6 Pennsylvania Teens Face Child Porn Charges For Pics of Selves

mikesd81 writes "MSNBC reports six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones. Apparently, female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14 or 15 years old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession. Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation against school policy and the photos were discovered at that time. Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was 'a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude.' The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the investigation turned up 'no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds ... other than the violation of the electronic devices policy.'"

Comments

Think of the children

[the_arrow]

We need a world-wide ban on all phones with cameras!

Re:Think of the children

[cbiltcliffe]

I'm no expert on American law, but wouldn't this evidence be inadmissible in a court case, as there was no warrant, and therefore the search of the phone was illegal?

I realize this is a "OMG!!THINKOFHTECHILDEEHJRJEIEAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!111LOL!!" kind of thing, where legal formalities are frequently tossed aside because "they're only child molesters."
But seriously....wouldn't this be a illegal search in the first place?

Re:Think of the children

[haystor]

I'm sure they're going with the idea that every student consents to a search when they attend school.

Of course, they are required to be a school and failure to attend can result in charges in some states. Thus, they are required to consent to searches.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The device was a school child's and it was on school grounds. 4th amendment argument won't fly.

Re:Think of the children

[FredFredrickson]

Laws don't apply in this case.

Re:Think of the children

[pipboy9999]

IANAL, but the school officials were not conducting a search, but confiscating a something per a school regulation, so the chain of custody of the phone is not an issue, but the students right to privacy my have been violated if the official looked through the phones pictures with out some sort of cause, ie suspected the kids of cheating.

Re:Think of the children

[TerribleNews]

If it would reduce my monthly cellphone bill, I'd be ok with it.

Nope, they'd come up with a system non-access fee which you pay so they can make sure you're being saved from yourself. Your new bill would include that and changes for the time you would used your phone and the text messages you would have sent. At which point, if you're a 15 year old boy, the cops will come and arrest you for nude photos of 15 year old girls you would have received, had you been able to carry a cell phone. See? Everybody wins!

Re:Think of the children

[cbiltcliffe]

Why not? Does that mean I can kill someone if I'm an American school student, and they can't prosecute me because I was on school grounds?
The law doesn't apply? What kind of bullshit is that?

(Other than the aforementioned TOTC crap.)

Re:Think of the children

[cbiltcliffe]

That's kind of what I was going on, but I didn't explain it very well.

Sure, confiscate the phone, as it's not allowed on school property, or in class, or whatever.

But you have no right whatsoever to look through the contents of my phone.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

This thread is useless without pictures!

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot!

Re:Think of the children

[erroneus]

You know, in all the years I have heard "Think of the children" as a battle cry expressing concern over the welfare of children, it just occurred to me that it can be read the wrong way by paedophiles... they TOO are thinking of the children. And as it turns out, they think of themselves as well.

Re:Think of the children

[FireStormZ]

Teachers have a right to confiscate property from a teen and are obligated by law to report violations of criminal codes.

A police office could not walk into the school and take the phone (sans warrant) but they way this played out it was completely legal.

Re:Think of the children

[Tacvek]

Unfortunately, most of the unlawful search and other illegal evidence laws apply primarily to the police, not to actions taken by others. Often times, if somebody else obtains the evidence, even illegally it can be used by the prosecution in the case. The party that obtained the evidence illegally could potentially be subject to prosecution as well, but that is not surprising.

Now not all evidence works like this. For example phone recordings in some states may be inadmissible as evidence if the state's rules regarding it are not met, even when neither party is the police. But in most cases, as long as it was not the police (or prosecution) that obtained the evidence illegally it is admissible.

Now in this case, this is moot. No warrant was necessary. Anybody (police or otherwise) may search property without any warrant if the owner of said property agrees to the search, and any evidence obtained is admissible. In general, although there are exceptions such as probable cause, law enforcement requires warrants to search a person's property against his/her will. Private individuals never need a warrant to do this, although usually searching of property by a private individual against the property owners will is a crime. However, school officials generally have the legal right to search any property on school grounds. Thus the evidence was lawful.

IANAL, but all the above is my understanding of how it works.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a ban on schools would be more effective.
Schools should only teach basic reading and writing, just enough to type in "wikipedia".

Re:Think of the children

[Blindman]

The answer depends on who did the seizure and the circumstances. I don't know if Pennsylvania schools, or this one in particular, can be considered to be an arm of the Pennsylvania government. If so, then Pennsylvania wouldn't be able to use the seized phone against the owner of the phone in most cases. However, they might be able to use the sending phone as evidence of the receiver's possession. They might also be able to argue inevitable discovery of the pictures as well.

Also, if the inappropriate picture was visible on the screen when it was taken, then that would also have an effect on the outcome.

In short, maybe.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't mean criminal law doesn't apply, it just means that civil rights do not apply.

The search and seizure laws aren't considered in this case because the incident involves minors (under 18 years of age).

Like it or not, agree with it or not, minors do not legally have civil rights so they can not be infringed upon.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

there was a recent court case that basically neutered the 4th amendment was there not? I'm sure the police were acting in good faith.

Re:Think of the children

[fishbowl]

Teacher who confiscates a nude photo that a teenager took of herself, becomes the first adult in possession of the image. Where is the specific guarantee of immunity to charges?

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Could the police be changed with possession of child pwn since they know have possession of the phones?

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's entrapment by the government. There's a bunch of "Watch Children" signs on my way to work!

Re:Think of the children

[FireStormZ]

"Teacher who confiscates a nude photo that a teenager took of herself, becomes the first adult in possession of the image. Where is the specific guarantee of immunity to charges?"

The older boy 17, may be an adult in PA but IANAL.

Given the teacher immediately turned everything over to the police I would think there is no risk of being charged... Its not, after all, illegal to report a crime..

Re:Think of the children

[GooberToo]

I'm no expert on American law, but wouldn't this evidence be inadmissible in a court case, as there was no warrant, and therefore the search of the phone was illegal?

It's pretty easy to argue they had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the data held on their phone. Thankfully, since the justice system works so well here, bankruptcy is a fairly common occurrence in order to pay for establishing such grounds.

Heck, thanks to the wonderful justice system here, simple tort cases can bankrupt families despite the fact the case has no reasonable basis. Heck, lottery winners of less than $4-million often spend a huge chunk, if not all of it, fending off law suites from claimants who have no credible claim to their winnings. That was a statistic from the company that runs 80% of the world's lottery systems.

Sad fact is, the legal system in the US is completely fucked. Reasonable assumptions should never be made. And far too often, victory means financial devastation for a decade.

The US has more prisoners than any other country in the world. The fastest growing government service is prisons and prison related services. In the US, both civil and criminal courts are big business.

Never confuse, justice, punishment, common sense, or even simple reason and logic with the US legal system. Why else do you believe the US has more lawyers than any other country in the world - and still has a shortage?

Maybe, one day, in my life time, The People will actually get their legal system back - and the genocide of lawyers will begin. I just had to throw that last part in. ;)

Technically, according to US law, the person discovering the pictures on the phone can be charged with possession of child pornography (they legally took possession of the phone) as simple possession is all that is required. You don't even have to be aware you are in possession or have any intent of such material to have your life destroyed by this law.

If the courts were worth anything at all, they would toss the DA into jail for 30 days while fining him for lost court time while he's sitting in jail, and remind him this is an issue for families, not courts. If more judges did the "Right Thing" many of these problems wouldn't be a problem at all.

Re:Think of the children

[kalirion]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We need to ban children. Then all child abuse problems will go way pretty quickly, and not too long afterwords all other problems will as well.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

If it would reduce my monthly cellphone bill, I'd be ok with it.

Don't kid yourself. The phone company will bill the lack of a camera as a feature (hey, buy my phone and you won't get busted for $thought_crime) and charge you extra for the service.

Re:Think of the children

[HTH NE1]

But you have no right whatsoever to look through the contents of my phone.

They may have looked at the contents in order to identify the owner of the phone so that it could be returned to the proper owner.

I would also guess those teachers showed each other the photos for awhile before acting on them. This from first-hand knowledge of teachers in what was to become my high school watching students have sex in a car after school in the parking lot.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

In my high school district, I'm pretty sure it was legal for a teacher to search your entire bag, or something of the sort.

Re:Think of the children

[trmj]

It may have been years since I researched this topic, and it may have been in a Pennsylvania public school that the paper was written, but here's what I can recall from memory about the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution, specifically about illegal search and seizure and how it relates to public schools:

Police entering the school to complete a search are just that: Police. As such, they are bound to the full effect of any Local, State, and Federal laws regarding search and seizure. That part is clear-cut and dry. Immediately after that, however, it gets fuzzy.

For example, a student's locker is their personal space, right? Not always. It's government property, but there is a confidence held with the school that possessions stored within specifically designated areas will remain private. This has gone both ways in court, and largely depends on the circumstances.

If the police want to avoid that whole argument, then they have the easiest of ways to have that space searched and items collected: school administrators. This is where a student will realize that, because they are under 18 (and under 21 in some states), they have very little say in the situation.

Police need Probable Cause to search without a warrant. School administrators need only "Reasonable Belief", also called "Reason to Suspect" or one of many other phrases. As long as the student or the property are on school grounds, a school administrator has full and complete privilege to any of that students belongings, and the option to detain the student against their will until Police arrive.

So, what constitutes Reasonable Belief? Quote simple, really: anything at all. Did the kid look funny? Did the administrator think they overheard a foul comment? Reason to believe.

This may have been a long way of getting around to it, however the fact remains that this cell phone was taken in accordance with the law and is fully permissible as evidence. It doesn't matter why the administrators were looking through the kid's pictures, they can claim anything now.

The real test of law here is whether child pornography prosecution can be used against minors who willingly took and distributed the pictures of themselves. Furthermore, can the boys be charged for receipt of something they did not have the option to reject? I don't know about you, but I don't have a choice to reject an SMS on my phone, it just accepts it no matter what.

Re:Think of the children

[snspdaarf]

Right. The school is acting as a guardian of the children. This gives them authority to do a number of things that the police could not do in a city park. My kids always brought home a number of forms to sign each year, and one was to inform parents that vehicles parked on school property were subject to search, as were backpacks, and other personal belongings on school property. While the school was overpopulated with horse's-asses, I am sure that they were not the only school system with that policy. So, the cell phone search is probably legitimate.

Re:Think of the children

[lowlymarine]

You get that logic out of here boy!

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

The teacher may have legally seized the phone, but that didn't give him/her the right to search the contents of the phone. And I highly doubt the student gave permission for the teacher to do so. Under this train of thought the evidence should be tossed.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Think of the negative body image that results from thinking your body is some evil thing that must be hidden from the world.

Think of how they're going to think they are "disgusting" because nobody should be allowed to see them.

Think about how, oddly, sex between these minors would have been legal, but a private photo is supposedly not.

There was no abuse. There was no child molester. There were just 6 teens, doing completely natural things. What they were doing was ok, it was healthy, and telling them it was bad is not healthy. Like I said, think of the children v.v

Re:Think of the children

[DM9290]

Like it or not, agree with it or not, minors do not legally have civil rights so they can not be infringed upon.

They don't have the right to vote, and they are considered mentally incompetent. But yes, they do have civil rights.

Re:Think of the children

[jythie]

Minors in schools do not have the same rights as adults. School officials (or teachers in general) do not need a warrant or probable cause or, well, anything.

Re:Think of the children

[blueg3]

Technically, according to US law, the person discovering the pictures on the phone can be charged with possession of child pornography (they legally took possession of the phone) as simple possession is all that is required.

Actually, most such laws have clauses so that people who discover the material and turn it in to the police immediately cannot be charged with possession.

Re:Think of the children

[ds_job]

You can think of the children just don't look at the children.

Re:Think of the children

[m.ducharme]

- and the genocide of lawyers will begin. I just had to throw that last part in. ;)

Haha. Funny, that's generally what dictators say when they rise to power.

Re:Think of the children

[jitterman]

Why is parent a troll? Merely providing an answer to the gp's question.

Re:Think of the children

[Chabil Ha']

Nothing new here. I remember cleaning out a cabinet in my high school dark room littered with such self portraits. I can imagine that this was nothing new then, either. As long as kids have access to cameras, period, you're going to see these sorts of things. The system needs to get over it.

Re:Think of the children

[Archangel Michael]

OR

The kids can actually OBEY the rules (gasp, horror) and not use cell phones in violation of campus rules!

Typically, kids are warned "put the cell phone away" several times before confiscation. So, the kids gawking at naked pictures of their classmates caused suspicion and probably ignored the repeated reprimands.

You know, sometimes the kids actually deserve to get caught. I know that all these "rules" are a pain, but if you teach contempt for rules (even if you don't like them) you'll end up with people who CAN NOT fathom why there are any rules in the first place, and who don't know which rules to follow, so they end up SHOCKED when the rules are enforced.

Re:Think of the children

[blueg3]

Only the police require warrants. If citizens search property, the legal concerns are different. Since the child was at school, seizure of the phone was undoubtedly permitted by school regulation. I'm not sure about search -- some schools, the staff claims a right to search anything brought on to the premises. That may come up as an issue. The issue of potential tampering might come up, except that they have both ends of the transfer (sender and receiver) to verify.

It's sort of an interesting case because it's fairly rare that this sort of situation is actually prosecuted. (Most of the investigators I know think that actually prosecuting such a case is unreasonable and a waste of resources.) However, the school staff, presumably searching the phone for some reason other than searching for pornography, has no choice but to turn it in to the police once they run across the material. Otherwise, they would potentially be subject to criminal charges.

Honestly, they'd be best off scaring the kids into being a bit more reasonable with their electronic devices and then dropping the case. It seems unlikely they'd win the case and also win the inevitable appeal.

Re:Think of the children

[GooberToo]

Really, with the winking emoticon too? Implying it was a joke? Really? Let's see...where is that rolling eyes emoticon at when you need it...

Let me guess, you're a lawyer, want to be a lawyer, or know someone who is a lawyer?

Re:Think of the children

[Urza9814]

The way it worked in my school is they had a rule in the student handbook that stated that if you were caught using your phone while school was in session it could be confiscated. And you ad your parent were required to sign a statement saying you had read and agreed to those rules. So by doing that, you've given up that freedom. Of course, in my school they still had no right to search the phone...and in fact, students fairly frequently removed the batteries before giving up the phones. That or put them in lock mode.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

minors do not legally have civil rights so they can not be infringed upon.

Proof or you're lying.

Re:Think of the children

[GooberToo]

Actually, most such laws have clauses so that people who discover the material and turn it in to the police immediately cannot be charged with possession.

Yes, but AFAIK, this isn't one of them.

Here's a real story for you. Women is walking down street. She is offered pot. Being a good citizen, she buys the pot and immediately goes to the police station. She turns over the pot and informs the police she would like to file a complaint and testify against the person who sold her the pot. She is arrested on the spot. I didn't hear what happened to her after that. Likely she got a slap on the wrist, but arresting her in the first place is a serious sign of a broken legal system. And given the US' fine tradition of punishing people after they have already been punished, it will likely cause additional problems for her until she dies.

Granted, she was naive to say the least, but should she really have been arrested? As I said, "Never confuse, justice, punishment, common sense, or even simple reason and logic with the US legal system." If you do, far more often than not, you'll lose.

Re:Think of the children

[Chyeld]

I can't, in my wildest imagination, imagine a stupider response to the idea that three children are being charged with the offense of child porngraphy, for pictures of themselves and three others for receiving them, then "Maybe they shouldn't have been using their cell phones in class."

Do you have any fucking idea what just the fact that they've been charged will do to their lives? How many jobs are now barred to them just because this charge will be on their records? Much less the complete ruination of their life if they are found guilty?

This is BARELY above Taliban 'bury a girl in the sand and throw stones at her head till she's dead because she was raped by someone' level stupidity.

Re:Think of the children

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Like it or not, agree with it or not, minors do not legally have civil rights so they can not be infringed upon.

It's simply not true. The Supreme Court ruled that "rights do not end at the schoolhouse gate."

My teacher tried to tell me that once. I was going to spend a week exercising every right I had as a demonstration, but upon looking at the costs (financial and time) it would impose, I contented to exercise the rights I felt like exercising.

Re:Think of the children

[drsmithy]

Its not, after all, illegal to report a crime..

How about when it's illegal to _witness_ a crime ?

Re:Think of the children

[dk90406]

The girls can get even by messaging the pictures to prosecutors and the ratting teacher. Pedophile teachers have a hard time getting another teaching job.

Re:Think of the children

[GooberToo]

Given the teacher immediately turned everything over to the police I would think there is no risk of being charged... Its not, after all, illegal to report a crime..

It is illegal to be in possession of child pornography, regardless of knowledge of possession or intent. That's the law.

If I secretly copy some to your computer and then anonymously turn you in, you can be arrested and go to jail; your life forever destroyed.

Re:Think of the children

[Rob the Bold]

Like it or not, agree with it or not, minors do not legally have civil rights so they can not be infringed upon.

Gonna need a source on that one. I can't find anywhere in the constitution that civil rights only apply to non-minors. In fact, the US Supreme Court has famously found that: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." (Tinker v. Des Moines). If the first amendment applies to students, that would suggest that minors do have Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, and therefore that the rest of the constitution applies to minors as well.

Re:Think of the children

[FireStormZ]

When, exactly is it illegal to witness a crime? and does a teacher lawfully taking a cellphone rise to that level.

Re:Think of the children

[Hordeking]

The search and seizure laws aren't considered in this case because the incident involves minors (under 18 years of age).

Like it or not, agree with it or not, minors do not legally have civil rights so they can not be infringed upon.

Uh, last time I checked, the constitution applies to everyone (apparently also to foreigners).

How would child porn charges and sex offender registries apply to charged minors once they turn 18? Do they still have to sign up for the registries, and do their records become sealed?

Re:Think of the children

[logjon]

how cute...someone thinks the bill of rights actually still means something.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

While they couldn't reject it before they received it they could have rejected it after they received it. DELETE!

Re:Think of the children

[blueg3]

Let me be more specific. Most child pornography laws have such clauses. (Note that each state has its own laws, in addition to the federal law.) Actually, all of the state CP laws I've read have such clauses.

I made no claim that the same is true of drugs, but if you show up at a police station with illicit material to turn in, it's a reasonable expectation that you will be held until they can check out your story. (In your story, the woman made the mistake of actually purchasing the pot -- she's now taken an illegal action, knowing what she was doing and knowing it was illegal.) Calling the police with discovered child pornography to turn in is fairly common practice, unfortunately. While it may quickly become a headache, it is very rare that you're even arrested.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

"all 14 or 15 years old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17"
Now that WAS a surprise... girls going after boys who are one to two years OLDER than them...

Wasn't that just great in high school? All the girls in your year were never interested in YOU - because through no fault of your own, you just happened to be the same age as them. Not good enough for daddy's little princess, was it! You didn't have a CAR!

Re:Think of the children

[Hordeking]

They may have looked at the contents in order to identify the owner of the phone so that it could be returned to the proper owner.

I think they knew who the proper owner was. They took the phone from him.

I would also guess those teachers showed each other the photos for awhile before acting on them. This from first-hand knowledge of teachers in what was to become my high school watching students have sex in a car after school in the parking lot.

Maybe the teachers and administrators should also be charged with child porn possession and distribution. They viewed thoughtcrime!

Re:Think of the children

[FireStormZ]

"It is illegal to be in possession of child pornography, regardless of knowledge of possession or intent. That's the law."

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002252----000-.html

Actually *unless* they knew it had objectionable material on it when the took the phone they are in complete compliance with USC 18-110-2252-a-2 which deals with possession

Any person who-- knowingly receives, or distributes, any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or which contains materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, or knowingly reproduces any visual depiction for distribution in interstate or foreign commerce or through the mails, if--

Also if you look at section C of that law you can see what I was getting to earlier

Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant--
(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.

** THATS ** the law..

"If I secretly copy some to your computer and then anonymously turn you in, you can be arrested and go to jail; your life forever destroyed."

Not if I could show I did not put it there and did not distribute. If these teachers had seen the images and did *not* report it, then they would have committed a crime.

Re:Think of the children

[NormalVisual]

They may have looked at the contents in order to identify the owner of the phone so that it could be returned to the proper owner.

Or they could just as easily have made a note of who they took the phone from, and return it to that person.

The part that gets me is that there's been no common sense applied here. The supposed "victims" are going to end up with just as much of a criminal record as the boys they sent the pictures to, so what exactly is the net benefit to society here? Sounds to me like there's a DA that's more interested in his political ambitions than anything else, and hopefully this will clearly show this individual's lack of fitness for office due to his lack of judgement.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that the school handbook states that student property is subject to searches if the students bring it onto campus. Students should already know that phones will be seized and searched when they are brought onto campus.

Additionally, once a phone has been confiscated, it becomes evidence in a larger investigation. After all, who would a student be talking to at school, if not other students. If the school administration can find evidence of texting or calls to other students during school hours, they can take actions against those students.

Then once the photos are found, the school is bound by law to report it as child abuse.

Re:Think of the children

[Rob the Bold]

OR

The kids can actually OBEY the rules (gasp, horror) and not use cell phones in violation of campus rules!

. . .

You know, sometimes the kids actually deserve to get caught. I know that all these "rules" are a pain, but if you teach contempt for rules (even if you don't like them) you'll end up with people who CAN NOT fathom why there are any rules in the first place, and who don't know which rules to follow, so they end up SHOCKED when the rules are enforced.

I see what you're going for here. Rules are rules, and it they're not obeyed there will be chaos, dogs and cats sleeping together, etc. Now I'm not an authoritarian personality type like you, but I do agree that if kids break the "using cell phone in school" rule they should be disciplined. However, I think they should be disciplined for the infraction of breaking the "cell phone in school" rule, and not the "distributing kiddy porn" rule. Cause when we start charging murderers with speeding and kidnappers with building code violations and parking violators with treason, the law and those enforcing it start to appear, for lack of a better word, stupid. And the more people believe that the law and its enforcers are stupid, then the fewer people are gonna go along with your "order at all costs" campaign. So it's in your interest too to make sure that we follow the old maxim and make "the punishment fit the crime".

Re:Think of the children

[GooberToo]

I interpreted "most such laws" too broadly.

Just the same, the point remains. The US legal system is completely fucked. I understand the legal basis for arresting her. I wasn't surprised to hear the outcome in the least. Just the same, if common sense, reason, or even simple logic had been applied, she would not have been arrested.

You arrest people so they can be in the system and ensure they are properly addressed by the government. It is not reasonable for someone attempting to go above and beyond their civic duty to be arrested. In the end, this did nothing but waste tax payer's money and valuable court/police time. No justice was done. And a person with good intent was punished.

