want to take up, methinks.

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.

This is all the camera manufacturer's fault!

[CTho9305]

The manufacturer of the camera should be sued for not including warning labels telling teenagers not to photograph themselves!

Stupidly arresting cihldren, since 2004

[thehossman]

This certianly isn't the first time...

http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/03/30/teen-arrested-fo r-sexually-abusing-herself/

Clearly illegal?

[dangitman]

Can someone tell me why "racy" pictures of someone under 18 are "clearly illegal"? The writeup doesn't even try to justify this statement or explain it - it is just said as if there can be no other possibility.

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.

Re:from my observation

[Noxx]

we went so far as to do it with my folks asleep upstairs just to 'stick it to the man'

I think you may have been doing it wrong. Maybe pay more attention in health class next time :)

Redundancy

[Dr. Cody]

Damn, I'd like to see Puritanism gone wild:

Puritans Gone Wild XIV: Cape Cod Cuties

You've never seen ankle-baring like this!

To quote George Carlin

[vitality-jtw]

From You're all Diseased:

"Whatever happened to 'you show me your pee-pee and I'll show you mine'".

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.

I don't think you fully realize the consequences.

[StarKruzr]

They violated CHILD PORN laws. Now they have to register as sex offenders.

Stop and THINK. Does this make ANY SENSE whatsoever? They have to be labeled sex offenders for the rest of their lives because they were emailing EACH OTHER dirty pictures?

Read some history if you're interested..

[Cryptnotic]

First of all, the U.S. was not founded by Puritans. If I recall correctly, the Puritans were pacifists and believed in creating a pure religious society. The founding fathers of the United States rejected the idea of official state religion (though they may have been religious themselves) and they were certainly not pacifists when they organized a military secession from England.

As for colonization, that wasn't the American way, it was the European way. The English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and Russians all took colonies in the Americas.

Re:Read some history if you're interested..

[bogjobber]

If I recall correctly, the Puritans were pacifists and believed in creating a pure religious society.

You're thinking of the Quakers. The Puritans were very religious, but were in general much crazier than the Quakers (as in Salem witch trial crazy).

As for colonization, that wasn't the American way, it was the European way.

Try telling that to the Native Americans, Spanish, Mexicans, Cubans, Filipinos, native Hawaiians, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Costa Ricans, and Panamanians/Colombians. Sure it isn't colonialism in the same way or on the same scale of the Europeans, but we've definitely set up colonies (both actual and "neo-colonies").

Note that I'm not necessarily criticizing all of those situations, or agreeing with the GP poster. But you have to at least acknowledge historical fact. Just because we don't call everything outside of the original 13 states colonies does not change the fact that that is what they originally were.

2 for 1: Free HIV with the purchase of crystal

[Dr. Cody]

Okay, most of you guys know that Ted Haggard was a churchman who got outed by a jilted gay prostitute. Many of you also probably know about him buying amphetamines from the aforementioned gigalo. What most of you don't know is just what happens when you put 2 and 2 together:

Anal on crystal meth reachs levels of debauchery which heterosexuals have no grasp of. The combination of the two makes that awkward, snappy preacher a much harder man than most any of you ever will be. Imagine, if you will, two men fucking and fucking to the very limits of what they are physically capable of doing--and doing that for hours without slowing down. With enough meth you can stay up for a week, but, if you know what you are doing, you can turn that pile of crystal into a multi-day, multi-partner orgy with only the most minimal breathers. You can fuck to a point where you normally wouldn't just have lost interest, but also been experiencing too much pain to continue. Nothing matters but the fuck: not pain, not protection, and not exhaustion.

Just think about that next time you see him dressed pretty for the cameras.

I cannot STAND

[n33kos]

I fully understand and agree with the laws whose purpose is to protect minors from being exploited by adults, but I absolutely cannot stand the ignorant behavior that most adults exhibit. The lawmakers seem to believe that once a person turns eighteen, they suddenly receive vast amounts of knowledge and wisdom that qualify them to make responsible decisions. Conversely, they believe that NO "child" who is under 18 could possibly understand the consequences of their actions.

Bullshit....

A seventeen and sixteen year old couple is COMPLETELY aware of the possible consequences of their actions, but unlike the adults who OBVIOUSLY "have it right", they don't care. They don't care because they have their entire lives ahead of them! It seems that the "adults" forgot what it was like to be sexually excited by the person you are involved with. Not only do they have every right to do whatever they want with each other sexually, but to actually believe that "These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos." shows direct disrespect toward humanity. Just because the laws say that these people are some sort of primal creatures until they turn eighteen doesn't make it true.

Could we maybe just accept the possibility that 'children' are humans, not animals.

p.s. This happens ALL the time. the ONLY reason that these kids are facing consequences in the future is the overreaction of the authorities. Great job, you're fucking up peoples lives because they have sexual desire. (of course its the American way to persecute other people based on your own beliefs. Thats what Jesus would have done! /sarcasm )

Try them as adults!

[nessus42]

I think an example needs to be made of these kids -- they should be tried as adults!

I'm worried, however, that then the Florida legal system might disappear in a puff of logic....

|>oug