Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Are they going to start prosecuting 17 year olds who have sex with mutual statutory rape?
Now if I try to commit suicide will I be charged with Attempted Murder?
- "Scientia non habet inimicum nisp ignorantem"
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
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.
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.
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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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.
Beep beep.
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.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
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.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
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.
What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
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.
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.
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.
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?"
The manufacturer of the camera should be sued for not including warning labels telling teenagers not to photograph themselves!
My server
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.
This certianly isn't the first time...
o r-sexually-abusing-herself/
http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/03/30/teen-arrested-f
-- The Hoss Man
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.
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?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
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.
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 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?
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.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
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.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.