Ultimately, that's part of the problem. Law enforcement and courts do not see the mere act of being arrested or being forced to go through the legal system as a punishment in the least. Contrary to their ignorant position, simply having to react is a form of punishment. Locating and retaining an attorney can cost significant time, lost wages, vacation time, and thousands of dollars before a lawyer even touches a phone on your behalf. According to the courts, that's tough shit - deal with it.

Re:Think of the children

[ducomputergeek]

In Loco Parentis is the legal definition you are looking for.

Here is a nice Wiki for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

If you're in school, under 18, the school administrators have a legal right to act as guardian with the same rights as a parent in their home.

Re:Think of the children

[NormalVisual]

And if you're going to think of the children, make damn sure no one knows you're thinking of the children.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the stupidest shit I've read all day, If I was a minor I'd take nude pics of myself in protest.

Re:Think of the children

[filekutter]

Hmmm, I believe that would be the first trial where NO ONE could view the evidence without being then cuffed and charged with viewing child porn. Sheesh, maybe they'll have to get a Eunuch judge and jury? Silliest arrest I've heard... since the last silly arrest

Re:Think of the children

[necro81]

When a school searches or seizes from a child, they are doing so in loco parentis. In other words, they have almost as much legal authority to do so as one's own parents. If your mother can hand over your pot to the police, so can the school.

Re:Think of the children

[NormalVisual]

And as long as kids have parts of their anatomy that are considered shameful and sinful, they'll continue to show them to each other, photographically or not.

Re:Think of the children

[c-reus]

it's like attempting suicide and then being charged with premeditated murder

Re:Think of the children

[Jason Levine]

True, but what 16-17 year old boy is going to willingly delete a self-taken nude photo sent to him by a girl 2-3 years younger than him? Even if the reasoning center of his brain screamed "DELETE IT!!!", his hormones would scream "She's naked dude! NAKED!!!" even louder.

Re:Think of the children

[FireStormZ]

"Technically, according to US law, the person discovering the pictures on the phone can be charged with possession of child pornography (they legally took possession of the phone) as simple possession is all that is required. You don't even have to be aware you are in possession or have any intent of such material to have your life destroyed by this law."

No they cant the law spells that out pretty clearly!

18-110-2252-C

Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant--
(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.

Re:Think of the children

[n0084ever]

Seriously, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Exactly. think of the children...

I am. and I think I'd like to see the photos and judge for myself

Re:Think of the children

[St. Alfonzo]

It's my understanding that it's only illegal for the police to execute a search without a warrant.

If the heating oil delivery guy wandered into your back yard and saw Illegal Thing X then his testimony to it's existence is grounds for a warrant to be issued for the authorities to search and seize.

Of course IANAL.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

The girls got charged with making child porn, then they send pictures of their crime to the boys that then got charged by possession. That's pretty close to it being illegal to witness a crime.

Re:Think of the children

[FireStormZ]

Had the boys reported it immediately under section C of the particular law dealing with child pornography they would not have been deemed guilty.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

But seriously....wouldn't this be a illegal search in the first place?

Not necessarily... When kids are in school, they're "in loco parentis", which means that while the kids are in school (and away from their parents) that the school officials can and often should act as their parents. A student can thus be searched if the search is reasonable, not excessively intrusive, and related to the offense that prompted the search. Since the kids were busted for using their phones, the argument could be made that searching their phones was "reasonable". Check out New Jersey v TLO from 1985 for a little insight.

Personally, I think this particular situation is BS, but IANAL.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Honestly, they'd be best off scaring the kids into being a bit more reasonable with their electronic devices

You mean PIN-locking them?

Re:Think of the children

[Setti45]

I thought that during school hours, the school took over some custodial rights. I don't know if I am right or whether the custodial rights extend to searching personal items, but you are definitely in some limited rights category when you are a student at school.

Re:Think of the children

[rrossman2]

"Police need Probable Cause to search without a warrant. School administrators need only "Reasonable Belief", also called "Reason to Suspect" or one of many other phrases. As long as the student or the property are on school grounds, a school administrator has full and complete privilege to any of that students belongings, and the option to detain the student against their will until Police arrive. So, what constitutes Reasonable Belief? Quote simple, really: anything at all. Did the kid look funny? Did the administrator think they overheard a foul comment? Reason to believe." What you said above is wrong in so many ways (not saying you're wrong, just saying to me it's wrong wrong). The administration should not be allowed to hold even someone under 18 against their will. Are they not citizens of the US even if they are under 18? Do they not have birth certificates saying so? Also, searching a phone because someone was using it in class is not a reason for probable cause. What if someone was "acting suspicious" or so an administrator thought, but here they were on say birth control and didn't want anyone else to know? Or some anti-depressant (legitimately), ADD med, cancer patient, etc and they are not emotionally ready to come forward yet? In my eyes it's still an over-reaching and extremely controversial "power" the administrators have.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Police need Probable Cause to search without a warrant.

Police don't need anything to search without a warrant, but anything they find from a warrant-less search is inadmissible against the person they got the thing from.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

The school is acting as a guardian of the children

That is surprising argument. I have always thought a school is responsible only to the lengths of its insurance policy. Any search should be performed by a police officer after a request by the school based on a suspected violation of city codes and criminal laws (weapons, controlled substances). A search of a phone in this case should be performend by the FBI after the school reports the suspicion.

Re:Think of the children

[blueg3]

For one. Not sending naked pictures of yourself to people who are just going to send them to other kids or post them on the Internet, for another.

Re:Think of the children

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, according to the summary, the phone was confiscated because it was being used. We don't know whether the user in question was looking at naked pictures or playing a game or talking to someone.

Assuming for a moment that the pictures, while on the phone, were not clearly visible, this brings up an interesting question about whether this was an illegal search.

If the school impounds a student's cell phone, do they have a right to search the contact list for known drug dealers? Should they be able to check the Internet history and make sure the kid hasn't been visiting inappropriate web sites? Check any music on the phone to verify that it was not illegally obtained? Look for any pictures that might be illegal?

Re:Think of the children

[dufachi]

Hey Kids!

This story should be a clear indicator to you that you should make use of the KEYLOCK feature on your phone. If the school officials demand the code, tell them to get a warrant.

Re:Think of the children

[sholsinger]

Furthermore, can the boys be charged for receipt of something they did not have the option to reject? I don't know about you, but I don't have a choice to reject an SMS on my phone, it just accepts it no matter what.

I agree with this sentiment. There is no way to reject such SMS messages. That said, the kid probably saved it. So that would provide reason to believe he was interested in keeping it.

Re:Think of the children

[innerweb]

That already happens. Normally the IRS charges for back taxes not paid, as nothing else sticks.

InnerWeb

Re:Think of the children

[m.ducharme]

Law student, actually.

You may find jokes about genocide funny. I don't. I don't find jokes about killing off an entire profession funny either. Especially a profession that's busy trying to maintain and run a system that's meant to, among other things, preserve your freedoms. I'm sure the lawyers in Pakistan, the ones who got beaten by the police and thrown in jails, the ones who fought for the rule of law there, would appreciate your humour.

Everyone hates lawyers, until they need one.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Land of the free...what?

Re:Think of the children

[xenocide2]

The lack of option to reject is interesting, but my non-lawyerly reading of the law suggests there's an affirmative defense for the situation they failed to employ. All you have to do is report the incident to the law, who I'm sure will be super duper nice about it and not try to charge you or anything anyways. The more I think about it, the whole law is busted on it's face. Somehow, we've taken self-incrimination and made it mandatory.

Re:Think of the children

[Aris Katsaris]

If you want to be Lawful Good, then the first thing you need do is attempt to make sure that the Laws in question are indeed Good.

"Contempt for rules" ends up self-learned, I assure you, when the rules are not just stupid but downright evil. It's tyranny that ends up the best teacher of anarchy.

Re:Think of the children

[xenocide2]

I'm pretty sure you can be charged. Unless Affirmative Defense means something I don't know. A minor distinction, to be sure. More importantly, the US law requires the defendant to be "knowingly" in possession, if I recall.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

they are considered mentally incompetent.
We still manage to hold them accountable for decisions we don't consider them capable of understanding. Why do people cry out for a violent teen to be tried as an adult? So he can be punished more severely.

Re:Think of the children

[Faylone]

So, somebody just has to plant FOUR "matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph" on your hard drive?

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Generally speaking, having private citizens perform unconstitutional evidence-gathering is pretty questionable.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be, but they can still go to prison for the rest or their lives, or a good portion of it. Kinda sucks, yeah?

Re:Think of the children

[mea37]

Social stigma and limitation of career options is only a little different in your opinion from violent murder?

It's an interesting place society has come to.

Re:Think of the children

[knghtrider]

It's pretty easy to argue they had a reasonable expectation of privacy for the data held on their phone. Thankfully, since the justice system works so well here, bankruptcy is a fairly common occurrence in order to pay for establishing such grounds.

Actually, you don't have a right to privacy in any of the Public School systems in PA. Minors have no right to Privacy under PA law in general, but the school systems (as stated above by another poster) send home paperwork signed by parents/guardians (and in the case of some of the paperwork) and the students that expressly removes not only the right of privacy (except where one might expect--restroom or shower/changing area) but also grants the right to search property on school grounds--even cars.

Re:Think of the children

[Xenographic]

> The real test of law here is whether child pornography prosecution can be used against minors who willingly took and distributed the pictures of themselves. Furthermore, can the boys be charged for receipt of something they did not have the option to reject? I don't know about you, but I don't have a choice to reject an SMS on my phone, it just accepts it no matter what.

I believe that, under Federal law (and I'm working from memory here), that if you come across child porn, you have two options:

* Show no one & delete it immediately (no, you can't keep it around for a while first).

* Report it to the cops (and NO ONE but the cops).

The law went into some detail about this, but essentially anything outside this was illegal. You can't show it to others (except the police when reporting it) and if you just delete it, you should do that right away. There are probably other fine points to it, lest someone continually download and delete CP, but that was the gist of it.

In other words, they might be able to escape prosecution if they didn't have the pictures for very long and hadn't shown them to anyone.

As for the charges themselves, they're ridiculous. The school admins should've warned the students about those pictures getting onto the web and following these kids around for life, then made them delete them or something. Charging them with CP is just absurd. I hope that jury knows what "jury nullification" is (and that they don't get in trouble for knowing). I have jury duty coming up, but I'm in the wrong state.

Re:Think of the children

[FireStormZ]

And it has to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, I was aware of their presence and did not notify authorities..

(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.

Re:Think of the children

[fishbowl]

"Actually *unless* they knew it had objectionable material on it when the took the phone they are in complete compliance with USC 18-110-2252-a-2 which deals with possession"

But if they didn't know, then there's an argument that the evidence is tainted.

Re:Think of the children

[fishbowl]

It's not necessarily legal to witness a crime. There is a requirement for example that you must have a right to be where you are when you witness the crime. You're trespassing on Farmer Brown's field when you discover his marijuana crop. You can report this, but the fact that you were trespassing is a separate matter. Farmer Brown might have a hard time pressing charges against you, of course. Maybe there is a car analogy that could work better.

Re:Think of the children

[FireStormZ]

Not in schools and not if the intent is to 'gather evidence' If you take your car to a mechanic and there is a body in the trunk he can report it..

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

So you figure that as long as you aren't physically attacked that being treated like a pariah until you are forced into homelessness is ok? Interesting bit of rationalization you have there.

Re:Think of the children

[Ecuador]

IANAL either, so I'd like a little more explanation. For example, I would assume that the students would be subject to search at school grounds, but they would still be protected by privacy laws. For example a search would conclude by finding a cell phone, or a laptop etc. I would think that going through the private data of the device would fall under some privacy law violation. Or are there no privacy laws in this country? How about strip searches in schools, are they also legal?
On another note, why would a teacher go through a students picture messages? Hey, I know, find nude pictures, copy them, call police ;)

Re:Think of the children

[blueg3]

You're probably correct -- I let my legal terminology slip.

I don't know the letter of the law on "knowingly" in possession, but you are right -- proving that a given person with CP on their machine willingly and knowingly engaged in obtaining it is a big deal to investigators on these cases. The "malware defense" is fairly common as a variant of the "someone else did it" defense -- and in at least one case, it's turned out to be true.

Re:Think of the children

[guyinthechair]

Typically, kids are warned "put the cell phone away" several times before confiscation.

Speaking as a recent high school graduate, your statement is untrue. In my old school district, they enacted a district-wide rule that teachers were required to confiscate cell phones and turn them into the front office. A student could only retrieve them by having parents physically present, then paying a $15 fee. If it happened more than once, the student would also get on campus suspension.

I'm not sure where all that *cash* money payed to the principal's office actually went, but I don't remember any records past the first offense being kept. However, teachers were eager to confiscate phones after the first month or so.

I remember I was a sophomore when the rule was enacted. School was let out early one day, and I had to call my brother for a ride. A school administrator saw me talking on my phone (after school, mind you) and decided to take it up. I brought my brother and the school's code of conduct and had to argue with the principal to give it back. Fuck if I'm going to pay any money to get my phone back.

Re:Think of the children

[clone53421]

Given the teacher immediately turned everything over to the police I would think there is no risk of being charged...

Would you bet money on that fact? This guy wouldn't... and I wouldn't either.

Re:Think of the children

[FireStormZ]

I've posted it already in numerous spots but the law is specific...

Section (C)

Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant--
(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.

Firstly if we are talking less than three images its not a case, secondly the promptly and in good faith without retaining reported the matter to law enforcement... They followed the law..

As to 'betting money' demanding such things online is terrible form and any wise person would not engage in online bets unless it was a legitimate betting service or someone they knew personally. So as it stands no, I wont bet money online with a total stranger over a /. thread..

Re:Think of the children

[ultranova]

You know, sometimes the kids actually deserve to get caught. I know that all these "rules" are a pain, but if you teach contempt for rules (even if you don't like them) you'll end up with people who CAN NOT fathom why there are any rules in the first place, and who don't know which rules to follow, so they end up SHOCKED when the rules are enforced.

I honestly can't think of a more efficient way to bring all law into contempt than prosecuting a case like this. Any official who had anything to do with this has certainly lost any and all respect from me forever, as has a court which didn't throw the charge out as ridiculous. The school - well, schools and their personnel generally don't deserve respect to begin with, since they keep on doing shit like this, but whatever lingering remains there might have been are certainly gone now.

All in all, this is not exactly a great victory for law and order. I wonder what happens when these people, who have now been shown that law exists to punish rather than protect them, reach adulthood ? Not just those prosecuted but everyone in that school, and since these kind of things seem to be increasingly common, the whole next generation ? Might be interesting times ahead when everyone regards law and legal authority as a threat and an enemy...

See, fear can enforce obedience for a while, but it's always just eye-worship at best. Respect, now that has to be earned, and to earn it you have to be worthy of it. And the law, well, that has now once again been shown to not be worth anyone's respect. So either the society increases surveillance to the point of becoming a police states, degenerates into anarchy, or changes the law and the legal system so they become worthy of respect. Those are the choices. Given the increasing surveillance in all western societies, I think it's pretty obvious what we've chosen...

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

... Or some anti-depressant (legitimately), ADD med ...

Actually these are the most dangerous things you mention. In some places, especially with the "zero tolerance" drug policies that are in effect, you have to tell the administration about any drugs. The drugs need to be turned over to the school nurse. If you need to take them, you need to see the school nurse to take them. Any other drug spotted will be grounds for suspension. :/

Re:Think of the children

[wurble]

Essentially then this DOES actually boil down to a surefire way to completely violate the constitutional right against warrantless search and seizure. Why? Because: 1) Children MUST go to school by law 2) School administrators may search a child's belongings at any time for essentially any reason 3) Police may then use the fruits of that search in trial Thus, current laws force children to give up their rights against warrantless search and seizure. Whether it is the administrators or the police conducting the search is irrelevant since the police can just as easily ask the administrators to conduct the search. The only barrier stopping the police then is the administrator, and trusting the administrator to not conduct the search is much the same as trusting the police not to conduct a search. I think laws need to be revised to make it such that in these cases, the administrators are considered "agents of the police" or something similar. Administrators would therefore be free to search, but using any fruits of such a search at trial should require a warrant that is gained using information NOT supplied by the results of the search.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

That is, assuming they did agree; which your right that they probably did. But on the other hand, teachers do have an annoying habit of demanding things which could be construed, or at least spun to be by a good attorney, to be coercion, duress, or whatever. I sincerely hope there is some what out for them, because this is just dumb.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is cute that you not only keep records of mere charges, but also make them available outside of the police. Go, go USA!

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Read up on New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Money quote from wikipedia:

"The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 decision issued by Justice White, ruled that the search and seizure by school officials without a warrant was constitutional as long as the search was deemed reasonable given the circumstances. The Court reaffirmed that there is a balancing between the individual'sâ"even a child'sâ"legitimate expectation of privacy and the school's interest in maintaining order and discipline. Accordingly, school officials do not need a warrant to search the belongings of students, but they do require a "reasonable suspicion"."

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

No - they are *supposed* to have rights. In fact, they don't have rights. In the real world, you don't get rights until you're old enough to vote.

Re:Think of the children

[Jesus_666]

Somehow, we've taken self-incrimination and made it mandatory.

Welcome to the German Democratic Republic where you'd rather rat out your girlfriend to the state than, have your life screwed over by them.

Seriously, between this story and other "sex is evil" stories one hears from the States they sound like a mix between the GDR (you can and will be surveilled at any time and everyone might report you to the authorities for unideological behavior) and some kind of ultra-Puritan hell. It seems a wonder babies even exist on that side of the pond.

I know that there are a lot of people in the States who aren't moralist cardboard cutouts but someone really should point out to the others that Europe acknowledges the existence of sex and still hasn't devolved into anarchy. Italy doesn't count.

Re:Think of the children

[cp.tar]

I forsee a rise in adolescents' awareness of the techno-wonder called cryptography. They obviously need mobile phone encryption.

Re:Think of the children

[syousef]

Personally, I'd like to see those that brought these charges in turn charged with child endangerment, and possibly for possessing child pornography. I can't think of anything more evil than a law designed to protect children being turned against them to ruin their lives by people whose beliefs are twisted incompatible with the freedoms they pretend to protect.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Just the same, if common sense, reason, or even simple logic had been applied, she would not have been arrested.

If common sense were applied, she wouldn't have bought the pot. She would've informed the police without herself committing an illegal act.

If common sense were applied, the man wouldn't have been selling pot on the street because any adult wanting pot could stop by a licensed establishment to make a purchase.

Re:Think of the children

[cp.tar]

And IMO this is exactly what should be done to the teacher in question. And some others, too.

In fact, imagine a... say, a worm. Propagating through Windows computers, doing nothing much – except downloading a bit of child porn here and there. Then sending an e-mail to the police, reporting the crime, then deleting itself.

How long would it take until the nation rebeled?

Re:Think of the children

[cbiltcliffe]

Reasonable doubt? In a child pornography case?

What planet do you live on?

Re:Think of the children

[cp.tar]

Hey, while they're at it, they should send those pictures to everyone they know. And rat on them all.

Put the pics on a web-site, then e-mail everyone links. When they open the page, nearly everyone will inadvertently keep a copy in their cache, which is enough for a conviction.

Re:Think of the children

[cbiltcliffe]

So the teacher confiscates a phone that has 4 pictures on it, and they can be charged, even if they turn it in to the police.

Re:Think of the children

[cbiltcliffe]

I don't live in the US. Hence, I'm not overly familiar with US law.

Re:Think of the children

[dotar]

IANAL, but isn't it the case that when a child reaches their majority any criminal record they may have come to possess is sealed or something specifically to prevent any childish indiscretions haunting the rest of their lives?

Re:Think of the children

[mikael]

We need smart-cameras that will refuse to take such pictures and display a warning when such a picture is about to be taken or sent.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, last time I checked, the constitution applies to everyone (apparently also to foreigners).

Habeas Corpus doesn't seem to apply to foreigners in the US. Bush felt like making it law to remove that right on anyone they choose to call an "Enemy Combatant"

Even though habeas corpus originally and explicitly covered foreigners in detention.

Re:Think of the children

[Chyeld]

No, and specificly no if you are being tried as an adult. And even more no if you are convicted of something that (such as a sexual offense) which puts you on an exclusionary list.

Cases can be ordered sealed, or expunged, on reaching majority, but it isn't always automatic and given the folk doing this seem to have a hard on for making an example of these children to 'teach the others a lesson', I doubt any quarter will be given to the defendants unless the judge themselves finds this as ludicrious as I do.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, in loco parentis, muthafucka.

Re:Think of the children

[clone53421]

Ok, shortly after posting that I realised I should have clarified:

Given the teacher immediately turned everything over to the police I would think there is no risk of being charged...

Just sayin'... someone needs to get a search warrant on his PC.

Re:Think of the children

[Tacvek]

Disclaimer: I'm still NAL.

As I understand it schools usually have near blanket permission under state law to search pretty much anything on the school property without requiring any permission at all. For example, lockers may be searched at any time and for any reason. Book-bags may be searched. (It is my understanding that some inner city schools in really bad neighborhoods has what amount to airport-style security checks at the entrance. Thus book-bags, purses, etc. would be be searched every day as a part of arriving at school!)

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

That was my thought exactly. If I were one of the kid's parents, I'd sue the school for violating my child's 4th Amendment rights. If they forced, or otherwise coerced permission to search it, I'd get them for violating my child's 5th amendment rights too.

-Oz

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now in this case, this is moot. No warrant was necessary. Anybody (police or otherwise) may search property without any warrant if the owner of said property agrees to the search, and any evidence obtained is admissible. In general, although there are exceptions such as probable cause, law enforcement requires warrants to search a person's property against his/her will. Private individuals never need a warrant to do this, although usually searching of property by a private individual against the property owners will is a crime. However, school officials generally have the legal right to search any property on school grounds. Thus the evidence was lawful."

Hmmm, what probably cause was given to search the kid's phone? We are talking about a person under 18 in possession of a picture of an age-peer. Does simple possession of the phone constitute a "criminal" offense? If so, isn't temporary seizure of the phone (until after school) punishment enough?

In the case of someone over 18, I could see how possession of the pictures might constitute grounds to investigate further for possible evidence of pedophilia, or other molestation. In the case of someone under 18, I can't see how there would be a case to arbitrarily search the kid's phone.

As the pictures were not posted on a for-profit web-site, how does the definition of "child pornography" apply? Image of a nude person under the age of 18??? Suddenly all of my baby-pictures could count as "child pornography"!?!?!

I want off of this rock! Others of my species are bound to legal themselves into 6X6X6 cubes!

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that child porn charges are probably overkill and a bad precedent. But I don't think this is "doing completely natural things." These are younger girls objectifying themselves to older boys. That's not "healthy," Yes, teens have sex and some of them are actually emotionally stable enough to do so, but this doesn't sound like the case to me.

Part of the problem is that while we can't treat teens like kids, we also can't treat them like rational, reasonable adults. The teen brain is still cooking. They don't think decisions through. They don't think about where these pictures may go beyond these boys.

Is the technology the problem? Of course not. But there is something going on here. I don't recall people passing around naked Polaroids when I was in school. Of course being a /. poster, I may not have been invited to those parties.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

you must have missed this
http://www.freep.com/article/20090115/NEWS07/90115015

"Supreme Court OKs use of evidence from illegal search"

just so you know

Re:Think of the children

[xero314]

It may not say it specifically in the constitution but it is pretty clear that the only people with rights are those that have to power to influence the rules. This means you either have capital, or the right to vote. It is illegal in most states to employ persons of less than 16 years of age, and it is still legal in the United States to deny the right to vote any person under the age of 18 (note that the constitution does not say that people under 18 can not vote, only that their right to vote is not explicitly protected as it is for all people over 18 years of age).

So again, the constitution does not explicitly state that those under 18 have no rights, but certainly does nothing to protect their rights. And to draw that the entire constitution applies to minors as well as adults because the Supreme court up help one amendment is pretty short sighted.

Re:Think of the children

[moortak]

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html The supreme court disagrees.

Re:Think of the children

[TrueRecord]

I'd ban the Pennsylvania police for having nothing to do better than this.

Re:Think of the children

[Renraku]

What you just said will weigh heavily on the justice system.

I hope SOMEONE in the justice system has some brains..more than enough to say, "Just doin' my job.." and instead to say something like, "Well, since none of you have a record, all of you consent, and are all underage, we're not going to prosecute this at all because it might send the message that people under the age of 18 should be terrified of nudity."

Re:Think of the children

[Archangel Michael]

"Do you have any fucking idea what just the fact that they've been charged will do to their lives? "

They obviously didn't care enough to NOT take the pictures that could haunt them forever. But you know that's just me.

Let see, they are old enough to know what they are doing, until they get caught and then it is they are too young to know what they are doing.

GOT IT!

Re:Think of the children

[Tacvek]

>Hmmm, what probably cause was given to search the kid's phone?

NONE! None is needed. As I understand it under the law in most states school officials have the legal right to search *anything* on school premises for any reason at all!

Re:Think of the children

[Tacvek]

True, but that is a fairly limited exception in a special case. Most illegal evidence is still inadmissible. Besides, I would not be surprised to find the Supreme Court completely reversing this ruling at some point.

Re:Think of the children

[ApprenticeWizard]

Furthermore, can the boys be charged for receipt of something they did not have the option to reject? I don't know about you, but I don't have a choice to reject an SMS on my phone, it just accepts it no matter what.

In this case, there will be a log of when the SMS / pic was received, so any duration of retention would be tacit acceptance. If you didn't want it, you delete it.

Re:Think of the children

[Wonko the Sane]

Law student, actually.

...so the joke about the 99% making the other 1% look bad is probably right out?

Re:Think of the children

[instarx]

They don't have the right to vote, and they are considered mentally incompetent. But yes, they do have civil rights.

Although it seems strange in America, students may not have civil rights in school. A recent court case found that students did not have even the right of free political speech in schools when they were expelled for holding up an anti-Bush banner. I wouldn't take those student civil rights as a given. Rules in schools are different than everyday citizen rights.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh FFS, children don't develop negative body images just because they aren't allowed to parade around naked.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

"wouldn't this be a illegal search in the first place?"

Nope! Thanks to the right wingers, I don't think "illegal search" means squat now. Nothing can't be "fixed" by saying, "Uh... the station dog at the warrant".

http://www.freep.com/article/20090115/NEWS07/90115015

Re:Think of the children

[VShael]

Some young kids need to take the hit, photograph themselves in the nude, and send those pics via SMS/MMS to every member of the police force in their town, and every member of staff at their school.

For privacy sake, don't show their faces in the photo either. And use a cloned mobile that's not linked to them personally.

Then, the phone (with it's outbox) is proof that the recipient(s) are/were in possession of child pornography. Stick a read-receipt on the message, even better. You can prove the "deviant" looked at it.

MAYBE then they'll realise the law is stupid.

Re:Think of the children

[VShael]

Not if I could show I did not put it there and did not distribute.

Ah! The old "Guilty until proven innocent" approach.

That's worked out so well for other countries in the past.

Combining it with what looks a little bit like "prove a negative", and I've got to give you points on the pure evil scale.

Re:Think of the children

[mea37]

Ah, the anonymous straw man. Too bad I'll never know what position (s)he thinks I'm rationalizing.

Re:Think of the children

[Altus]

Do you honestly think these kids were aware that they could be charged with child pornography for taking naked pictures of themselves? Do you honestly think they knew that their actions could result in them being branded for the rest of their lives?

Or are you just being a prude about naked pictures? There is no terrible shame or horror in taking naked pictures of yourself and sharing them with your partners. The only reason this is an issue is because the people doing it were under the age of majority.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

If the parents authorize the search (which they generally do when they sign the kid up for school, it's in the fine print) then there's nothing illegal about it.

But you are missing the point. These girls have obviously taken advantage of themselves, and have in the process caused irreversible psychological damage to themselves through the manufacture of this child porn. They should certainly be tagged as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, and be required to register & alert all neighbors.
They also should be required to stay away from any place where children might gather, including themselves. Which means they should be banned from being around themselves as well.

(end sarcasm)

In all seriousness, this simply outlines the messed up laws we have regarding 'child porn'. They completely fail to take into account the absolute and/or relative ages of those involved. The tired argument that they were somehow tricked or coerced simply doesn't fly in such situations.

Another example I heard in my town, was of a 17 year old girl who was dating an 18 year old boy in her class. They were 3 months apart in age. The boy (well, technically a man since he was 18) was charged with manufacture & possession. Even though the sentence was suspended, he now has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life, and anytime he moves he is required to notify the neighbors, etc. of the heinous crime of possessing child porn. He is also required to stay xx yards away from "Places where children might gather" so he had to drop out of the local school & get a GED instead.

Re:Think of the children

[Reziac]

And as to the official who contends "once it's on a cell phone, anyone can take it and put it on the internet, which is very dangerous"...

My next thought was, "Yeah, in fact anyone can propagate insane ideas via the internet -- such as this story, which villifies the kids for doing utterly harmless Stupid Kid Stuff, and helps reinforce the concept that EVERY depiction of an underage being is somehow kiddieporn."

And explain to me how such dumbass teenage photos wandering onto the internet is "dangerous"?? it might be embarrassing, and it might affect your personal reputation on down the line, but I don't see how it can harm anyone beyond that. What's a would-be perp going to do, reach through the JPG and twiddle your naughty bits?? Or maybe rape you in Photoshop??

Re:Think of the children

[Reziac]

As someone once put it, "The rich and the poor are equally free to sleep under the bridges."

Re:Think of the children

[Reziac]

So, I take it you never did anything stupid when you were a kid?? that you've always been mature enough to think through ALL the possible consequences??

Yeah, right.

Re:Think of the children

[Reziac]

What would have happened had the "evidence" been, say, a diary??

While there may be no true expectation (or at least no true preservation) of privacy in a school locker, how does that extend to one's personal papers and effects?

IOW, How does a cell phone's saved data differ from a diary in that respect??

Fuzzy, indeed... and not quite the same as "it's your employer's property", tho similar enough that a precedent in one could become a precedent in the other.

Re:Think of the children

[Phroggy]

The girls can get even by messaging the pictures to prosecutors and the ratting teacher. Pedophile teachers have a hard time getting another teaching job.

No reason the boys can't do the same.

Re:Think of the children

[Reziac]

Like my point above -- does the fact that the school has the right to inspect my locker also give them the right to read my diary which I had stored in said locker? Personally, I don't think it does (the Constitution DOESN'T say "secure in their papers and effects, except when $Authority deems otherwise"), but per TFA's action, apparently I'm wrong. :(

This case is rather like passing notes in class. Okay, so you're not supposed to do it. If you're caught, should the teacher simply dispose of the note WITHOUT reading it, or should they read it aloud to the entire class? (which latter is the effect of a kiddieporn accusation -- you're made infamous before the entire world)

Guess it depends on whether the motivation is to keep order, or to embarrass the living shit out of the miscreant (or in the case of KP, ruin their lives permanently).

Re:Think of the children

[Reziac]

"... and did not distribute."

What does the law say about a case where I secretly upload KP to your public FTP server, where anyone could then stumble upon it -- thus making you an unwitting "distributor"??

As I recall, this has been used to bust BBSs in the distant past, when user-uploaded content was the rule and the sysop may not have time to vet each and every image, or direct knowledge of the legal age of all depicted persons. (frex, the Traci Lords incidents)

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand the law. It is describing a defense, not an offence, and to use this defense you have to satisfy both conditions. That's what the "and" after sentence 1 means.

Hence if you have three or more matters you cannot satisfy both conditions and you have no defense.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Ordinarily, yes, but when you're on a school campus the laws change. Rather than needing probable cause (and a warrant) to conduct a search, all you need is reasonable suspicion.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

No it doesn't mean criminal law doesn't apply, it just means that civil rights do not apply.

The search and seizure laws aren't considered in this case because the incident involves minors (under 18 years of age).

Like it or not, agree with it or not, minors do not legally have civil rights so they can not be infringed upon.

You are wrong on all points.

1. Everyone has civil rights. IF they didn't, then there would be nothing illegal about beating your kids to death or parents selling their children as sex slaves.

2. The search & seizure laws apply to minors, and are actually MORE restrictive than when searching adults. Generally the cops, etc. would need parental consent before a search, & in most cases need parental consent to even ask questions. However, parents CAN sign off with the school (& usually have to) to allow searches of their children.

3. The issue is not a search of the child, but a search of the contents of the cell phone. Even if the parents consented to a search of the child, that would not necessarily apply to the contents of the phone. ie. the school can search & take the phone, but to search the phone contents would require an additional release from the parents.

Re:Think of the children

[tarp]

No, they won't realize anything. They won't be prosecuted. Cops break the law all the time and never get prosecuted for it. The laws only apply to what the police call "civilians" (even though they are supposed to be a "civilian" police force).

Re:Think of the children

[tarp]

Just another fine example of our justice system at work. Let me guess: your friend took a plea bargain and did not fight the charges in a jury trial?

Re:Think of the children

[Archangel Michael]

No. They weren't thinking at all, that's more of the problem than anything. They weren't thinking that those naked pictures would end up on some public forum for all to see. They weren't thinking about the Job in three years they wouldn't get because of it. They weren't thinking.

Branded as what? Slut, Bimbo? Which branded epithet is worse than the others? How about idiot?

I'm not prude about anything. It isn't about being or not being "prude". Do you wear clothes? If so, is that being "prudish"?

The Horror isn't sharing them with your partner, it is just that those pictures most likely aren't going to stay with just the "partners", and in many cases already, end up being posted for the whole world to see.

The age of minority is only partly the issue. They are called minors because they tend NOT to think things through completely, often ignoring long term issues or ignorance of the law. We have rules for people under 18 for a reason, mostly because society has deemed people under 18 generally irresponsible for their own actions, and this case is just another example of it.

I guess when your daughters are suffering Head and Neck Cancer from HPV infections, you'll claim life isn't fair.

You may call it "Prudish" but I call it Prudent.

Of course, you weren't thinking of head and neck cancer, and neither were they. Again, that is my point, they weren't thinking at all.

Re:Think of the children

[GooberToo]

When I first read your reply, I was very surprised as I was told this by an attorney. After seeing you post the gritty details, I understand he is right. What is said is a pretty accurate layman's depiction of the law.

Affirmative Defense.-- It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant--
(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof--
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.

** THATS ** the law..

In other words, exactly as I said. Plant three pictures and inform the police. Done. You're in jail. Since someone anonymously turned you in, by definition, you can not satisfy clauses 2a *OR* 2b. Since you didn't know about it, you can not satisfy clause 2. Since clause 1 is tied to clauses 2, 2a, and 2b, and three pictures are present, no matter what, you can't satisfy clause 1. You have no defence. You fail to meet even one clause required for a legal defence. You are now in jail and your life forever ruined. This is pretty much a recap of what I said in the first place.

Re:Think of the children

[GooberToo]

You have child porn on your computer which you deny is yours. You failed to remove it. You failed to notify police. At what point do you think reasonable doubt will come to save the day?

Face it, you're going to jail and your life is forever ruined.

Re:Think of the children

[Wonko the Sane]

In order to protect children from some hypothetical, dubious future harm we must register them as sex offenders causing real, permanent and devistating harm for the rest of their lives .

If that's how you help people, I'd sure hate to see how you treat people you don't like.

Re:Think of the children

[Asic Eng]

... less than three matters ...

6 students ...

... proscribed by that paragraph; and ...

So you need to satisfy item (1) and (2) to qualify for the affirmative defence. Just the (likely) number of images probably works against them there. The "knowingly" exemption could protect them, though. Who want's to be in a position to argue that they didn't know, though?

If these teachers had seen the images and did *not* report it, then they would have committed a crime.

That's pretty scary. Teachers should note though: if you do look at student's cell phones and find something there you must report it - whether that is sufficient to exempt you from prosecution is unclear, however. You might be accused and may need to spend your money on a lawyer. It would be much safer not to search your student's cell phones. I'd be very wary of keeping a student's cell phone in possession, too. If you feel you must confiscate, then maybe just confiscate the battery and hand the phone back to its owner.

Re:Think of the children

[haystor]

Hand over the phone, keep the battery.

Re:Think of the children

[Archangel Michael]

So, what you're saying is that ignorance of the law is an excuse? So you're saying that playing stupid and dumb is an excuse to do stupid and dumb things?

I'm sorry, but DUMB should hurt.

I'm not trying to protect the kids that are stupid, I'm trying to protect society from the Stupid. They should be charged if they broke the law. If you don't like the law, change it (and good luck with that), don't vote for people who support laws like this (I don't), and if you want to protest stupid laws by breaking them, then go to a school and take off all your clothes right in the middle of the Quad.

I tend to ignore people I don't like.

Re:Think of the children

[clone53421]

As other people have pointed out, if 3 or more images are found, item (1) fails, and the whole defense fails because items (1) AND (2) must be satisfied to allow the defense to be used. You have no defense.

A great victory in the fight against child porn!

[HungryHobo]

truely a great day for the protection of children, personally I hope these scum get put on the sex offenders register for life so that concerned citizens can be warned of their presence in the neighbourhood and can act accordingly to protect their children from dangerous sex offenders!
Hangings too good for them!

suspected identity

[Alfius]

Are we sure they're not just 4chaners?

This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Trekologer]

Most notably did the school have the right to search the student's phone/does a student have the expectation of privacy. There have been varying rulings over whether the police can search a cell phone or PDA of an individual placed under arrest. In the case of a school, they are not the police and do not have the authority of the police (despite some administrators thinking that they do).

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[HungryHobo]

While you are in highschool your rights are suspended.
A little like prison only you've commited no crime and get to go home more.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[DustyShadow]

I wonder if the school administrator who turned them in realized the damage that would be done to these kids. Their lives are ruined. They will fight for a long long time to get this off their record.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a misconception. They want you to think you do, however just because you enter a school doesn't give them the right to remove your rights.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[rpervinking]

Gee. I thought school teachers and officials acted in loco parentis. Don't parents have the right to examine this sort of thing? Most notably? Really? Compared to concern about criminalization of the acts performed by these kids? Wow.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[TheGratefulNet]

Their lives are ruined

how long will it be before someone whose life is ruined like this takes matters into his/her own hands and 'snaps', seeking revenge?

its not hard to understand the terrorist mind; when you are pushed and have NOTHING (perceived) left - you do what you feel 'needs' to be done to right a major wrong.

suppose some kids are given criminal records and they find they can't find jobs (etc) later in life. do you REALLY think they will sit quietly and accept a ruined life?

we are creating time bombs. count on it - its just a matter of time.

I hope that those kids find justice before their lives truly are ruined. this is a FAIL on society that kids can have a life ruined for 'being kids'. ;(

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Kjella]

In the case of a school, they are not the police and do not have the authority of the police (despite some administrators thinking that they do).

Nor are they bound by constitutional amendments regarding illegal search and seizure.:

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."

So, even if they have a grounds to sue the school it will not prevent the evidence being used to charge them with kiddie porn.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[HungryHobo]

if it was merely parental rights then they'd have to treat you like human beings once you hit 18.
No, while in school all those civil rights things might as well not exist for you.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

it also depends on if you are going to a private school or not - in which case you are giving up rights when you agree to attend there

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[KDR_11k]

They do, unfortunately they only speak spanish, not latin.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Austerity Empowers]

To the extent that the parents/schools can be held legally responsible for activities the students are involved in (or rather the blissful and perhaps willful ignorance therein), minors should have limited freedoms and expectations of privacy. They are usually legally treated with kid gloves because we don't expect minors to necessarily understand right/wrong, consequence and danger. The downside is that minors do have freedoms limited by parents and guardians (and I disagree and think schools should count as guardians, although the law seems to vary).

I think the only thing noteworthy in this story is whether the kids will actually get convicted. This has "plea out" all over it, with a side of "I'll teach you a lesson you won't forget".

The question of whether it's appropriate to charge teens with porn charges is probably irrelevant. Underage porn laws are written with the intent (whether you agree or not) of protecting minors from themselves. Thus you can't differentiate who took it, or you could have adults paying/pressuring teens to do this. You need to be able to charge the teens if only to let them plea and turn in any adult who may have been involved. The question of whether these laws are well conceived isn't being raised.

This is a case where kids are being kids and should be treated like kids... but the law isn't great with exceptions. I question what "lesson" the prosecutor thinks can be taught by chasing this particular crime, and why not just let the parents handle it with a firm warning that this is illegal. If anything is wrong here, it's the attorney trying to play the role of a parent.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Dun Malg]

I wonder if the school administrator who turned them in realized the damage that would be done to these kids. Their lives are ruined. They will fight for a long long time to get this off their record.

Probably didn't even think of it. I work for a large school district, and the one thing I've noticed is that it's not just the cream that floats to the top. A depressingly large fraction of school admin people are complete idiots--- and not just the regular street-variety dodo, but the worst kind of idiot, the kind that has a degree and subsequently thinks they're brighter than everyone else. The kind of self-righteous twit that makes a stupid decision and then defends it to the death, even when faced with prima facie evidence that they totally screwed the pooch.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[AxemRed]

"...but the law isn't great with exceptions."

This isn't the first time that I have heard of this happening. I think the law needs an exception added that protects minors from being charged with adult crimes when it comes to "child" pornography in many situations.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[slifox]

Many states have 'in loco parentis' laws, which state that a school must take up some responsibilities of a parent.

According to wikipedia, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.

In my opinion, searching an electronic device, just like searching through a diary or similar, IS a violation of the students' civil liberties...

Some may argue that you have to search through their personal items in order to find out about other punishable things, in order to protect the child. However, that argument is easily applied to government, and it ends up with very bad, totalitarian results. Generally speaking, extremes are not a good choice.

Even worse are cases where the school punishes students for things they do off-campus. That is way out of line; its supposed to be the parents' job!

If the parents aren't being negligent, and the child is at the age where they can weigh consequences and make decent decisions by themselves, then theres no reason for the school to violate civil rights for the child's "own protection." Of course, with children its hard to be so cut-and-dry, since some are more mature than others at the same age, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Wiseleo]

Why is it that I always see that response?

A school is just another government institution. Every employee is employed by the government, hence is a government agent. Rights against government intervention are not waived.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[tool462]

At the same time, the mere accusation of impropriety can so destroy the career and life of an educator that he must have felt obligated to turn it over to the police as soon as he saw the picture. The motivation to keep everything very public and and very open would be very strong. I don't know what will happen with these kids now, but I would hope it will stop short of a trial and certainly short of a conviction. However, if this administrator had done the right thing and sat down with the students who were involved and their parents an over-reactive parent may have seen fit to take him down for looking at naked pictures of their teenage daughter. It would have been nice if he was stronger and went this route and dealt with any problems that arose, rather than taking the easy way out. But at the same time, I can see where the motivation may have come from. It may not be maliciousness or self-righteousness.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Trekologer]

But would the evidence hold up in court? In the decision cited, the evidence was visable to the private individual. In the case of the cell phone pictures presumably the device was searched, probablly specificlly for contraband; it was not visable.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Austerity Empowers]

I'm not sure if it's in this article, but the belief was that in that state, the charges would be purged when they are 18. That's good enough protection IMO.

And as I said above, for the intent of this law, you can't charge teens differently than adults, or it would be exploited. You'd have adults paying/pressuring/manipulating teens, essentially creating a market for getting kids involved in illegal activity.

I believe prosecutors have the latitude to decide who to charge, and what bargains to accept. If not, that's where things need to be bent. If the prosecutor believes this is a porn ring, by all means go for it. If not...slap them on the wrists and move on.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[kabocox]

Most notably did the school have the right to search the student's phone/does a student have the expectation of privacy. There have been varying rulings over whether the police can search a cell phone or PDA of an individual placed under arrest. In the case of a school, they are not the police and do not have the authority of the police (despite some administrators thinking that they do).

I've never liked the thing where teachers will search a students papers or person at their whim if they think the student has been passing notes or such. What gives any teacher that right? Nothing except that for some weird reason we don't give any rights to folks under 18 years old except treat them like prisoners.

I'd rather the teachers be shot for merely wanting to look at students papers/communications media of any form than any students be punished due to this. This is why some folks don't mind domestic warrant less wiretapping. They've never had private communications in the first place. Realistically we can't shoot teachers for this. Now, it would be nice if they were fired or atleast placed on 1 month unpaid leave if they tried this though. This would apply from K to university to any educational staff or faculty that tried searching a students papers or communication media.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I seem to recall that since they are minors this will be wiped off the record once they turn 18 (assuming of course that the images are no longer on their phones at which point the will be adults with child porn and then your statement holds).

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Dun Malg]

Gee. I thought school teachers and officials acted in loco parentis. Don't parents have the right to examine this sort of thing? Most notably? Really? Compared to concern about criminalization of the acts performed by these kids? Wow.

Tough call there. The most recent Supreme Court decision re:in loco parentis was New Jersey v. T. L. O., which essentially gave the school greater leeway with regard to the 4th Amd. On the other hand, the case hinged heavily on the student having an ever-incriminating chain of probable-cause-worthy things in her statements and items in her purse. The leap from "had a phone turned on in class" to "search phone for illicit photos" may very exceed the envelope. Only the courts can decide that. I personally think it's a questionable search, but more importantly, it's a completely inappropriate application of child porn law, much like prosecuting one or both parties to consensual sex between two minors for statutory rape. Then again, that happens too. <flamebait> I blame excessive religious indoctrination</flamebait>.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[sexconker]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

You cannot ever lose unalienable rights.

Any person or entity who tries to deny you your unalienable rights is in fact in direct violation of the law. The supreme law of the land, in fact.

Where the FUCK is the revolution?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[HungryHobo]

I'm not saying that's how things should be. I'm simply stating the practical situation.
Personally I think it's a disgrace but the courts have a habbit of taking the view that schools shouldn't have to worry about civil or even human rights.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[sexconker]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Unalienable. Yeah, they're bound by law to respect your unalienable rights. ALL are.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

How is a public (government) school administrator not an agent of the government?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[PJ1216]

The administrator shouldn't have looked at the phone in the first place. Its not a matter of whether the admin should turn it over or not or how to deal with it, but whether it should have arisen in the first place. Did the admin have any right to look through the images?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Lemmy Caution]

You lose those supposedly unalienable rights when you are convicted of a crime. Hundreds of thousands of slaves never enjoyed those unalienable rights, and some were even owned by the people who wrote that sentence. Although the original phrasing of that expression considered these rights as universal, the US seems to be OK with not recognizing them among non-US nationals.

The phrase is empty and meaningless poppycock. It always was, and it still is.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[PJ1216]

Well, they can't sign the form saying you can go on a school trip. They also can't make plenty of decisions that your parents are allowed to make. So no, they don't get the right to make or take any kind of action the child's parents can.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Xebikr]

Child porn laws should exist as a way to keep adults from hurting children. Not to give adults yet another way they can hurt kids. This whole thing is moronic in the extreme.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Eil]

In the case of a school, they are not the police and do not have the authority of the police (despite some administrators thinking that they do).

Constitutional rights and privilege do not extend to school grounds. School administrators and faculty routinely discriminate, silence independent speech, and perform searches and property seizure without warrants or probable cause. And all with the parents' support.

I thought this was common knowledge by now.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Kokuyo]

What do you expect? As far as I know, basic human rights have been written for adults and exclude children.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[ArsenneLupin]

... that they totally screwed the pooch.

Offtopic: That would be zoophilia, not paedophilia...

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[tool462]

No he did not have that right. My wife is a teacher, and if they feel a need to search the contents of a students bag, they either get parental permission, or if they think something criminal may be occurring (i.e. drugs) then they'll call police to do the search. But he did look through the phone. Once that happened, it all snowballed from there. Note that I am not trying to defend this person. I'm just trying to make the point that this isn't Big Evil Administrator ruining the lives of Poor Innocent Children. It's considerably more complex than that--a culture of fear around anything linking children and sex. People become irrational and will gladly throw everyone else into the fire to save themselves as the consequences are so often so out of proportion with the offense.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[sexconker]

That's not what it says, now is it?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[sexconker]

No, you don't lose them, they are violated.

It's only bullshit because people allow it to be bullshit.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[hattig]

Oh I'm sure the "sex offender" list somehow isn't effected by the age someone is, and is never wiped.

Why aren't there thief lists? Murderer lists? Fraud lists? These are far more important to know, especially as some of these have high re-offending rates.

Or maybe, just maybe, the idea of a sex offender list is wrong, and once someone has served their time, they've served their time. Maybe they can be on a list if they're released early up until the end of their sentence - but the same goes for other offenders as well. And the severity needs noting - violent stranger rape versus taking a piss.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[DwySteve]

FTFA -

Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was âoea self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude." The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the investigation turned up âoeno evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds ⦠other than the violation of the electronic devices policy.â The statement also said that school officials didnâ(TM)t learn of the charges against the students until Monday.

(Emphasis mine)
To be (somewhat) lenient on the school, it is my impression from the article that school officials didn't go in guns blazing demanding that the perverts be burned. Consider it from their point of view: child pornography is illegal and they found child pornography on a student's person (the legality, morality, acceptability of the search being ignored ATM). Even if they could identify it as a student at the school that tells them nothing, and it would be wrong for them to assume no crime was committed. The only thing they can be sure of at that point is that the girl took a picture of herself nude with her phone and didn't delete it. If someone else had stolen her phone then they could have sent the pictures to the boy they found, the internet, whoever. They can make no assumptions about the circumstances in which he obtained the pictures and for the protection of the girl (who may at this point be a victim) they MUST inform the police so they can investigate. This is to protect the girl in the pictures because the letter and intent of child pornography laws is to protect the child in question. It would have been irresponsible on the part of the school to assume that everything was innocent and not report it to the police. I wouldn't put too much blame on the school.

Now the police... Well, suffice it to say that their stance at the moment is rather absurd and ignore the intent (and possibly the letter) of child pornography laws. But I'll let others handle that point better than I.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[WCMI92]

"Thats a misconception. They want you to think you do, however just because you enter a school doesn't give them the right to remove your rights."

This is correct, especially given that most schools are government entities, and workers there government employees. The Constitution specifically lays down rights that it expressly forbids the government to infringe upon, hence no legislature ("Congress shall make no law") can grant them such authority.

If a policeman can't do it to you because it's an infringement of rights, you can bet your ass a teacher or school administrator also can't do it for the same reason.

If this "evidence" was gained due to an illegal search by government school employees, then it's "spoiled" evidence that can't be used.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Belial6]

That is ONE of the reasons that I chose to home school. Neither I, nor any school wants to pay the huge legal fees that would inevitably result from the lawsuits over the continuous violations of my kids civil rights. Our public orphanages..er... schools are well known to violate the civil rights of our youth.

Pretty much everybody is happier that my kid isn't in the system.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Evanisincontrol]

Their lives are ruined maybe because they have decided to take pictures of themselves and send them.

No, their lives are ruined because society is punishing them for following basic human instincts: exploring and trying to understand their sexuality.

I think the sad part of this, is that they are willing to do this. Lets correct this type of behavior now before they do worst later in live, then maybe we can better their lives.

"correct this type of behavior"? Trying to understand their own bodies is something that needs to be "corrected"? That might be the single most simple-minded thing I've ever heard on Slashdot, and that's counting every anonymous coward troll post I've ever read. If you truly believe that children need to be sheltered inside an iron cage until society arbitrarily deems them as "adults", then I pray you never hold any kind of office.

If children aren't allowed to experience the world, then as adults they will walk blindly into it and wither.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Duradin]

Teachers and other school staff are required to report stuff like this, or even suspicions. If they are aware of something like this and they do not report it they've basically ended their career if anyone ever finds out they didn't report it.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Lets correct this type of behavior now before they do worst later in live, then maybe we can better their lives.

How the hell is a uniquely stigmatizing criminal record (it's probably easier to have a normal life as a convicted murderer than as a convicted child pornographer) going to "better their lives?"

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Kjella]

Underage porn laws are written with the intent (whether you agree or not) of protecting minors from themselves. Thus you can't differentiate who took it, or you could have adults paying/pressuring teens to do this. You need to be able to charge the teens if only to let them plea and turn in any adult who may have been involved.

So if some teen masturbates, they should be thrown in jail for child molestation because otherwise you could have adults paying/pressuring teens to do this? Might as well just rename all high schools to juvenile prisons instead of building more.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Duradin]

It was only by the grace of God that they didn't get naked together and do the whole "be fruitful and multiply" bit. Just think of the damage done if they discovered that sex could be for recreation and not just procreation!

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[blueg3]

Regardless of what he thought would happen to the kids, he really had no option. Once he ran across the CP, he had to notify the police, or would be risking criminal charges -- and he'd be a lot less likely to have the case dropped than those kids will be.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, after-all, breeding new terrorists drug users and kiddie-porn peddlers is the goal.

Think of what would happen if there weren't enough criminals to prosecute? A multi billion dollar engine created to recycle crime would go out of business. There is big business in supplying the FBI, CIA, Police, et. al. in keeping us safe. Breed more terrorists and we might have to increase funds for the jack-boots to keep us under their soles.

Want real reform? - kill a few lawyers and crooked legislators.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[nickruiz]

I would understand if the punishment for the girls for such activity was suspension or (with much deliberation) expulsion from the school, but criminal charges are ridiculous. The activity was clearly wrong, but the intent was not to distribute pornography to be disseminated by the public. They should only be liable for the private transmission of nude images, to be determined by the school board. It would be a different case if they had created a website or uploaded their pictures to be distributed. (I Am Not A Lawyer)

In my opinion, again, the boys should only be punished by the school board, if they were not attempting to distribute the images. I would understand law enforcement being involved if the boys were distributing the images without the consent of the girls, as, in my opinion, that would be breaching the grounds of pornography.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[genner]

... that they totally screwed the pooch.

Offtopic: That would be zoophilia, not paedophilia...

Isn't that illegal too....wait does that mean you can't have pictures of naked animals?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[hattig]

<flamebait> I blame excessive religious indoctrination</flamebait>

Hallelujah! Preach it brother!

And seriously, there is no crime in what these young adults (I hate the term, but it's correct in this context) did. I think a lot of people need to get their heads out of their arses, and perhaps the law clarified as to the intent (i.e., to not harm minors, yet this is what is going to happen and what has already happened).

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[EdWalker]

I dont think that they should be punish for the rest of their lives for being stupid as a child.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's "abnormal" at 17 and magically becomes "normal" at 18?

In my country the age is 16, so I suppose that means it's suddenly "normal" for them to do this at 16, but not 15 and 11 months? By that logic, one concludes that my country must be inhabited by a completely different type of human being to yours, for which things become normal at a different age? Don't be retarded.

These WERE NOT CHILDREN. If you want to see children, go down your local elementary or junior high. You'll notice that children rarely even have tits to take pictures of.

(BTW, CAPTCHA for this post == "shrinks"...I wonder what they'd make of your retarded mentality?)

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Evanisincontrol]

this type of behavior is, IN MY OPINION, abnormal

Ok, I can respect your opinion. Let me ask you this: would you consider it abnormal if a 15-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy had sex (and therefore saw each other naked)? If not, then why is taking pictures naked any different? The only reason we're hearing about naked picture-taking with children these days is that it wasn't feasible twenty years ago. All children these days have cell phones and can easily take pictures of themselves, and I contend (without evidence) that they would have done so for hundreds of years if the technology was easily reachable for them.

However, I do not believe that this is the kind of experience that children need.

Why not? They need to learn about sex eventually. Why do they need to wait until they 18 or some other arbitrary number to figure it out? Teens, both boys and girls, are completely sexually developed (biologically speaking) by the time they are 15. I'm not suggesting that older adults should be sleeping with children, because that's another arena altogether. However, children need to be able to be able to experiment if they want to actually understand how things work.

would you vote for someone who shared nude pictures of themselves and sent them around?

Yes.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Aneurysm]

Wish I had mod points to mod this up. While taking photos of yourself nude and sending them around where they could eventually end up anywhere (internet, whole schools phones etc.) is not the smartest thing to do they're just following the most basic and driving of human instincts. Kids at this age probably don't think too forward into the future about consequences that lie ahead, but that's no need to say that exploring their sexuality in such a way was wrong. Education about the future consequences of making such pictures public or texting them is probably the right strategy.

If children aren't allowed to experience the world, then as adults they will walk blindly into it and wither.

When I first went to University (UK) the people who got into the worst scrapes (drinking too much to the point of being taken home by strangers and not remembering, having unprotected sex whilst drunk and not remembering) were usually from single-sex catholic schools who had been kept on a tight leash. Their first experience of the adult world was from the perpspective of someone who'd been sheltered from it.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[H0p313ss]

Where the FUCK is the revolution?

It was pre-empted by American Idol. But there's some buzz that it will re-appear in the 11PM slot now that the Tonight Show has been moved forward.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

>And as I said above, for the intent of this law, you can't charge teens differently than adults

Yes you can.

> You'd have adults paying/pressuring/manipulating teens, essentially creating a market for getting kids involved in illegal activity.

Then charge THOSE ADULTS with child prostitution and child pornography.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

What you don't realize is that once the administrator saw the photos, he was legally bound to report it. Educators are required to report any and all evidence of abuse, not matter how ridiculous that evidence is. As someone who works for a school district, you should know that. You are probably bound by those rules too.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[necro81]

It's called in loco parentis . If a child's mother has a right to look through their child's cellphone and report anything fishy to the police, then generally so would a public school.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[smoker2]

So if some teen masturbates, they should be thrown in jail for child molestation because otherwise you could have adults paying/pressuring teens to do this?

If they're doing it somewhere that someone else can see them, then they should be prosecuted for something. Or are you happy with kids wanking in public view ? No photos, no crime. No get caught, no crime. Act like an ass and get caught, deserve to pay the price. If that price is too high .... well you should have thought of that before.

Remember these teens aren't getting prosecuted for simply possessing the photos, they were stupid enough to get caught with them because they fucked around in class. No-one would be the wiser otherwise. The lesson in life is - those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And I don't believe they'll get a record anyway. The public will be led to think that, but they'll get let off right at the last minute just to scare the shit out of them. On condition they don't tell anyone about the deal of course.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[ArsenneLupin]

Isn't that illegal too....wait does that mean you can't have pictures of naked animals?

You mean, I could get in trouble for pictures such as this? Or this? Or this puppy?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[aonic]

Won't this be sealed with their record when they turn 18? Isn't that the point of sealing the record?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Opportunist]

how long will it be before someone whose life is ruined like this takes matters into his/her own hands and 'snaps', seeking revenge?

I wonder that myself every time I see an RIAA lawsuit.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Opportunist]

I was wondering pretty much the same. Ain't these laws here to protect the kids from harm? Right now, these laws are used to harm kids.

When a law is turned around against the people it should protect, the law is seriously broken.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Opportunist]

I was thinking about the same. The people who demand more child protection laws essentially want to hold them under a cheese cover until they are 18, then remove that cover and have them face reality unprepared. Think of the children and get rid of such nonsense!

If you keep children clueless by punishing them for wanting to learn, you do them a disservice. It's natural that you want to protect your kids from harm, but I've seen it far too many times. Parents keep their kids under wrap, sometimes even to the point that they don't allow them to play with other kids, then suddenly when they turn 18 they are expected to be prepared, mature and toughened enough to face cruel reality. Of course this kind of "handling" the kids is easier for parents, since it keeps them from having to worry about any pranks their kids may play (lacking chance) or the trouble they could get into, and it will sure as hell result in very "well behaved" kids. They don't have any chance to misbehave, so what else could they become?

Then kids turn 18 and the rules change radically. Kids that don't experiment and explore as kids will do when they turn 18 and get the chance to. The difference is, though, the law will now accept it as childish prank when it's done by a 18 year old and they will be tried accordingly.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Opportunist]

I can see your reasoning, but I doubt an abused child has to be "pressured" into accusing his abuser. I mean, would you have to be "pressured" into pressing charges against someone that hurts you?

And if the threats from the adult are strong enough that they don't dare to accuse him for the harm and pain inflicted, do you think the prospect of being separated from them when spending time in a jail is going to change that?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Opportunist]

Why is it that the first translation that pops into my mind for "in loco parentis" was "if the parents are stupid"...

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[billcopc]

I wonder if the school administrator who turned them in realized the damage that would be done to these kids.

Most certainly. There are two types of employees in the typical high school:

1. young, eager profs who still hold onto their idealistic views and desires to make the world a better place

2. old, bitter management who have no saleable skills beyond bureucratic masturbation, projecting their own failures upon the vulnerable youth

The public school system, like all systems, is fucked up beyond repair. It is no longer about training to be a successful member of society, and more about learning to obey and stand in line. Problem is, I don't have any solutions to offer.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[billcopc]

it's not just the cream that floats to the top

You're right, shit also floats.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

I work with sex offender data (in addition to other various less-savory types) from around the globe every day. The descriptions of the crimes reported by some jurisdictions are very explicit.

These...kids...are not child pornographers or sexual offenders, but they do exist in the world and commit horrific acts.

Would it be too much to ask if the legal system put some real heat on the actual bad guys for once, eh?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[profplump]

Except they'll be charged as adults. We do it all the time -- deny children the rights of adults, but hold them to the same responsibilities and punishments.

It's just particularly ironic in this case because, if they were adults at the time of the act, the act wouldn't be a crime.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[profplump]

I've actually had a "science" teacher and the school and district administration *admit* that I correctly answered a question on a quiz, and still maintain the teacher's "prerogative" to mark it incorrect. That's not just just stupid, it's 14th-amendment-violating stupid.

I didn't even want the point, I just wanted to correct the misinformation being spread by the "science" teacher. Teaching things as "science" that are verifiably false is just not good for society.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[DustyShadow]

Actually, I seem to recall that since they are minors this will be wiped off the record once they turn 18 (assuming of course that the images are no longer on their phones at which point the will be adults with child porn and then your statement holds).

I'm sure it depends on how the law is written but this is what the article says about that:

Artur said that because there is no mandatory minimum sentence under Pennsylvaniaâ(TM)s child pornography law, unlike the federal statute, the students would not necessarily be incarcerated if they are found guilty. But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual offenders for at least 10 years.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[profplump]

The activity was clearly wrong? Expulsion is justified? You must be trolling.

What part of the girls act is clearly wrong? Being naked? Taking a picture of yourself? Having boyfriends? Wanting to share their nakedness with their boyfriends? What they did is certainly illegal under the existing statues, but I'm having trouble understanding what makes it "clearly wrong." If you're not trolling I would be honestly interested in your explanation, because I'm totally baffled by your line of reasoning.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[profplump]

What you don't realize is that there's no reason for the administrator to be looking at the photos in the first place. Did he reasonably believe that there was data in the phone that represented an eminent threat to the school or its students? Even after searching no such data was found; what could possibly be the justification for the search in the first place?

I realize that students at schools have no rights, and that administrators *can* search their phones for essentially any reason. But power in general, and particularly such far-reaching powers, should only be used as necessary, not capriciously. We grant special power to schools because it is sometimes necessary to keep children safe at an institution they are required by law to attend; the search of the phone did not work toward that end, and thus should not have been done.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[profplump]

You just linked children and the unspeakable act in a sentence. I can only presume that means you're a pedophile. Please report to your local flogging and branding station immediately.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Hatta]

Here in Nebraska we had a case where a man legally married his girlfriend in Kansas. He returns to Nebraska with his wife, and has sex with her. Because of the age difference, the sex was illegal in Nebraska. The "rapist" was sent to prison for having consensual sex with his own wife.

Nebraska Attorney General John Bruning is an evil piece of shit.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[EdWalker]

Your point is well taken. The issue is legally and one of morality. Legally, I think the answer is clear, a 15 and 16 year old having sex is statutory rape:http://www.sexlaws.org/what_is_statutory_rape. Morally, that is a different issue, morality changes what is bad today, will be good tomorrow. That is the way the world is turning. What makes this different to ME is that there are many people who seems to think there is nothing wrong with this. It is O.K. We as a society of people are accepting more and more of this kind of conduct and saying it is O.K. To ME this is sad. Over time, children need to learn about their bodies and sexuality, to say that they need to 'experiment if they want to actually understand how things work', is a little too much for ME. I would be VERY uncomfortable if my 15 year daughter came home and told me she participated in a 'experiment' today. Only to find out later, that she regretted this later in life. Just my opinion, I realize you have a different one.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[nickruiz]

If you're not trolling I would be honestly interested in your explanation, because I'm totally baffled by your line of reasoning.

Actually, I'm not trolling. My line of reasoning is that schools are very strict in their policies regarding bring inappropriate material to school. When I was in high school, it was made clear that bringing nude pictures of any kind was against school policy and would result in disciplinary action. So, morals aside, I'm saying that the "clearly wrong" is the action that infringes on school policy - namely, the possession of objectionable materials. If you get caught, you get busted.

Interestingly enough, many schools can suspend students for pictures they have on websites like Facebook; for example, users posting pictures of themselves at drinking parties.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Evanisincontrol]

Every child is going to make choices that they regret later in life. It is an absolute inevitability that children will make mistakes, because that is how humans learn. We don't learn from other people's mistakes until we've had made some of our own, even if we pretend that we do; rather, we learn from experiencing the consequences of our actions and understanding what consequences are.

I would not be happy if my 15 year old daughter told me she was sleeping around. I wouldn't be happy if she told me that she had sex with guys she barely knew, or that she thought it was normal to give sexual favors to guys she likes in hopes of gaining their attention, or anything like that. I would, however, be happy knowing that she has learned something useful from making those mistakes, and I know she won't make those mistakes when she's 19 and away from home in college where I can't do anything about it (and she probably won't tell me).

The key is to not take it to the extreme in either direction. Don't let your children run around in the wild with no guidance, and don't lock them up in a glass prison. They need to be free to make mistakes, but then they need your support and guidance to keep them from making too many BAD mistakes, and to help them recover when they do. I will steer my children in the right direction by providing guidance; more importantly, I will accept, with love, when they fall off the beaten path, and I will not respond by locking them up.

There has been this feeling propagating that locking your children away from society will protect them, when it only makes them vulnerable later in life. You cannot prevent mistakes; they will come, either now or later in life when you aren't around to help. You can only help mitigate mistakes when they arise, and help your child to learn from them.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

> Underage porn laws are written with the intent (whether you agree or not) of protecting minors from themselves. Thus you can't differentiate who took it, or you could have adults paying/pressuring teens to do this. You need to be able to charge the teens if only to let them plea and turn in any adult who may have been involved.

NO THEY ARE NOT. They exist to protect CHILDREN from abusive adults. In the same way that laws that govern assault exist to protect people from being attacked, NOT TO JAIL PEOPLE FOR PUNCHING THEMSELVES IN THE CHEST.

Sure, an adult might have been coercing someone to do something, but SINCE WHEN IS IT RIGHT TO PUNISH SOMEONE FOR BEING THE VICTIM OR COERCION? It's like punishing someone who get mugged and gives someone their money at gunpoint.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[kimvette]

Ah, but it is a public school, and as such faculty and employees are agents of the government. Therefore, constitutional rights can and do apply in theory. In practice, it may take a very good lawyer to ensure that your rights (first, second, fourth) amendment rights are retained but in theory they remain intact.

Were this a private school, it would not be the case.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, exactly. We're talking "Sarah Palin" -type, babbling, full-of-themselves, idiots here.

Like we say in my native language: "[s/he] is not crazy enough to set the fire, but not bright enough to put it out"

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they did send it to classmates how the hell does that equal a crime equated with child rape? Say what you want but the damage from the "crime" pales in comparison to the damage from the punishment. I don't care if they eventually drop the charges, the fact they can still make charges like this is a problem. This is sex crime hysteria being take to its next (ill)logical level.

"If the price is too high..."? What an asinine statement. Truly moronic. So hacking off a finger for speeding would be ok as long as you were warned? Good luck with that. The punishment should fit the crime, not whatever the lawmakers can get away with.

I look forward to people who hurt themselves being charged with assault and failed suicides being charged with attempted murder.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[EdWalker]

You make many valid points. Every child is going to make bad choices when they are young, I do not think they should be 'life choices', choices that COULD effect them negatively for the rest of their lives. I would rather them learn from me and my wife and what we have experience in our lives to help my child. For example, when I was about 14 or so, because of peer pressure I took some drugs and was so high, that I was not in control of myself. Not being in control of my actions scared me so, that I never took drugs again. Well, when my son was about 14 or so, I shared with him that whole experience and mention to him how after that I was able to fight off peer pressure and made my own decision as to drugs. To me, that is what parents should do, guide their children so that they can lead a very happy life. To me, if we dont, that I think we have failed as parents. And yes, parents should avoid extremes in either direction, otherwise children will be unable to make inform choices when they are growing and when they get older. And again you are right, if a child or adult makes a mistake, then within reason, the parent should accept and help them, that is what love is.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Jesus_666]

its not hard to understand the terrorist mind; when you are pushed and have NOTHING (perceived) left - you do what you feel 'needs' to be done to right a major wrong.

Remember that the difference between "terrorist" and "freedom fighter" is perspective. Been pretty long since the tree of liberty has been refreshed and someone who got the short end of the stick might be a history buff...

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[slimjim8094]

It's a a sex crime, so no. It stays with them forever and ever, even the charges do (if they are acquitted)

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[cp.tar]

I should say your whole system is seriously broken.

Really, right now the only difference between the American system and the Sharia law is that under Sharia law, you are at least dealt with fairly quickly.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[syousef]

Offtopic: That would be zoophilia, not paedophilia...

If it's a puppy can't it be both?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[dissy]

I wonder if the school administrator who turned them in realized the damage that would be done to these kids. Their lives are ruined. They will fight for a long long time to get this off their record.

The administrator no doubt only turned the kid in so he could play the 'it isnt MY child porn, i just found it on the phone!' so they wouldn't find all the real hardcore child porn in his home.

And if he objects to that accusation in any way, well, we all know how much guilt THAT must speak of!

I hope that administrator goes to prison for along time. Just the thought of a child pornographer like him working in a school!

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Teachers and other school staff are required to report stuff like this, or even suspicions.

They aren't required to snoop the pictures on someone's phone. Actually, I'm not sure why they could legal do that. I guess it's the usual "kids have no rights" taken a bit too far.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[windex82]

No, they will just be shinning examples of how pedophiles cannot be "fixed"(another discussion, imo probably true) and snapped because the system worked perfectly. They were so distraught being unable to get to children that they snapped. The homicides and following suicide were just tragic collateral damage.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

On this note: What about all the kids who got hung out to dry due to post-columbine witch-hunting?

I have a buddy who got pulled from school the day before his 8th grade graduation, for being a threat to the school. They found one picture of guns and bombs and grenades and such from when he was in like the 6th grade, confiscated his computer (which he never got back!), kept him from graduation, *AND* send him to adult education instead of high school.

As a result of that he fell in with a rather disreputable crowd, as far as substance abuse went, and while he made it through fine (other than some of the 'fun' he had during that period.), others might not.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[couchslug]

"If children aren't allowed to experience the world, then as adults they will walk blindly into it and wither."

So long as they find Jesus before they wither, our laws will have fulfilled their purpose.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Evanisincontrol]

Are you serious? It doesn't matter if a child's life goes to waste, as long as he believes in your god before he dies? What an arrogant prick your god must be.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Dun Malg]

Where do you think that sort of policy came from? Same kind of idiots higher up in the chain. Granted, by letter of such policy the administrator has no alternative, but a reasonable person could plausibly deny having seen any pictures on the phone at all. No, this was not some unwilling accomplice to the reporting, it was a willing lap-dog suck up loser going along with the policy because they thought they were "doing the right thing". Fuck those droids. They're idiots.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Dun Malg]

What you don't realize is that once the administrator saw the photos, he was legally bound to report it. Educators are required to report any and all evidence of abuse, not matter how ridiculous that evidence is. As someone who works for a school district, you should know that. You are probably bound by those rules too.

Yep, I'm bound by those same fucked up rules. I would not, however, be so fucking stupid as to admit I had seen those photos, and since there's no way to prove I had, nothing could be done to me. This administrator could've taken that way out, but as I said earlier, they're probably too fucking stupid to have even considered anything beyond executing the software of district policy in their little 640K heads.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[im_thatoneguy]

There is an alternative.

As more and more laws are overused we'll become desensitized to them.

*Ding Dong*
"Hi I have to.."
"Yeah yeah... what bullshit crime did they tag you for?"
"I slept with my girlfriend who was also 17."
"Yeah. Same here, only 16."
"Sucks."
"Yeah."

*Ding Dong*
"Hi I.."
"Slept with your 17 year old boyfriend, whatever, I'm watching TV"

etc etc...

Not saying the law is being applied well, just pointing out the microscopic glimmer of hope that is the self correcting system.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, would have killed everyone involved

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[RancidPeanutOil]

Although not yet seriously challenged, school administration in the U.S. has the de facto authority of legal guardians over the children while on school premises, so they effectively outrank police authority. And just like real parents, some of them are total douchebags.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony.
HAND

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Wonko the Sane]

The public school system, like all systems, is fucked up beyond repair. It is no longer about training to be a successful member of society, and more about learning to obey and stand in line. Problem is, I don't have any solutions to offer.

This guy does.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Opportunist]

Oh, don't feel left out. Most countries are currently in a hurry to break their laws too.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Alsee]

Nope. There's a legal principal called In loco parentis. It means that while you are in school the school essentially takes over much of the role of being the parent. In particular in New Jersey v. T. L. O. the Supreme Court ruled that school officials may search a student's personal effects based on any "reasonable suspicion". That is a far lower standard than "probable cause".

If a police officer enters the school he MAY NOT engage in that sort of search - he still needs to follow the standard probable cause / search warrant rules. In that situation can the police officer ask the school official to preform a "mere suspicion" search? The court explicitly did not rule on that. On one hand it opens a blatant loophole invalidating the fact that the police are supposed to need a warrant to obtain that search, on the other hand one could say the request by the officer caused the school official to have a "reasonable suspicion" and as already ruled he is permitted to act on it.

The courts do recognize the general point that students have civil rights, however they quite often limit them as minors or trade them off against the government interest in running the school or grant school officials parent-like authority over the students. There are countless cases carving out a mish-mash of student rights that are protected and assorted exceptions to those rights.

One case that I enjoy citing in particular involved the ACLU, Separation of Church and State, and a student wanting a Bible quote printed in the school yearbook (all students were offered space for a short personal comment of their choice to be printed in the yearbook).

I particularly like that case because of the people who don't understand the Constitution and don't understand what Separation of Church and State actually means, and who proceed to demonize the ACLU as 'anti-religion'.

The school principal has refused to print the Bible quote in the school yearbook. He believed that the school was not allowed to print religious content. The ACLU jumped in to defend the student and the student's right to free speech and the student's religious freedom. The Separation of Church and State means that the government cannot promote any favored religion or any favored religious belief nor oppress any disfavored one. The school officials cannot abuse their position to push their religion. However the school had offered the students a forum for speech. The school offered all students an open equal space in the yearbook to engage in their own speech. Having done so, the school cannot discriminate for or against any particular religion, nor can the school discriminate against that speech simply for being religious in content.

The ACLU and the student won. The school cannot engage in religious speech, the principal-as-a-representative-of-government could not select a Bible quote or Koran quote as officially established text on the cover, but the government cannot discriminate against student's religious freedom and religious speech.

Students can (non-disruptively) pray in school - and the ACLU officially supports the right of students to do so, and even has a standing invitation to any student who has that right infringed to come seek the ACLU's assistance. The ACLU has been involved in several cases against school prayer, but in each and every such case the ACLU has been defending the Religious Freedom of students against violation by school officials. In each and every such case the actual lawsuit has been against laws or school officials attempting to meddle in student's religious beliefs and practices. Each and every case has been against a government law or government official abusing their power to force or promote prayer by students. Separation of Church and State means the government cannot meddle in our religious freedom and religious practices. Separation of Church and State means the government can neither promote nor suppress prayer by students.

-

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[WCLPeter]

It's just particularly ironic in this case because, if they were adults at the time of the act, the act wouldn't be a crime.

If they do get charged as adults, you would think the defense lawyer would be able to use that to his advantage.

You're either an adult, or you're not. If you get charged as one, it should be strongly argued that the accused should automatically have all the same rights and responsibilities as one. Since adults have the right to decide if they want to take sexy naked photos of themselves, no crime has really been committed then.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been a middle school teacher and I can tell you from personal experience that the guy is probably going to crow over this for weeks. School administrators are, more often than not, complete and utter bastards who love torturing the kids in their petty fiefdom any which way they can. A chance to throw around their weight by crushing the dreams and lives of children is what gives shine to their eyes and a healthy glow to their skin.

No, really, a good many of them live for shit like this, just so they can feel powerful and important. Becoming an administrator doesn't require intelligence or even basic human empathy; in fact, I'd say those two characteristics would most likely disqualify you for the position. This guy will strut about the school telling everyone he did the right thing, and if anyone objects he'll just tell them to shut the fuck up unless they, too, want something bad to happen to them.

My personal experience of the school system, and the cretins who run it, are one of the reasons I'm homeschooling my daughter.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[HungryHobo]

So why can schools apply these parental rights even after a student has passed 18 years old and is no longer a child?

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Phroggy]

In the case of a school, they are not the police and do not have the authority of the police (despite some administrators thinking that they do).

You've got it backwards: as someone else pointed out, school administrators don't have the same legal restrictions that the police do. The police can't legally search your locker without a warrant, but a school administrator with "reasonable belief" (i.e. pretty much anything) can.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Reziac]

They may have to start their own town, where ONLY registered sex offenders are allowed to live.

The sad part is, I'm not sure if I'm being sarcastic or not. :/

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Reziac]

The real problem is that what should be adults, but failed to mature past adolescent idealism, are trying to keep the world "childlike", by ensuring that no one need grow up because we're all protected from everything.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[Alsee]

So why can schools apply these parental rights even after a student has passed 18 years old

The courts do not apply this substitute-parent reasoning to college situations. Elementary, middle, and high schools generally aren't populated much with 18+ year olds :) so I assume it's generally a moot question. Presumably a high school would not be allowed to search an 18+ year old like that.

-

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[cp.tar]

Oh, don't worry. Here in Croatia, we'd never got round to actually upholding our laws.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[clone53421]

Legally, I think the answer is clear, a 15 and 16 year old having sex is statutory rape:http://www.sexlaws.org/what_is_statutory_rape.

Wrong (and no, the article you cite doesn't support your opinion, although it's misleading: while it says that "age difference" may change the severity of the crime, some states have close-age exceptions in which no crime is committed if the individuals' ages are close enough).

In fact, Pennsylvania law says that, while the age of consent is 16, children aged 13, 14, or 15 can legally engage in sexual activities with partners who are less than 4 years older. Consensual sex between a 15- and 16-year-old would not be statutory rape.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[clone53421]

I'm pretty sure the laws in my state specify that it is a defense of statutory rape that you were married to the minor at the time the sexual act took place (i.e. although you could still be accused, you could be acquitted on this basis – I suppose it would still destroy your life, actually...). I find it odd that Nebraska wouldn't have an exception for this.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[clone53421]

Suggestion: read the pages you cite.

The 2nd paragraph, emphasis added:

First, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions

[rantingkitten]

You're either an adult, or you're not. If you get charged as one, it should be strongly argued that the accused should automatically have all the same rights and responsibilities as one.


Yeah, you'd think so, except courts, and judges, are lazy and don't want to think. It's easier to just adhere to the letter of the law, because considering the spirit of the law is too hard.

A few years ago I had to go to court for some minor traffic violation, and as these things go, I had to sit there for hours listening to other people go stand in front of the judge and be told they have no chance.

One case was an eighteen year old girl who had apparently been caught drinking at a party when the cops showed up, so they arrested her and charged her with consumption by a minor. As with most teenagers in court, she had her parents with her. The judge asked her something -- I forget what -- and the father started to answer.

The judge cut him off, saying "Sir, I appreciate the interest of the family, but legally speaking, your daughter is an adult, so this answer has to come from her, okay?"

Not once did anyone question the stupidity of saying this girl was a legal adult, while charging her with underage consumption of alcohol. The judge was outright stating that in the eyes of the law, she is an adult, so what's the goddamned problem?

This kind of thing happens all the time, and if they're going to be as obnoxiously inflexible about something as insignificant as an 18 year old girl having a few beers, how do you think they're going to react to something as emotionally charged as child porn?

I absolutely agree with you -- if you are going to charge someone as an adult, then it logically follows that they are legally adults and can do anything an adult may legally do, including drinking, having sex, or participate in pornography. If you think someone isn't mature enough to make appropriate decisions, then how can you justify holding them responsible for their decisions?

But, alas, the court system is fundamentally stupid about such matters and I doubt it will ever change.

Wow.

[Irish_Samurai]

I mean, talk about punishing the victim here...

Oh wait, I forgot Child Porn laws are no longer about the harm and damage done to the child during the creation of the material in question...

Way to be society.

Re:Wow.

[Irish_Samurai]

How the fuck is this a troll?

Charging a child with taking their own picture is punishing the victim!

Jesus people.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

WhoTF modded this troll?
The "offender" and "victim" are clearly the same.

Re:Wow.

[JCSoRocks]

I don't know how it happened but the last few months we've seen worse and worse modding. I see more misplaced troll and flamebait mods than ever before. It's ridiculous. I actually take the time to read the troll and flamebait posts now because half of the time they aren't that at all.

Re:Wow.

[Dun Malg]

What idiot modded the parent post "Troll"? It's a valid point. Charging these girls with creating child porn of themselves makes as much sense as jailing a failed suicide for attempted murder.

Re:Wow.

[Shadow of Eternity]

Here's some more mental gymnastics for you: What happens if they are tried as adults?

If they're charged as adults then they obviously have the maturity to understand the full consequences of their actions and so forth, but the original incident was illegal because they DONT have that level of maturity yet.

Re:Wow.

[yabos]

I don't know why they're even a victim if they willingly did it.

Re:Wow.

[kalirion]

What happens if they are tried as adults?

They'd go into the federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison of course. Makes perfect sense.

Re:Wow.

[dgatwood]

Oh wait, I forgot Child Porn laws are no longer about the harm and damage done to the child during the creation of the material in question...

Child porn laws were never about protecting the victim. If they were, possession would not be a crime. In fact, if child porn laws were designed to protect children, they would explicitly provide for the legality of possession unless the possessor is also the producer so that people would be more comfortable coming forward to the police and show this stuff to them to get the producers caught.

As soon as you make possession of anything a crime, you've crossed the line from trying to protect the victims into the territory of trying to prevent a type of thought or behavior. It's all about cleansing the public of what certain groups consider "bad thoughts". <sarcasm>God help us all if teenagers think about sex. God help us doubly so if a 17-year-old (or worse, 18) thinks about sex with a 15-year-old. That's a grave danger to our society....</sarcasm>

If child porn laws were designed to protect children, they would never apply to the exchange of material between two consenting people regardless of age because that is not the exploitation of children. It should only apply to the further proliferation of that material or to situations in which an adult more than... I don't know, eight years older than the non-adult... takes the photographs himself/herself. Here why: if a teenager is over at your house and flashes you, nothing happens, but if she decides to send you a photo of her flashing you via email or AIM, you can go to jail for receiving it even if you didn't ask for it. That's not justice---not by any stretch of the imagination. That's entrapment.

No, child porn laws were never about protecting the children from molestation, etc. They were always about a puritanical desire to cleanse the world of thoughts that the most conservative elements of society consider bad. The number of people arrested for child porn possession has been steadily rising, but the child molestation rate has been steadily dropping. If there were any truth at all to the flawed concept that reducing child porn will reduce molestation, the molestation rate should have been increasing proportional to the possession. Because there is not only not a correlation, but also a reverse correlation, we can state fairly definitively that criminalizing possession (except in cases where the possessor also produced it) has had zero or negative impact on reducing child molestation.

So why is it a law, then? Because a lot of people are attached to their naive little fantasy that adults are never attracted to anyone until they turn 18 and then they magically become attractive. This is, of course, absurd. The reasons 40-year-old guys don't sleep with 16-year-old girls are twofold. First, the 16-year-olds aren't interested. Second, the 40-year-old guys have enough self control to realize that if the 16-year-olds were interested, it would probably be taking advantage of them.

That said, this is just as true for a 40-year-old and an 18-year-old. People don't magically become "adults" at 18. There are many, many people I know who I have considered children well into their late 20s and many, many people I know who I have considered adults at 14. People mature emotionally and mentally at radically different rates, and you can't come up with an non-absurd law that protects the naive from their own naïveté---ban anything sexual involving people under 30? Yeah, that's going to fly. So instead, we continue with the naive belief that these laws help people when in fact they don't do crap.

About the only law that would make sense would be a law that somehow says that you can't get someone to pose nude if that person is not already sexually active, but that becomes a he-said, she-said problem, making it a nearly useless law. Better to just drop this law on the floor entirely. Laws against child porn possession don't serve the public interest, and this case is just further proof of that, along with the dozen other cases like it in the last year....

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. I burned at least half of my last batch of mod points undoing abuses.

Posting anonymously, since I'll likely be modded Off-Topic. You know, cause it IS off topic.

Re:Wow.

[RulerOf]

It's interesting that, among the more commonly cited "victimless" crimes, I'd imagine the penalties for [my-own-nude-portrait=]child pornography are much, much stiffer than for someone arrested for possession of Crack or Heroin. I say we make a "Drug Offender" registration list to bring punished victims up to parity.

Re:Wow.

[toriver]

Actually, if I recall correctly some countries back in the day did have the death penalty for attempted suicide because it was considered a major sin to try and kill yourself...

Successfully bleeding to death from slitting your wrists beats being torn apart by wild horses (or whatever crazy shit they thought up) though.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, if you're under 18 then you don't own your body; you are the property of the state. If you masturbate then you're subject to destruction of gov't property and sexual acts with a child.

Re:Wow.

[Kabuthunk]

You forgot to also add "And someone in power gets a raise and/or promotion for putting away these vile creatures". Isn't the system wonderful?

Re:Wow.

[Opportunist]

Because they're kids and thus don't know what's good for them.

Don't look at me, that's the reasoning behind the law in the first place.

Re:Wow.

[canajin56]

Wouldn't be the first time. A 16 year old girl has been sentanced to years in prison, and put on the sex offender list, for taking a nude photo of herself. The DA tried her as an adult. His argument was going to trial at all that she doesn't know what's she's doing since she's only a kid, and doesn't realize that she might be up for a nice job in 10 years, but oops, that picture comes out and her chances are ruined. His argument for trying as an adult was the heinous nature of crimes against children. ya rly. She blew her brains out I think.

Re:Wow.

[Whorhay]

I think you might have missed what the parent was getting at.

If the children who took pictures of themselves are tried as adults, then is the action they are on trial for actually a crime. The whole point of being tried as an adult is that the accussed is of sufficient mental faculties to be considered an adult. But if they are adult enough to be tried as an adult then weren't they taking pictures of an adult according to the court?

Re:Wow.

[wastedlife]

Everyone knows "Troll" and "Flamebait" are to be used when you disagree, duh.

Re:Wow.

[wastedlife]

This paradox right here is why any sane judge should throw this case right out.

Re:Wow.

[failedlogic]

Interesting point. I'd think that the 'lets try them as adults' line is used when a heinous or senseless act is committed for which rehabilitation is unlikely. I chose these words because it fits in well with Child Pornography.

Violent assault, murder, DUI, hit and run, robbery or I suppose a large enough fraud/stealing of monies by a 13+ yr old may pressure the State to pursue an adult trial. Sensless, non-victimless act which rehab (consider street races for hit-run) was committed. In many of these types of cases (ok 13 yr old unlikely), the 15+ yr olds are probably more likely to be tried as adults.

I suppose in this case unlikely. But, if a teenage boy(s) took the picture, it would be a different story. It depends on how the parents of the girl blame the incident: the daughter for taking the pics or the boys for keeping/looking at it.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

After a quick google I could find no evidence to corroborate this story, could you provide a link please?

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of people arrested for child porn possession has been steadily rising, but the child molestation rate has been steadily dropping.

Wouldn't that suggest that removing the child pornography is reducing the rate of molestations?

Actually I agree with the poster below who points out that nudity is not necessarily pornography; I also agree that the children in this article did nothing wrong and shouldn't be charged.

However, I can see the moderator's point. The laws, as you rightly point out, are designed to reduce the propagation of a particular type of material. They are not designed to help the person pictured but instead other children. Proliferation of child pornography can only have a negative impact on children. Either through them directly viewing it and thinking that behaving 'that' way is what is expected of them. Or through proliferation of the idea that children should behave 'that' way for you. Plenty of children have been sexually abused over the years, they have a hard enough time coming forward as it is. Wouldn't it be worse if prolific images of child porn made them think that was what was expected of them.

I think the law, in principal, does serve the public interest and probably prevents some children becoming victims. But the messed up way in which it is applied does not.

Re:Wow.

[Joey Vegetables]

I agree. What the "puritans" don't get is that you can't change people's hearts by persecuting them, imprisoning them, subjecting them to prison rape, and marking them as eeeevil "sex offenders" for life.

Re:Wow.

[dgatwood]

Wouldn't that suggest that removing the child pornography is reducing the rate of molestations?

Only if the increased arrests were the result of better detection, investigation, and arrest. In this Internet era, I'm not convinced that this is very likely. Twenty years ago, someone interested in something illegal (whether child porn or drugs or... whatever) would have to know someone. That someone wouldn't exactly advertise, so he/she would be hard to find, and the odds of getting turned in for asking were significant. These days, a web search would likely turn up such content without much effort, or at least would turn up information that would lead you to other information that would eventually get you there, all without ever speaking to another human being. Thus, the probability of someone getting turned in is significantly lower than it was twenty years ago.

From this, we can conclude that more people are getting caught, more people are looking for that material than before. That's not saying that the percentage of people who would like to look for it has increased, merely that the ease of availability and the perception of anonymity has made it more likely that someone curious would take the risk and look for such material. Either way, if more people are exposed to the material as a percentage of the population but fewer people are hurting children, it pretty much goes without saying that enforcement of child porn laws is not the reason for the drop in molestation.

The reason for the drop in molestation is most likely because of the reduced social stigma of being a molestation victim when compared with the way things were thirty or forty years ago. Kids are more comfortable coming forward, so A. the molesters are more likely to get caught before they have the opportunity to reoffend, and B. potential molesters are more wary of getting caught.

That said, there's a second reason that should give everyone pause: given a choice between the high risk of getting caught molesting someone and the relatively low risk of getting caught by viewing child porn downloaded over the Internet, most would-be molesters are smart enough to choose the latter. In effect, the near-ubiquitous availability of child pornography serves to reduce the incidence of molestation by providing these people with a relatively innocuous outlet for their urges. In a world of perfect enforcement of child porn laws, I have no doubt that the rate of actual molestation would increase, not decrease.

Of course, I'm not in any way suggesting that anyone should make it easier to get child pornography. Clearly children should not be exposed to that for precisely the reasons you mention---the risk that children would think that such behavior was normal and expected. I very much agree with you on that point. The right level of enforcement for this would ensure that it remains seen as deviant behavior to discourage production and discourage people from thinking that molestation is in any way normal, but at the same time, not stigmatize it to the point that the sorts of people who would view it feel that they'd be safer molesting an actual child. It's a tricky balance to get right.

Actually I agree with the poster below who points out that nudity is not necessarily pornography

Unfortunately, the U.S. courts tend to disagree more often than not. You're right that it should not be considered pornography, but it frequently is. You're right that a big part of the problem here is the rather loose definition of pornography. That said, if the girls in question had been touching themselves in a sexual way, odds are the courts would say that those photos cross the line about 99% of the time. Of course, it still should not be a crime for the boys to receive the photos unless they actively solicited them, and possibly not even then, given the age of the people in question. It is truly a sign of the hypocrisy of the times that in an era where so many people lose their virginity in high school, so may people still try to pretend that it doesn't happen and would say that these kids are bad people for doing this. Very sad.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a case in Florida (no surprises there) a year or two back in which a ~16 year old couple exchanged nude pictures of each other, and were each tried separately for possession of child pornography as adults.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. It is *creating* a victim where there was none.

Re:Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent overrated.

Nude != Porn

[Skinkie]

I hope Obama will talk about this soon.

Re:Nude != Porn

[HungryHobo]

You're kidding right?
The think of the children nutcases would label him first as soft on child pornographers, then a pedophile sympathiser and finally simply as a pedophile.

Re:Nude != Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there's a lot of non-nude stuff that should be classified as porn.

Re:Nude != Porn

[Skinkie]

I'm sorry but if you think that a guy that loves everything young with boobs is a pedophile, you might need to look at Wikipedia for the actual definition of a pedophile. Worst case we are talking about Ephebophilia which is actually an extremely healthy thing.

Re:Nude != Porn

[cbiltcliffe]

Really?! Where? ;)

Re:Nude != Porn

[DrLang21]

"Think of the children" nut cases think anyone who loves anything under 20 with or without boobs is a paedophile.

Re:Nude != Porn

[Vinegar Joe]

I hope Obama will talk about this soon.

He shouldn't have a problem......both Greensburg Mayor Karl Eisaman and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell are Democrats. In fact, Rendell is former head of the Democratic National Committee and is being tapped for a position in Obama's cabinet.

Re:Nude != Porn

[HungryHobo]

Where did I say that?
I simply predicted the reaction of the think of the children crowd.

Re:Nude != Porn

[Skinkie]

If your thought was only a prediction, I misunderstood you, but even then people around your comment refer to a popular stigma that has nothing to do with kids of 14 and older making nudies of their selves. The people of Africa make babies at that age, thus are definitely not prepubescent.

Re:Nude != Porn

[CatsupBoy]

you might need to look at Wikipedia for the actual definition of a pedophile

Uh, that actually didnt help me much =/

The term pedophilia or paedophilia has a range of definitions as found in psychology, law enforcement, and the popular vernacular

Re:Nude != Porn

[snowgirl]

I'm sorry but if you think that a guy that loves everything young with boobs is a pedophile, you might need to look at Wikipedia for the actual definition of a pedophile. Worst case we are talking about Ephebophilia which is actually an extremely healthy thing.

And I thought I read too much wikipedia....

Re:Nude != Porn

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

The actual definitions cease to matter when time comes for re-election.

Re:Nude != Porn

[HungryHobo]

The people of inner city london make babies at that age,no need to go to Africa.

Re:Nude != Porn

[toriver]

Aren't people who think of children considered perverts? BURN @ STAKE!

Re:Nude != Porn

[xouumalperxe]

Nude != Porn, true. But you have to be pretty damn innocent to think that those girls sent those pics for anything else other than hitting on those guys. Given they're nude, and given there's a clear sexual intent, exactly where do you draw the line and call it porn?

Re:Nude != Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

You think London's bad? Try NY...

Re:Nude != Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is Obama's reputation your concern? Were you this concerned that someone might think negatively of Bush?

Re:Nude != Porn

[Skinkie]

I think the primary purpose of those photo's is not to cause sexual arousal, but rather advertise their selves. The same thing would be a short message writing "come to my house now", which is clearly not porn. Actually the statement it is porn is totally missing your argument, because if it was, porn he/she wasn't looking for hitting up at all, just advertising. Again worst case; for the actual producer it is noting more than exhibitionism.

Re:Nude != Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sympathizing with someone known to be accused of pedophilia? What, are you a pedophile too?

Maybe your employers listed on your account homepage would be interested in knowing they employ someone who claims looking at anything "young with boobs", even 15 year olds, is not child pornography but "actually an extremely healthy thing."

Sicko.

Re:Nude != Porn

[Skinkie]

Are you sympathizing with someone known to be accused of pedophilia? What, are you a pedophile too?

I don't spread hate about homophiles, am I sympathising with them now? I think that every paraphilia is a variation on what we in our western society accept as normal. Maybe you didn't get the point. Any teenager above the age of 14 is developing 'things' we call secondary genitalia, maybe news for you: pedophiles don't like that. If your only defense is anonymous ignorance, please educate yourself.

Maybe your employers listed on your account homepage would be interested in knowing they employ someone who claims looking at anything "young with boobs", even 15 year olds, is not child pornography but "actually an extremely healthy thing."

If you don't think that fertility is a good thing, I wish you, Anonymous Coward, a happy life with IVF treatments or hope for some young healthy sperm donor. Seriously have fun with defending the argument that self pics of 14 yo's is child porn... and better I hope you can look in the eyes of their parents when you put them away for several years in jail. I would consider that sick myself.

Re:Nude != Porn

[19Buck]

I wouldn't call that "Extremely healthy", but the Professional Mental Health Community does recognize that sexual attraction to post-pubescent Adolescents is completely normal, so long as it is not the primary attraction nor to the exclusion of attraction to sexually matured adults.
this is cited in the wikipedia article on Ephebophilia and in many other places as well

Re:Nude != Porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Healthy or not, now it is illegal. And let's not forget that children are reaching puberty younger and younger every year - a 100 years ago or so people frequently did not reach puberty until as late as 17-18yo. Whereas now, it is quite common for 11yo girls (and younger) to have developed breasts and pubic hair and have started menstruating. Boys are also sexually mature much younger than before. Yet, we have *raised*, not lowered, the legal age at which they can experiment. 100 or so years ago, you could get married at 12 in a lot of countries, which would have been a long way before puberty for many.

repost

[sofar]

but the story of girls photographing their stuff is just too cool to not repost...

Finally happened

[LingNoi]

Not on slashdot, but I've been saying this kind of situation is going to happen soon or later.

Re:Finally happened

[HungryHobo]

I remember when I was a child myself hearing about such laws and asking curiously "what about if you take pictures of yourself?" and being told "Oh of course it's just to catch bad people, nobody would be that silly."
Unfortunatly slashdot tends to be right when it comes to such things and if there's an insane way to apply a law which everyone dismisses as "nobody would ever apply it like that" then you can bet your ass it will be abused exactly like that.

Re:Finally happened

[Walpurgiss]

This already happened like a year ago. A couple had a picture of themselves and it was sent via email. http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/20/teen-couple-who-phot.html

And here's the ruling that Child Porn laws apply to minors, that will probably be referred to in the current case. And this all was at the start of 2007. http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html

Re:Finally happened

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, let's be sure to try them as adults. I can't wait to hear the Prosecuter's argument. Just imagine this... They're adult enough to be prosecuted, but not enough to make a decision about taking pics of themselves nude. Cosmic. It should be very entertaining.

child pwnography

[damnfuct]

A classic case of child pwnography.. someone had to say it.

Re:child pwnography

[cbiltcliffe]

Redundant, my ass! That's FUNNY!!!

Re:child pwnography

[Anonymous Coward]

sadly this made me laugh

Re:child pwnography

[Anonymous Coward]

Redundant, my ass! That's FUNNY!!!

Modded: Redundant.

Lol.

Re:child pwnography

[Anonymous Coward]

**rolls his eyes** That's would be said as "child own-ography"... get with the program, eh.

Jealousy

[snarfies]

I graduated from high school many years ago, long before cel phones, rainbow parties, etc. I would have loved it if some female students sent me some n00dz. I suspect that the people currently in charge feel the same way. Hopefully this sort of thing will be ironed out by the next generation - wonder how many lives will be destroyed out of jealousy before that...?

Re:Jealousy

[Abreu]

Sorry to inform you that Rainbow parties were a urban myth/moral panic

Re:Jealousy

[kalirion]

Dude, as you're posting on slashdot, I doubt you were in the "in crowd" that would've been receiving such pics.

Take this as a lesson

[ternarybit]

on how to screw your enemies. Unlike porn on the Internet, cell phone pictures are *sent*, not *requested* or *received with consent.* Unless you specifically request otherwise from your carrier, you will automatically receive picture messages from whomever decides to send them to your cell phone. This combined with the details of this case make it disturbingly easy to frame someone...

Re:Take this as a lesson

[HungryHobo]

Think of it as the "pedophile gun".
Want to ruin someones life? no need to hit them with a baseball bat or go to great lengths to frame them. just send them and email or sms with CP, report them and they'll be on the sex offenders register for life and from there you can be sure some upstanding citizen will take a bat to their head for you.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[betterunixthanunix]

Frame fail -- you can view child pornography as long as you report it immediately and destroy it as soon as it has been collected as evidence by the police.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[MozeeToby]

Most phones also have this crazy thing called a 'delete' button that removes unwanted pictures or messages from your phone. Now granted, I sopose it would be possible to report someone and then spam their phone with pictures right up until the moment the phone is taken and searched, but I imagine that the police would catch on to that kind of thing (though with kiddy porn, you never know. Police are notoriously stupid on this subject). And of course, in order to send the pictures you must have them yourself, which is very dangerous ground to be on.

The real problem is that just making the accusation (even without the pictures on the cell phone) is enough to get a person fired from their job and ostracized by the community. Child porn is one of the few offenses in America where the rule is guilty until proven innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even if you are eventually proven innocent, the stigma remains and many people have to completely change their life in order to live normally again.

This is going to be an interesting case to watch, we can only hope that the judge and jury assigned to it are smart enough to handle it correctly. Logically, the law should probably read similar to some states's statutory rape laws, where if the 'victim' and 'perpetrator' are close enough in age the punishment is less severe or eliminated entirely. The girls who took and sent the pictures will probably get off with a slap on the wrist, but I am concerned about the guys in this case. I could see them unfairly winding up in jail or a sex offender's registry all too easily.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[KDR_11k]

Er, better hope that's not getting traced back to you.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[TheRaven64]

And how many senators do you think would actually do that? How many even know how to delete MMS messages that they've received?

Re:Take this as a lesson

[AK Marc]

Frame fail -- you can view child pornography as long as you report it immediately and destroy it as soon as it has been collected as evidence by the police.

Where is this exception written into the law, and do you honestly think someone contacting the cops saying "come collect the child porn I have" will be given a medal rather than thrown in jail?

Re:Take this as a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the few offenses?

You're forgetting:

Child abuse (physical)
Domestic violence (if you're a man)
Rape (if you're a man)
Paternity (if you're a man)
Sexual harassment (if you're a man)
Adultery (if you're a man)
Being a man (if you're a man)
Not being a man (if you're a man)

And if you're a man, all crimes become hate crimes.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[ArsenneLupin]

Unless the framer is smart enough to somehow make sure that the authorities notice it before the victim does...

Re:Take this as a lesson

[drspliff]

My interpretation of the PROTECT Act of 2003 from the point of view of a website admin is that if I do find child pornography it's my "Duty to Report" [as specified by SEC. 2258A.a.1] all the information along with the offending material to one of the two organizations setup to investigate it, then to preserve all that stuff [as specified by SEC. 2258A.h]

Then... under SEC. 2258B I'm given immunity from prosecution while storing all that stuff as long as a few requirements are met regarding limiting access to employees.

''(a) IN GENERAL.--Except as provided in subsection (b), a civil claim or criminal charge against an electronic communication service provider, a remote computing service provider, or domain name registrar, including any director, officer, employee, or agent of such electronic communication service provider, remote com- puting service provider, or domain name registrar arising from the performance of the reporting or preservation responsibilities of such electronic communication service provider, remote com- puting service provider, or domain name registrar under this sec- tion, section 2258A, or section 2258C may not be brought in any Federal or State court.

So basically yes:

someone contacting the cops saying "come collect the child porn I have" will be given a medal rather than thrown in jail?

That's exactly how it works, although you don't get any medals.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in Germany, you don't.
Reporting it to the police caused them to say you distributed CP (to them, obviously).

Re:Take this as a lesson

[blueg3]

It's written in to many state child pornography laws, and you don't get a medal or charges. This happens all the time -- workers at Best Buy, the individual in the "hashing counts as searching" case, IT guys. They do come and take the machine, though, which can make life rough for the IT guys if they run across it on the wrong machine.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a 16yo high school student. Some girl sends you nudie pics. You avert your eyes and immediately report this heinous act to the authorities. ...the universe then implodes due to the sheer impossibility of the preceding chain of events. Good fucking job, man! You killed us all.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[Opportunist]

If, and only if, you know enough of your cell to actually know how to look at pictures sent to you.

So, anyone want any old Senators out of office? Take a pic of your little sis and send it over!

Re:Take this as a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI: Email is also "*sent*, not *requested* or *received with consent.* "
I fail to see the difference between cell phone pics and email.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[JumpDrive]

I have always been told that after I find 3 instances of child pornography on a computer. I am to stop disconnect and shutdown the computer and report it to the proper authorities.
The end.
Can't make copies, can't look through anything else.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[ternarybit]

That's a negative, at least in California. I work at a computer repair shop and my boss has dealt with this situation before on customers' computers. He also knows many cops in town who advised him *against* reporting the porn for liability reasons. Possession is possession, apparently.

Re:Take this as a lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

The key part of OP's post was 'on the Internet'. The difference between browsing for porn and receiving MMS porn is that you can receive the latter without wanting to (not considering the whole virus-infected-my-machine thing).

looking in a mirror

[SoupGuru]

Next time you get out of the shower, don't look in the mirror or you could get nabbed for being a peeping tom... wouldn't surprise me the way people have gotten so unhinged with this issue...

Re:looking in a mirror

[Toe, The]

Maybe we should all just wear swimsuits in the shower.

Next step: surgical concealment of anything which might lead to temptation.

Re:looking in a mirror

[Sage Gaspar]

They're fostering a nation of nevernudes! Gasp!

Re:looking in a mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

> Next step: surgical concealment of anything which might lead to temptation.

Actually, I like this. If I were a surgeon in the states I would start a trend for this kind of elective surgery, at inflated prices. I would advertise at churches , school gates and pre-teen beauty pageants, and pay a few ministers and talk radio DJs to push it for me. Pretty soon it would become a righteous fever, sweeping the bible belt. Copycat clinics would pop up, and I could make even more money franchising out to them.

"Think of the Children" prudes will of course have it done to themselves and their own children, to protect them from their own sinful bodies, with funding from their stupid churches for those that can't afford it.

They would of course lobby for it to become mandatory for everyone in the country, but don't worry, I would secretly funnel much of my surgery profits into ANTI-mandatory-degenderfication-surgery lobbying. Those that want it can and should have it, those that don't will be free to point and laugh at the Ken-and-Barbie-degenitalled freaks.

Assuming the surgery doesn't fuck up their reproductive parts beyond repair and Darwin them out of the gene pool directly (although that's pretty much what I'd be aiming for), then it will indirectly prevent the fuckwits from breeding by turning them into genderless mannequins that no-one in their right mind would ever want to have sex with, and wouldn't know how to if they did.

No sex means no breeding. No breeding means no new recruits for their idiotic mindsets. Within two generations we'll be free of the shitheads forever.

In the meantime, I can skip straight to Profit, with no ??? step required. I would of course take perverse pleasure in secretly spending all the post-lobbying profits I got from the fundies on hookers, drugs, gambling, atheism, satanism, muslismism, lesbianism, communism, anarchism, scandinavian death metal, grand theft auto and gay marriage.

Re:looking in a mirror

[Just Some Guy]

Next time you get out of the shower

Step one for effective public speaking: known your audience. Can you make a car analogy instead?

Re:looking in a mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I like you. :)

Re:looking in a mirror

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could just look to a few states in the middle east region. They're pretty good at the "cover up the females" game.

Looks like the terrorists are winning. You're already importing your values about female sexuality from them.

Re:looking in a mirror

[avajcovec]

There are literally dozens of us.

Re:looking in a mirror

[baKanale]

Does that mean masturbation is rape?

Re:looking in a mirror

[Opportunist]

Sure thing: Next time you step out of your car, make sure you have your pants on or you could be seen as some sort of exhibitionist.

Re:looking in a mirror

[Opportunist]

It's a conspiracy between the textile industry and the porn industry, I tell you.

Re:looking in a mirror

[wastedlife]

Next time you jerk off while driving, don't look down or you could get nabbed for being a peeping tom... wouldn't surprise me the way people have gotten so unhinged with this issue...

Is that better?

Hmmm.

[CannonballHead]

investigation turned up 'no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds

That seems hard to believe, but ok.

Re:Hmmm.

[cbiltcliffe]

I'd say the investigation itself, at least by the administration, is inappropriate activity on school grounds.....

Re:Hmmm.

[keithjr]

I'm trying really hard to think of a reason, after confiscating the cell phones, to actually open them up and start checking all of their pictures. That's some pretty severe invasion of privacy, and also rather creepy.

Re:Hmmm.

[CannonballHead]

That's some pretty severe invasion of privacy

Since when are public schools "private"?

Re:Hmmm.

[clone53421]

You're absolutely right. All students should be required to submit to daily strip-searches.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[cthulu_mt]

They're old enough to consent, but god forbid I videotape it for later.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[0100010001010011]

Indeed. Thankfully because we caught them early on they now won't be able to become teachers or run for office. On every job application they ever fill out for the rest of their lives they'll have to put that they're a sexual offender.

When they move they'll have to notify the county where they live. They'll have to let their neighbors know (So they can keep their kids away from these nasty people). In certain states they'll have to turn over their e-mail addresses and passwords.

Hurray for the war on child porn, lets see if any of them have tried marijuana (as the last 2 and current president have admitted to doing) then we can sweep them under with the War On Drugs too.

Never mind you're more likely to be molested by your Uncle or your Mom's new boyfriend than some stranger in a van.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fucking idiot.

So I'm a criminal?

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is no victim, no ones constitutional rights where violated, I just don't get it. Than again it is a government school, so attempting to apply logic to the issue is likely to cause a severe migraine.

I could see an issue if the pictures where taken unknowingly, if they where taken by adults, if they where sold, if they where transmitted to adults or made available to the public.

I'm just glad I burned everything related to my high school girlfriends...

Family album

[houghi]

I hope they do not look in our family album. Several images of nude children can be seen. Not only that I was forced to look at other peoples family albums containing nude children as well.

This all while I was underage myself. So who can I sue that has money enough to make me rich? Mmm. Kodak?

Must be all my moms fault for putting that nipple in my mouth shortly after I was born. That turned me into a sex offender.

Re:Family album

[hansamurai]

I have a four month old son and we've been taking constant pictures and video of him. The other day we uploaded a private Google Video of us giving him a bath to share with his grandmothers. I suppose I could probably go to jail for even suggesting we record his smiling face in the sink.

Re:Family album

[JCSoRocks]

Pervert. *Runs to report you*

In all seriousness though, I do believe that protecting our kids from pedophiles is a good thing. We just need to reevaluate how effective what we're doing really is and whether there's a better way. Reporting kids for having pictures of other kids is asinine. If I were a parent I'd sue whatever teacher opened my kid's phone. Teachers searching through the pictures on a kid's phone are the real pedophiles.

Re:Family album

[fermion]

On one hand, this behavior should be discouraged, though likely not though prosecution. We all know that there is a reasonable chance that when the couple breaks up, the picture will end up on other phones. It is interesting we don't tend to prosecute kids when we catch them having sex, even though in many cases it is statutory rape.

OTOH, these type of overreaction is not uncommon by the prude population, and family albums are not the issue. for instance, in some more uncivilized places in the US, children often unrinate outside rather than going inside. I recall one instance where a this happened, and a brother was helping his little sister with her clothes, the neighbors saw, and they went ballistic.

i hate to think the kids have to grow up in world where everyone is a predator, and security is so paramount, that no one really gets to be a kid. I grew up at a time and place where people would hurt you to get your shoes, but that did not mean we hid indoors or in big card afraid of everyone. No we still took the bus and explored knowing that most people were good, and most people keep an eye to make sure that nothing extremely outrageous is going on.

Re:Family album

[mewshi_nya]

It's not pedophiles that kids need to be protected, it's child molesters. While there is some sizable overlap, not all pedophiles are bad people who want to kidnap your daughter, tie her up, rape her, and videotape the whole god-forsaken ordeal.

Get over it, some pedophiles can control their urges.

Re:Family album

[Abreu]

Must be all my moms fault for putting that nipple in my mouth shortly after I was born. That turned me into a sex offender.

[joke]
Depends, how old was your mom when she was breastfeeding you?
[/joke]

But seriously, this is really out of proportion... Do we need "baby pictures" and "romeo and juliet" exceptions to child porn laws?

I mean, I have thousands of pictures of my two kids in my computer, some of them in various states of undress... Does it mean I have to delete them?

Re:Family album

[blueg3]

Funny, but child pornography does require prurient intent.

Given that other members of the jury undoubtedly also took pictures of their young children, you're probably safe.

Re:Family album

[Jason Levine]

Some people have tried to make "prurient intent" equal "a photo that someone, somewhere might regard as sexual in nature." This would make every parents' kids-in-a-tub photos (because every parent takes those) into child porn because *someone* might possibly see them as sexual.

Re:Family album

[GreyyGuy]

There have been many cases of "helpful" employees at film development shops turning in people to the police for taking such photos in to be developed. And then those people having their lives turned upside down defending themselves against child pornography charges.

Re:Family album

[GreyyGuy]

Of course by the time it gets to a jury you are already out all the legal fees, possible jail time after being arrested, bail, and the enjoyment of your neighbors, family, and coworkers all being interviewed by the police to see if you are a pedophile, as well as possible news coverage of the trial.

Re:Family album

[Opportunist]

If he happened to smile while you were washing his privates or bottom, you are even a child molester.

I am actually for protecting children from abuse and exploitation, but the form this is taking is about as sick as what they want to protect from.

Re:Family album

[blueg3]

Much of which you could recover with subsequent lawsuit against the public officials who tried to charge you with possessing a family photo album.

Re:Family album

[Jesus_666]

Additionally, by equating pedophiles with child molesting murderers (as is commonly the case) and even dehumanizing them (as the media also love to do) we don't exactly contribute to the less stable ones keeping a grip on themselves.

Why can't the big bad terrorists do smething useful for once and wipe out a couple boulevard magazines? That would make the world a better place for everyone.

Re:Family album

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably the other way around. I've spoken anonymously to a few pedos before and the last thing they want to do is anything that would hurt a child.

Molesters, the baby-raping types, don't love children (and so aren't pedos, by most pedos' definition)

Of course, most (of the 5 or so I've spoke to) were into mid-teenagers which, personally, doesn't bother me, being only three years removed myself. Kids know enough about sex at 15 to be considered as adults (or as adult as they're gonna be)

Just the electronic version of...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if you show me yours, I'll show you mine. We all perhaps have done this as kids, I know I did.

Innocent of course, just natural curiosity. But a new wrinkle for the new technology that must be solved to be acceptable in our society.

Of course many children may go to jail before a solution to this new problem appears.

Start thinking now.

Whats the big deal?

[Durrill]

In all honesty, what harm was being done? Teens will do much more than acts of nudity with each other. This generation we have cell phones, digital cameras, internet, and web cams. So things have gone from adults "knowing" that this kind of stuff is going on to "proving" that it is true. With proof they decide to nail their asses to the wall? Thats ludicrous. Kids will be kids. If this kind of behaviour did not exist, we wouldn't be able to propogate the human race. Grow up and leave those kids alone. Those of you who actually had sex in highschool would understand my view point.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[HungryHobo]

Even those of us who didn't get any till college understand your viewpoint :D

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think someone can be called rational if they don't understand why this is fucking bullshit. It's wrong in every way; punishing the alleged victim, nonexistence of a victim, no harm of ANY FORM being done in the first place; their lives may be RUINED because of this for absolutely nothing!

I hope you Americans here understand the magnitude of this. This is insanity. The kind of flagrantly nonsensical justice you find in books with Vogons in them. In real life it isn't funny anymore, it's sick and harmful. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[canuck08]

harm? naked bodies are an offence before God!
If you have a penis or a vagina you are a sinner and should be ashamed of yourself.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Voyager529]

Those of you who actually had sex in highschool would understand my view point.

You must be new here.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[hey!]

Harm being done?

Well, no question, the girls were being foolish. Fourteen years old is too young to realize that they aren't just flashing some skin to some boys that they are interested in. They are releasing nude pictures of themselves into the wild which very possibly will remain in circulation for the rest of their lives, and come back to haunt them. If they're eighteen, fine and good, but not fourteen.

Kids don't think about the extent of the consequences of their actions. That's why we don't let 14 year olds drive cars, for example. It is true that you can't prevent kids from doing things that have lifelong consequences, however taking reasonable steps to prevent and discourage such steps is just sensible.

That said, charging these kids with one of the biggest hot button crimes in the book makes a travesty of the purpose of the laws: to protect kids. Only a legalistic blockhead would do something like that. Now the notoriety will follow these girls to the end of their lives, which is in a way worse than the pictures.

The sensible and effective response is to simply meet with the parents of the children involved. That's a kind of lifelong consequence of a sort; they'll never be able to think back on the incident without burning with embarrassment. However, that's a healthy kind of discomfort. It wouldn't stem from feeling vulnerable now, but feeling smarter than they were then.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[bhtooefr]

Alternately, though, they could start an anti-politician movement, and change their notoriety from "those girls that got charged for making child porn... of themselves" to "those girls that died exercising their first and second amendment rights when they were gunned down for exercising those rights, and trying to topple the establishment."

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Those of you who actually had sex in highschool would understand my view point."

You're on /. which would make that approximately 0% of the population.

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of you who actually had sex in highschool would understand my view point.

You do realize you are on /., right? I detect a false premise here...

Re:Whats the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those of you who actually had sex in highschool would understand my view point.

You do realize where you're posting this, right?

Re:Whats the big deal?

[cyclomedia]

>They are releasing nude pictures of themselves into the wild which very possibly will remain in circulation for the rest of their lives

Indeed. We're riding the crest of a growing wave on a surfboard of digital progress. When the digital world is saturated with everyone's sex stories, photos and videos - as well as same with regards to drunken traffic cone stealing, marijuana smoking and general bone breaking jackassery - everything will be different to the way it is now.

It will no longer be scandalous for a celebrity to have a sex video leaked onto the net, and polititians will not be forced out of office for inhaling a spliff once or twice at college. The world will have moved on from it's ultra-victorian attitude to sex and will remove the blinkers that keep us somehow believing that the Queen never takes a shit.

This might even shrink the generation gap, for me it was making the connection between my own spliff smoking and my dad's Purple Haze, Jimmi Hendrix, Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin collection. Which i promptly, er, "inherited". Future parents will no longer be able to lie that "we didn't behave like that when we were your age" because of the digital evidence. They will be forced to engage their children in - shock horror - open conversations about sex, drugs and rock-n-roll.

The generations after that won't even need the threat of a digital outing to treat their children with honesty and respect, it will be the natural order of things. And the world will be a better place for it.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

"6 Pennsylvania Teens Face Child Porn Charges For Pics of Selves on"

On where? What site? Admit it ... you were hoping to find a link there, weren't you?

May I be the first Anonymous Coward to say

[Anonymous Coward]

pics or did not happen!

Re:May I be the first Anonymous Coward to say

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't you just ask the police for the pics. They should be evidence and as such public material. No?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[pxlmusic]

your sarcasm detector is broken.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Ethanol-fueled]

after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation against school policy and the photos were discovered at that time.

So whomever confiscated the phone didn't just turn it off and give it back after class, but the sick voyeuristic fuck actually rummaged though the phone's pictures, ran into the bathroom and beat off to it, then felt dirty and decided to call the cops to report CP?

What is up with all of the voyeurism lately? Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?

As has been said...

[xmarkd400x]

Send a picture message to the DA, police, school officials, and whomever else you wish to defame. They will all suddenly become owners of child porn. OOPS!

utter crap

[Loki_666]

Its now only a small step to being done for having photos of your own kids nude. Hell, ive event sent pics of my kids nude to my mum, so guessing i could also be done for distributing child porn.

Amazing.

And how is this different from girls flashing boys in the woods or stripping off at parties (yes, there were such parties when i was at school).

Its called life and growing up. Boys are interested in girls, girls are interested in boys, and sometimes even same gender likes same.

Mobile technologies just add an extra element to this and make it a bit easier to do for the kids. Also safer. Girl can take a pic in the privacy of her room and send it to boy who can whack one off in the privacy of his room. In my day there was always the risk of getting caught with the girl in the woods and getting an ear bashing from the local bobby or parents.

Re:utter crap

[serviscope_minor]

yes, there were such parties when i was at school

You went to a better school thasn me. :-(

Re:utter crap

[SuiteSisterMary]

Mobile technologies just add an extra element to this and make it a bit easier to do for the kids. Also safer. Girl can take a pic in the privacy of her room and send it to boy who can whack one off in the privacy of his room. In my day there was always the risk of getting caught with the girl in the woods and getting an ear bashing from the local bobby or parents.

Back in they day, if you took a picture of yourself all nekkid and pouty, you took it in to get developed. If you got away with that, the worst that would probably happen is that the developer would put a print in their Binder of Iniquity, and the person you gave it to might just pass it around, or make really crappy photocopies.

Take a digital picture of yourself, or Gods forbid a video, email it, and you might just be an Internet star within the week. It's happened before.

So yes, it's now a different beast.

Re:utter crap

[Loki_666]

;-) First sex at 13 (she was 15). Guess i should be locked up for the safety of children everywhere.

Yes, the parties were good, but it was usually the ugly girls stripped off first.... urgh!

Re:utter crap

[Suchetha]

at 13, there are *no* ugly girls

also at 14, 15, 16, 17.

at 18 there is booze..

lost it at 15 to a 19 yr old.. OMG i was *RAPED*

Re:utter crap

[Builder]

You went to a better school thasn me. :-(

Yep - I think we have sufficient evidence of that ;)

Re:utter crap

[gknoy]

Its now only a small step to being done for having photos of your own kids nude. Hell, ive event sent pics of my kids nude to my mum, so guessing i could also be done for distributing child porn.

Exactly. My wife and I will not take photographs or video of my son playing in the bathtub (at 12 months, it's pretty funny to watch him splash and play in the water), for fear that it might be used in some witch hunt later.

I remember going to my friend's house, and seeing baby pictures of him (and his siblings) in the bathtub, hanging on the bathroom wall. It never disturbed (or excited) me, and it never occurred to me that there would be anything wrong with it. (Maybe embarassing for your kids, hehe, to display them prominently like that, but that's it.) It's absolutely a tragedy that my wife and I can't make such keepsakes for preserving the memories of a precious time in our son's life, without fear of significant ruination of our lives at a later date.

Re:utter crap

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, ive event sent pics of my kids nude to my mum, so guessing i could also be done for distributing child porn.

You could well be arrested and charged. Other parents and relatives have been.

There was a film made documenting the trauma endured by one family whose photographer aunt took snaps of the kids in the bath (I forget the title). Prosecutors cropped and blew the images up to make these appear to be mainly about genitals.

Re:utter crap

[Loki_666]

Yup, the embarrassment factor is usually the killer. Usually when bringing a girlfriend home for the first time and mum bringing out the family photo album and saying "ooh, look at his little willy".... as if i was going to get a shag with the girl after this!!!

Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to ban vision. If you don't willingly poke out your own eyes, then you must be a child molester.

Re:Not good enough.

[JCSoRocks]

Can we just blind the lawmakers instead?

Re:Not good enough.

[mweather]

They're already blind.

Re:Not good enough.

[QRDeNameland]

Not nearly far enough. What we can now see with this epiphany is that all children are hiding their naked bodies under their clothes, and therefore can only be regarded as mobile child pornography factories. Obviously, only banning children entirely will stop this perverted scourge and allow us to finally achieve a healthy society.

Re:Not good enough.

[Tetsujin]

Not nearly far enough. What we can now see with this epiphany is that all children are hiding their naked bodies under their clothes, and therefore can only be regarded as mobile child pornography factories. Obviously, only banning children entirely will stop this perverted scourge and allow us to finally achieve a healthy society.

And then our children will finally be safe!

Oh, wait...

Re:Not good enough.

[Technician]

On a more serious note, when did mere nudity = porn? There are nude beaches, nudist colonies, clothing optional hotels, cruises, etc. I think someone may have crossed nudity with porn. Was there a sex act or adult involved?

Re:Not good enough.

[morcego]

Can we neuter them ? We don't want that kind of genes polluting our gene pool.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah any of these nudist sites that have been online for years feature girls of all ages in undress and its right out in the open, any google search pulls these sites up in large numbers. Why are those sites still up? They are not porn, just nude pictures. These girls images would be the same, and additionally they are not published in the public domain they are private images the public has no business or concern here.

Re:Not good enough.

[Forge]

Nudity is an objective measure (Is that a clitoris or acne at one end of a dimple?) while Porn is a subjective measure (Isn't double fisting really art?)

What should be done is to simply extend what already exists in common law (Jamaican, not US) for statutory rape to pornography. Specifically consent is a valid defense if the victim is the same age or older than the accused. Not only that when the accused is older the age gap in cases where consent is admitted is used to mitigate the sentence.
I.e. a 25 year old guy will spend years in prison for screwing his 15 year old "girlfriend". A 18 year old guy gets probation.

Apply that principle to child porn and you won't waste time prosecuting kids for pictures of themselves or their classmates.

Re:Not good enough.

[jythie]

It is comments like this that make me sad that slashdot moderation only goes up to +5.

Re:Not good enough.

[jythie]

As far as I can tell it came out of this weird collective fear parents have had after you started seeing two income households.
 
And keep in mind, all those things people claim are breeding grounds for pedophiles. Nudist colonies esp are having a really difficult time in the US over the last few decades.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot deaf and dumb.

Re:Not good enough.

[cayenne8]

I"m a little shocked too at the leap the level to trigger a crime has come to.

So now...simple nudity == porn? In this case a nude person under 18 is now considered child porn?

Ok..so, now, parents that take pics of their nude kids, not in sexual situations, are not manufacturers of child porn?

Hell, what about people that are nudists? I can't imagine they have many pictures of themselves, friends or family that have clothes on. Will we throw the book at them too?

Re:Not good enough.

[hedwards]

It's a tough problem, but I'm not really sure what purpose charging the girls, with manufacturing and distributing child porn really is. Yes it's bad to have those sorts of pictures made and distributed, but is it really productive to send children to juvie for taking photos of themselves?

I'm not really sure that this is the sort of crime that the lawmakers writing the legislation had in mind when they passed it.

Re:Not good enough.

[apoc.famine]

I've been shouting about this for some time. The best answer I have found is that the following chain happened:

We don't like child molesters, someone do something about them!
Laws are passed, people are happier.
Politicians need a rallying cry, and who can resist "I'm doing this for the Safety of the Children"?
Snowball begins...

When you're super-conservative, nudity=thinking forbidden thoughts=sin. Logical solution? Remove sources of nudity to prevent sin. As an added bonus, Think of the Children will garner votes.

It is ridiculously stupid. Ban nudity, and you ban most of the Renaissance painters. Those dirty, sinning pornographers.

Re:Not good enough.

[deathlyslow]

Unfortunately. Your jest is the sad truth to a lot of policy makers/enforcers.
They say justice is blind but it's now being stupid.

Re:Not good enough.

[The Moof]

Can we cut their ears off? They can still hear people yell "Think of the children!" while blind.

Re:Not good enough.

[LandDolphin]

Jump the gun a bit?

This was not mom and pop taking photos of their 3 year old in the bath tub. This was Teenage girls taking nude pictures for thier boyfrieds.male friends. The pictures they took would obviously fall under pornographic. They were sexual in nature.

Re:Not good enough.

[Fritz Benwalla]

You can't go after the children directly -- go after the enablers. I say we prosecute Baby Gap for selling encryption technology specifically designed to hide a child's nakedness from authorities.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that nudity == kiddy porn if subject is under the magic age of 18 (in the US).

With 14-17 year olds, its called kids being kids. Not kids being criminals about to go to prison.

I mean, what are the current punishments for what I did as a kid. I went beyond pictures, and did a "You show me yours, and I'll show you mine". I'm sure that is at least life in prison now, or possibly the death penalty. Seems reasonable, right?

Re:Not good enough.

[Technician]

When you're super-conservative, nudity=thinking forbidden thoughts=sin. Logical solution? Remove sources of nudity to prevent sin. As an added bonus, Think of the Children will garner votes.

I hope I don't get arrested for the back issues of National Geographic in my bookcase. Check issues from the 1950's and 1960's where photos of natives in far away places often included nude children playing.

Re:Not good enough.

[KermodeBear]

Not sure what the parent is modded as funny. It isn't funny at all.

Re:Not good enough.

[Hordeking]

When you're super-conservative, nudity=thinking forbidden thoughts=sin. Logical solution? Remove sources of nudity to prevent sin. As an added bonus, Think of the Children will garner votes.

I'm pretty right wing conservative, and I don't agree with your observation. The school should have given those kids a good, stern talking-to, maybe detention (or some non-legal-record-generating, appropriate punishment) for their actions, and probably contacted their parents.

I quite resent this sort of behavior on the part of our various bureaucracies.

Also, how does one charge a child with possession and/or manufacturing of child porn? As individuals with no (legal) ability to consent, shouldn't they be considered victims of the crime?

Re:Not good enough.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

What should be done is to simply extend what already exists in common law (Jamaican, not US) for statutory rape to pornography.

The main difference is that sex takes place over a finite period. Pictures last forever.

Re:Not good enough.

[mea37]

"I'm not really sure that this is the sort of crime that the lawmakers writing the legislation had in mind when they passed it."

Probably true. I suspect we're seeing some combination of two things.

First, people may legitimately be struggling to interpret a complex and arguably vague law that addresses a lot of sensitive issues. The executive branch may not understand whether a given picture meets the law's definition of child pornography. Maybe they confidently believe, rightly or wrongly, that it does, and that it is their duty to pursue the case. Even if the legislature didn't intend this act to qualify, they may have written the law too broadly for their real intent.

Second, there may be people rationalizing a fit between the laws on the books and the activities they want to prohibit - a practice given considerable backing in the Drew "hacking" case not long ago.

Either way, that's what the judicial branch is for -- to interpret the law and apply it to the facts of the specific case as determined at trial. It's not ideal; the system will never be perfect. These kids may be dragged through the mud only to be acquitted in the end; and if that's how it goes, we would hope that as the law becomes better understood (or gets rewritten/replaced with something more clear), the charges raised should come into increased alignment with what the law says. The executive branch shouldn't knowingly misinterpret the law, just as the legislative shouldn't knowingly pass unconstitutional laws; but that doesn't mean that the executive should be required to perform the full function of the judicial before acting.

Re:Not good enough.

[nstlgc]

From your post I understand that when a girl takes a picture of herself, sends it to a boy, and the timing is right, it's ok for the boy to be charged? :/

Re:Not good enough.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I really don't like this sort of thing being called child porn or the people looking at this stuff pedophiles. The girls where 14 and 15, that is not a child. Perhaps underage for that sort of thing but its not child porn. They are biologically much more a woman than a girl. (my friends daughter had C boobs at 13...)

Re:Not good enough.

[cayenne8]

"This was not mom and pop taking photos of their 3 year old in the bath tub. This was Teenage girls taking nude pictures for thier boyfrieds.male friends. The pictures they took would obviously fall under pornographic. They were sexual in nature."

Not really, the law treats all child porn as ANYONE imaged in a sexual way under the age or 18...that is the 3yr just as it is the 16 yr old. There are no layers of child porn.

That being said...and of course I've not seen the pics, but, if it was a simple nude self portrait, no in the past, that was not considered porn. The test used to be if it was in an overt sexual nature...like getting fucked, or even maybe a masturbatory pose, but, a simple nude pic of even under age of 18 kids was not in the past considered child porn. Only in recent years has this started to change, and yes, the same law that can prosecute these kids can indeed prosecute parents of 3 yr olds. It IS the very same law...and it is being applied possibly to simple nudes. Hell, there are art magazines in your local library with nudes of people well under age of 18, that in the past have not been labeled as child porn. Heck, until recently, album covers by Blind Faith and the Scorpions were not considered child porn...until recently with this mindset that we have to 'think of the children'.

Re:Not good enough.

[Fastolfe]

I think it should depend on the intent of the photograph. Mere candid pictures of someone that happens to be nude shouldn't be porn unless you're using it to get off (or help someone else get off). Given that these girls are not at a nude beach or nudist colony, and are sending these pictures to boys from school, I think it's pretty clear why they're doing it, and IMO, that makes it porn.

But I completely agree that this is all purely subjective and stupid.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

so does it mean that if two minors has sex .. legal their both child molesters? i mean .. ire meber being 16 .. and eating that one thing we used to eat when we were kids ... thats what being 16 is all about!! GIRLS!and i mean cmon.. what 16 year old guy wouldnt want naked pictures of his 16 year old girlfriend ... there kids .. I just dont see how its child pornography if they are the same age ..

btw .. im too lazy to sign in

- WINDOWS_NT

Re:Not good enough.

[oldspewey]

If only there were some way to force all girls and women to wear some kind of head-to-toe covering that conceals any hint of shape or form. Even catching sight of a female face might induce men to think impure thoughts, so it's probably best if only the eyes are visible through some sort of slit in a veil.

Enforcement of this dress code might be a problem though ... so perhaps there is some way to make it a religious requirement that women be completely covered this way ... maybe by proclaiming that it is the will of God.

Naaaahhhh ... that would probably never work ...

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

even if you are blind you can still be prosecuted - time to check that family photo album.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

This concerns me too. My bathroom walls are covered with nude pictures of my children (and nieces and nephews) in the bathtub. All of these photos were taken when they were babies (under 12 months old), and all were carefully taken so as to insure their private areas were covered. Does this mean my bathroom is full of child porn?

Re:Not good enough.

[Adriax]

Reword it.
Once we have banned all children, there will be no children in unsafe situations. We will finally achieve a perfect 0 incident rate on all dangers to children.

Re:Not good enough.

[Stormwatcheagle]

so .. ire meber being 16 .. and eating that one thing we used to eat when we were kids ... thats what being 16 is all about!!

...I fail to see what bearing fruit roll-ups have on this conversation.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about porn.....a little creepy maybe.

Re:Not good enough.

[Chyeld]

Intent.

That is the only thing the prosecution needs to prove.

What was the intent of the photo? It was a photo between 'lovers'. I don't think it'd be hard for them to prove the intent was salacious.

And once they do that the deed is done. It could be a picture of your fat Uncle Eddie in a mouse suit when he was 8, it doesn't matter. It's considered child porn.

The outrage here is that the people being charged are also the subjects of the photos. Charging a minor with creating child porn when taking pictures of themselves is all sorts of "stupid". Considering the photos themselves pornographic isn't.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it bad to have these particular sort of photos?

I'd have to agree with Bertrand Russell, that when nudity happens, no big deal should be made about it. It should be treated as normal.

If there is an issue with naked photos of people under 18, it would be with adults taking the photos of perverted reasons, or being into child pornography doing whatever it is they do.

Naked photos are not a problem as far as I'm concerned, no fuss should be made about this, especially not as big a fuss as has been made here.

Re:Not good enough.

[Glimmerdark]

in a different direction. the pictures were discovered by the school administration confiscating one of the male's cellphones. what then gave them the right to go poking around at the data on the phone? if the student was using a phone during class time, i can understand taking it away. but i don't see how that allows an invasion of privacy? what if we were talking about a laptop instead of a cellphone. does the school have the right to go through all that data as well? access to bank information (that some 16-17 year old's could have) going through old emails, etc. with today's cell phone capabilities, in many ways there isn't a difference between what you store on your laptop and your phone.

Re:Not good enough.

[immcintosh]

Keep in mind, porn is generally a subset of nude, and I haven't seen any reporting on what sort of nude exactly these pictures actually are. The fact that they were taken by teenage girls to show to their boyfriends, though, leads me to think it might not be as absurd as you think...

Or, to qualify that, it's certainly absurd because of the notion that you can be guilty of autopornographical crimes. The next logical extension--and this is absolutely the logical corollary of this current farce--would be to accuse teens who masturbate of child molestation. In fact, that would be a good reductio argument against the current charges if our legal system gave any thought to actual logic (it doesn't).

Re:Not good enough.

[necro81]

In the case of children, there is little (legal) separation between nude art and pornography, or personal expression (as these girls were apparently doing) and pornography. The separation is particularly small when it is film or video of an actual child, as opposed to those ridiculous peeing cherub fountains you see at garden stores.

One consideration when determining if the nudity is pornographic is the intent - is it meant to be sexually provocative, to turn you on? I'm guessing that these girls weren't sending high-art self portraits to these boys; they were sending sexually-intended images. I think it's reasonable to assume, too, that these boys weren't admiring these pictures as one would do with portraits in a gallery.

Based just on these two standards, it is reasonable to assume that these images meet the legal definition of child pornography, at least enough to charge someone and have a trial.

Whether a child taking self portraits makes them a child pornographer is, in my mind at least, a more dubious argument. I think the possession/distributing charge for the boys could hold up, though there may be some leeway as they are minors. When two minors have sex, they (usually) aren't charged with statutory rape.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymusing]

On a more serious note, when did mere nudity = porn? There are nude beaches, nudist colonies, clothing optional hotels, cruises, etc. I think someone may have crossed nudity with porn. Was there a sex act or adult involved?

For what it's worth... I was in art school years ago, and we painted and illustrated nude models. One of my painting professors said that if a painting of a nude aroused him, he knew it was done well. And this was a rather upstanding Christian man, married with several children, who I know did not sleep around with the coeds (really -- some of my fellow students hit on him constantly and got nowhere).

Re:Not good enough.

[Animaether]

no, but you do waste time prosecuting, say, teachers who receive such pornographic pictures from students themselves and subsequently get reported by that/another student. The student may have been consenting (having taken and sent the picture themselves), but it's still 'statutory child pornography possession' as far as the teacher goes under what you seem to propose.

The entire problem in the article hinges on the fact that these kids took and sent these pictures themselves, apparently* out of free will without coercion of any kind. * I do say 'apparently' - perhaps they felt 'peer pressure' or something - as from the article it seems likely these girls just thought it'd be fun to send their boyfriends kinky pictures.
If they hadn't taken them themselves and/or hadn't sent them themselves, then the laws would be far more cut and wouldn't be much of a news topic except in local outlets.

Re:Not good enough.

[Opportunist]

Nudity is considered porn if it is nudity for the sake of provoking sexual thoughts. Yes, porn crimes are thought crimes, who would have thought?

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I can remember seeing that sort of thing in NatGeos from the 80s. Before I was even a teenager. I didn't think there was anything wrong with that -- it's not like I was interested in *adult* women then, and I don't believe it would be appropriate for someone that age to be interested in someone more than twice as old.

The real problem here is these kids aren't just going to get a slap on the wrists. Even if they're only sentenced to community service, registering as a sexual predator is some seriously bad shit that will fuck their lives up badly.

Re:Not good enough.

[Opportunist]

So jailing kids is thinking of them?

Please, don't think of my children. I don't have any, but I wouldn't want you to think of them. I'd rather not know where my kids are than knowing they're behind bars for nothing.

Re:Not good enough.

[Haganah]

Actually, according to Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan of Saudi Arabia, two eyes is too immodest. Therefore, women should cover up all but one eye.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Measured, did you?

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not nearly far enough. What we can now see with this epiphany is that all children are hiding their naked bodies under their clothes, and therefore can only be regarded as mobile child pornography factories. Obviously, only banning children entirely will stop this perverted scourge and allow us to finally achieve a healthy society.

I dont think this should be rated as "Funny" but more Informative, at what point will child porn stop being used for political agendas, and in this case, condemming children for being...well children! what QRDeNameland said is the truth, the only way to get rid of child porn is to "banning children entirely".

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon because I moderated.

this is the most sensible response I have seen.

This is not kids sending naked pictures of themselves to their friend chester that they met on myspace last week.

Its not even uncle no pockets collecting naked pictures of little kids.

this is teenagers who are biologically adults, exploring their sexuality through the methods that they have. If not via a text message, then in "seven minutes of heaven" or a game of spin the bottle. When I was growing up it was sneaking off in the woods to make out.

Now that legal action has been taken these kids who were engaged in a perfectly natural activity and interactions between teens(not that I am endorsing teenage sexual activity, that's up to the parents and the minors involved) are now in a very real danger of being labeled sex offenders which is FAR more damaging that any sort of "mental anguish" they may have suffered by engaging in and observing those pictures.

Lastly as the parent mentioned but really didn't commit to, I think this should have been handed over to the parents of the minors involved. If anyone is fit to determine whether or not this something to involve the authorities in it is the parents.

Lastly, what about the privacy violation. Is it a standard procedure to take a students cellphone and then perform forensic analysis? (forensic analysis could be as simple as checking the phone records and pictures contained on the phone). What if it was the minors laptop? I'm not trying to confuse the issue, just wondering how confiscating a phone entitles the administration of the school to root around in the phone.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing more you can leave behind
So forget about seeing, get into your mind
Everything looks better when the world is black
Grab a fork, make the first attack

Lights out!
Poke poke, poke your eyes out
Lights out!
Put a pen in your hand, poke your eyes out

I can't see too well, what's it all about?
Well I dunno man, did you poke your eyes out?
Sure thing, I did it today, startin' to get hip to the lights out way

Lights out!
Poke poke, poke your eyes out
Lights out!
Put yourself on the floor, roll all about

If you poke too far you reach the front of your brain
Fork in your mind can drive you insane!
Don't worry much, just let it rip, today your eyeballs do the lights out trip

Lights out!
Put a pen in your hand, poke your eyes out
Lights out!
Poke poke, poke your eyes out
Lights out!
Put an ax in your head, poke your eyes out!

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so it's only porn if you get off on it? You want to make masturbation illegal?

I don't know about you, but even clear cut, no question, child porn pictures do not arouse me. If I were locked in a room with lube and a giant stack of child porn, I'd just set the porn on fire, because fire's more of a turn on to me.

Re:Not good enough.

[mpeskett]

Also, how does one charge a child with possession and/or manufacturing of child porn? As individuals with no (legal) ability to consent, shouldn't they be considered victims of the crime?

This is the crazy thing about the cases (I've heard of much the same thing happening before) where minors get accused of making/distributing child porn in the form of pictures of themselves naked.

Either they're old enough to be legally responsible for themselves, and hence it isn't child pornography, or they aren't old enough, in which case they can't be considered to be the perpetrator.

They can't cut it both ways and say that these kids (children, young adults, whatever) were simultaneously old enough to be responsible and yet too young to give consent... well, maybe they can, they've brought this case after all, so clearly they can try... but they shouldn't be able to.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not charging only the girls?

It's not like the boys could have initiated the receipt of these pictures on their cellphones.

They have no control over what someone sends them and perhaps they don't know how to delete child pr0n inadvertently sent to their phones instead of the girls' parents phones. A simple speed dial mistake.

Had the girls sent the pictures to their parents, would the parents be charged?

What if they sent them to the DA? Or to the judge?

This sounds like a DA with an axe to grind to get re-elected for "protecting the children" and defending some election campaign promise to have no tolerance for sex offenders.

Welcome to the absurdity of zero-tolerance policies.

Re:Not good enough.

[King_TJ]

I don't think I'd even call the Jamaican law particularly "just" (though probably an improvement over what we're doing here in the US right now).

Frankly, I think we currently have a double-standard in American society. We keep pushing kids to hurry up and become "little adults". (They're only 5 or 6 when they start playing with those Bratz dolls that are dressed up like little prostitutes or something. All the music "idols" for the kids fit certain stereotypes of what we're all supposed to find "sexy". They even sell makeup kits for little kids.) So yes, by the time they're 13, 14 or 15, they're already well aware that their bodies have a sexual attraction to guys -- and some of them want to start experimenting with that new-found discovery.

So we create this situation, and THEN we want to completely reverse the inevitable from happening by making it all illegal?

Personally, I think the "age of consent" needs to be dropped by a few years, especially considering how many countries of the world have it set at a lower age already. At the same time, we could probably stand to re-think some of our idea of "children's entertainment" if we're really so concerned about our kids getting sexually involved with people at too young an age.

Re:Not good enough.

[jZnat]

Most states in the US have the age of consent set at 16 or 17. Many more have laws regarding small age differences not being illegal. What you're looking for is pornographic laws.

Re:Not good enough.

[gfxguy]

So what happens when one of these kids is feeling vindictive towards the teacher that just gave themgave me an 'F'" as if you were an A student) and they send the photo to the teachers phone while it's tucked away during school hours, immediately report it, and get the teacher arrested... "he said he'd give me an A if I sent him this picture."

Re:Not good enough.

[gregbot9000]

It's a tough problem,

No it isn't. It is a very simple one, charge based on harm. child porn=abuse, abuse=harm, harm=jail.

Yes it's bad to have those sorts of pictures made and distributed,

Again, no it isn't. That's your opinion. It isn't the job of the state to enforce your moral opinion. These were pictures made by individuals of their own volition. Prosecuting them in anyway is a gross violation of their most basic liberties.

I'm not really sure that this is the sort of crime that the lawmakers writing the legislation had in mind when they passed it

This is exactly the kind of prosecution they hoped for. The goal of laws like this is to control human behavior that certain groups dislike, namely pornography and sexuality. it has very little to actually do with CP. They just come through the back door riding the CP train and started bending the law as they always wanted to. They don't feel that people can make decisions for themselves.

You shouldn't look at the law as a means to enforce what is "right" and "wrong" from a moral stance, but as a means of protecting peoples rights. If you don't, more laws like this will come out of the woodwork.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

(my friends daughter had C boobs at 13...)

Sweet, you got any pics?

Re:Not good enough.

[Thiez]

> Mere candid pictures of someone that happens to be nude shouldn't be porn unless you're using it to get off (or help someone else get off).

That's odd. So if someone were to find a perfectly legal picture of some naked teenager on the intertubes, download it, and jerk off to it, suddenly that person would be in possession of child pornography? What you are saying is, it is possible for someone to 'create' child porn from legal pictures by being in a certain state of mind?

Re:Not good enough.

[Thiez]

> I think the possession/distributing charge for the boys could hold up, though there may be some leeway as they are minors.

Double standard much? Are you seriously suggesting that when an underage girl makes a picture of herself, she is not a child pornographer, but when she gives that picture to a boy, he is suddenly a pervert in possession of child pornography (that has no creater because the girl is not a child pornographer)?

Re:Not good enough.

[SCHecklerX]

And, they were taken by the girls themselves. Who was being exploited here? Isn't that the point of the laws, to deal with the sick fucks who exploit children? Not to mention 15yo girls are *JAILBAIT* not CP.

A law that can be used so easily to prosecute somebody for the wrong reasons needs to be abolished.

Re:Not good enough.

[Thiez]

Are you feeling up that picture, you pervy blind man?!

Re:Not good enough.

[jeffasselin]

Ok..so, now, parents that take pics of their nude kids, not in sexual situations, are not manufacturers of child porn?

Yes, at least according to some people. You haven't heard of heard of such cases of parents being accused of child pornography because they had sent pictures of themselves with their naked children in the bathtub to be developed?

The charges were dropped after some outcry, but the accusations were raised nevertheless.

The child pornography FUD is just a new campaign to give more power to those who would exploit us. After the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, now comes the War on Child Pornography. When everyone is a criminal, there is no need to fabricate evidence to imprison you because they don't like what you're saying or doing.

Re:Not good enough.

[gregbot9000]

You see, in the name of protecting children we have created a situation where they have no rights, none. They can't consent, or create contracts, they must have permits to get work, they aren't allowed after dark. Segregation blacks had more liberties. Some 16 year old's do have bank info, and go to college, and work, and statistically the average age that people lose their virginity is 14. I don't know when the last time you were in an US highschool, but you have no rights, and they make damn sure to ingrain this into you. We wonder why our nation is going to pot? I look at the 4 year forced indoctrination the government runs to teach people not how to think critically, but that they rule you. Its no surprise that they now feel they own your naked body.

Re:Not good enough.

[King_TJ]

Yeah, I realize my post didn't address the pornography-related laws, which are another whole issue.

I'm just saying, in general, I think we've got things all wrong with the ages we've placed on our laws, and lack of exceptions.

(EG. If you require a person to be at least 18 to make pornography, WHY is that the case? I *think* it's to ensure that adults aren't taking advantage of children who aren't mature enough to make a fully informed decision about how "wise" it is to participate. If that's true, then it makes NO sense to punish a teen who takes their OWN photos and distributes them for FREE. There's no profit motive involved, or adult party who stands to profit from the effort.)

Re:Not good enough.

[innerweb]

shouldn't be porn unless you're using it to get off

And here lies the heart of the issue. It does not matter how innocent the reasons for taking the pictures might possibly be, all that matters is that some one else might be encouraged to perform a predatory act against children by viewing the pictures. It is the same type of argument that led to prohibition, only I do not believe there is an overwhelming majority of adults that believe the law is wrong. Making these images illegal is not due to the idea that the images themselves are harmful, only that the images might encourage someone else to harm a child after viewing them. It is truly the same idea behind the desire to ban pornography in general. Viewing the material causes the person viewing to see the subjects of the image in a less human standing and therefore encourages the subjects to be treated with indifference and made more vulnerable to predatory acts. It has been suggested that pedophiles can not help what they do and that merely viewing material will make them want to act out on their desires.

InnerWeb

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

That being said...and of course I've not seen the pics, but, if it was a simple nude self portrait, no in the past, that was not considered porn. The test used to be if it was in an overt sexual nature...

I live in PA, and this case is a hot button issue. I heard an attorney discussing it on a talk-radio show (he's a defense attorney) and apparently this is a two fold problem. One, you have a prosecutor from a small town with higher political aspirations. Two, the law in PA is ambiguous with regard to what constitutes 'sexual' nature of photographs.

Personally, this is a matter for the parents to handle, not the courts. I know what I personally would do if my daughter or son got caught in the middle of this mess. If they were prosecuted, of course I would hire a good lawyer for them because the prosecution is ridiculous. Especially considering the fact that it's NOT illegal for them to engage in sexual activity.

Re:Not good enough.

[tmosley]

And they're already dumb, so we'd have a trifecta!

Re:Not good enough.

[fugue]

The whole foundation of our legal system is this: write a law, and then pay lawyers shitloads of money to debate exactly what the law says. Where in there do you see anything about trying to make sure that the law supports justice?

Re:Not good enough.

[iamhassi]

"They're already blind."

Unfortunately not, otherwise they couldn't see the photos.

my gf says she should be in jail and so should her teenage sister. According to her, 90% of teenage girls with cellphones would be in jail if authorities looked at their phones.

Can you imagine the conversation with police being a 15 yr old girl and being "caught" with photos of yourself?

cop: YOU'RE UNDER ARREST FOR KIDDIE PORN!
girl: huh? what porn? oh, yeah that's me, i sent it to my bf
cop: YOU'RE UNDER ARREST
girl: what? for what? that's me, i took that photo, i took a photo of myself
cop: that's right, and you're under arrest
girl: why? I don't think you understand: I took a photo of MYSELF, I am a teenage girl, I took a photo of myself with my phone, how is that "kiddie porn"?
cop: so you admit to talking naked photos teenage girls? I have to remind you anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of law
girl: What?! *shocked* ... but... I... nvmd...

This is the most asine thing I've ever heard, but I don't think the laws will change until:
A) the girls become lawmakers and politicians in 10 yrs
b) lawmakers look at their daughter's phone and find the nude photos of their *own* daughters

I can't believe the legal system is taking normal teens and turning them into criminal sex offenders. For the rest of their lives these girls will be considered "sex offenders", won't be able to live near schools, their name, address and police photos will be listed online for all to see, and will not be able to get a job that works with children and will probably be denied many jobs because they are "sex offenders", lumped in the same category as rapists. Even if someday the laws are reversed and they're cleared of all charges it'll still follow them, searches online will probably pick up their names for many years.

Child pornography laws were put in place to prevent dirty old men from offering little children candy in exchange for getting naked for photos. Unfortunately the laws were worded very poorly and now *anyone*, including the children taking photos of themselves, are being treated like dirty old men. They're martyrs. The laws need to be re-written so it only applies to the dirty old men taking the photos, not the child that takes photos of themselves or the men that downloads a photo of a girl and finds out later the girl was 17 and not 18 and goes to jail, similar to marijuana laws in many states, where police won't even enforce laws saying to arrest offenders with less than an ounce of marijuana

And don't even get me started how stupid it is we as Americans teach our children that the nude body is horrible and disgusting and should be hidden but showing people being murdered and chopped into pieces on TV and video games is fine. A teen just got 36 yrs for murder for doing what he saw on mortal kombat, if he was re-enacting nudity videos instead of violent video games he probably wouldn't be in jail.

If I was one of those girls I think I'd move to another country and change my name.

Re:Not good enough.

[PachmanP]

Bingo! It's a case of purposely confusing teen sex with child sex. Child sex is a reasonable taboo because they aren't sexually mature, so there's nothing really natural about it. This taboo on teen sex on the other hand is pretty screwy. It is somehow wrong to be interested in a sexually mature female. For most of human history these "kids" would be married off and be about ready to pop out the first baby.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's even worse than this. The subjects don't even have to be under age. They just have to look underage (whatever that means). The absurd reasoning is that anything a model who "looks" underage might encourage prurient interest in children.

So, now, anything that "might" encourage prurient interest in children is kiddie porn.

Know what? I'm a million times more likely to sodomize my eight year old son if these kids are prosecuted. Prosecute them and you're guilty of producing child porn, 1,000,000*0=0 being over your heads, clearly up the DA's ass.

As for "snapping", it's only crazy if done on the spur of the moment with no forethought under what conditions one will fight back with deadly force.

I know damn well the conditions under which I will start killing police and anyone who does not kill them with me, and one of them is being harassed for exercising my right of free speech to criticize this insanity.

Re:Not good enough.

[e-Flex]

Isn't the bad in child pornography the very fact that a child is forced to something of which he/she can't consent to based on their low age, not the fact that someone later might get aroused by said picture? Were they forced to take these?

Re:Not good enough.

[Hatta]

What should be done is to simply extend what already exists in common law (Jamaican, not US) for statutory rape to pornography. Specifically consent is a valid defense if the victim is the same age or older than the accused. Not only that when the accused is older the age gap in cases where consent is admitted is used to mitigate the sentence.
I.e. a 25 year old guy will spend years in prison for screwing his 15 year old "girlfriend". A 18 year old guy gets probation.

No. This is wrong. Either a person is able to consent to sex, or they are not. If that person can consent to sex with an 18 year old partner, they are able to consent to sex with a 50 year old partner. Charging either individual differently is nothing less than age discrimination. Just because you think it's gross for a 15 year old to fuck a 50 year old doesn't mean anyone should go to jail over it.

Of course, none of this counts if any sort of coercion.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Considering the photos themselves pornographic isn't stupid.

Oh yes it is, and so are you.

You aren't a lawyer, and you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

I am a lawyer, and I am weary of idiots like you thinking they know how to interpret the law.

Re:Not good enough.

[Hatta]

No it isn't. It is a very simple one, charge based on harm. child porn=abuse, abuse=harm, harm=jail.

The tough problem is getting that principle turned into law. You'll have to repeal the laws against statutory rape, drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc, etc.

Re:Not good enough.

[Cowmonaut]

Actually there was a separate one for the Scorpions album you are referring to, at least in England and Germany and a few other places in Europe. Granted this is a US case but still. This is a law based on morality, and I think most people the world over agree its a total BS case in this instance. At least the people that think pre-marital intercourse and adult pornography is okay.

Re:Not good enough.

[jythie]

As the population ages, the idea of what is a 'child' keeps going up too. I hear people in their 40s talking about teenagers as 'kids', then people in their 70s talking about a 25 year old as 'babies'.
 
So maybe 20-30 years ago a 14 or 15 year old was ready to be an adult. Now it's a 21-25 year old who is ready to be an 'adult'. Slowly that is shifting as I hear more people talk about college age people as still being children and should have reduced rights.
 
At this point, what is adult in biological terms and social terms are WAY out of sync. In the wild humans would be breeding in early teens.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex also has far more profound physical and psychological impacts on people than pictures. What you're proposing is making it illegal to look at something you can do.

Fucking retard.

Re:Not good enough.

[jbolden]

First off they can be adjudicated a delinquent. Also with respect to serious felonies they can often be tried as adults.

In the case the girls perpetrated the crime. They manufactured and distributed photographs of themselves.

Don't get me wrong this is stupid. It comes from a far too liberal definition of child porn for one thing.

Re:Not good enough.

[daedae]

That's kind of why it says in TFA (which I'm "sure" you read) that it's overkill. This was on CNN a few days ago and the commentary went something like "this is obviously somewhat heavy-handed, and not really what the law is about, but if you want to punish people to try to put a stop to the activity you use the tools you have." The interesting difference between the MSNBC article and the CNN commentary though is the MSNBC article indicates the involved teens will have to register as sex offenders (another law which is somewhat abused), while the CNN commentary said since they're minors it wouldn't have any long-term negative repercussions.

Re:Not good enough.

[necro81]

One can argue the same distinction between the person who has or uses the gun to commit murder and the person who manufactured it. A person is not always responsible for what others do with their creations.

If it makes you feel better, one could argue a distribution charge for the girls involved. But I would not argue that taking and having pictures of oneself, even a young girl in nude provocative poses, makes that same person a child pornographer.

Re:Not good enough.

[stry_cat]

It's already happened before (back when you still used film in cameras). Some folks took pictures of their kid in the tub just playing with some kid's toys.

The person at the place that developed the pictures (fox photo I think), call the police and I believe the parents ended up with jail time and had their kid taken from them.

Re:Not good enough.

[Chyeld]

Actually the argument most often used against child porn is that it 'encourages the abuse of children', this often allows 'them' to go after even non-photographic items such as drawings or computer renderings.

Similar to how regular porn is gone after not because it was 'non consensual' but because it 'encourages immoral behavior'.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our children will be safe from themselves?
At this rate mirrors will be illegal soon.

Re:Not good enough.

[couchslug]

No child should do anything sexual without benefit of clergy.

Re:Not good enough.

[Forge]

People lie to get innocent people prosecuted. It's a fact of life. That's why they invented cross examination, and require corroborating evidence. It's not a perfect system by any stretch and has even led to innocent people being executed (my main objection to capital punishment is there is often no way to remedy a serious mistake when you discover it.)

Even so, this is what we have. I remember a case where a man was convicted of rape and his conviction was overturned when it was brought to the attention of the appeal's court that the "victim" admitted in court that there was no force of any kind, she agreed to have sex for a particular price and then the guy ran out on his bill.

Dose this mean we should abandon the charge of rape? No. It just means we should be diligent in prosecuting where a person suffers as a result of the acts of another, so as to only punish people who actually did harm. We should also pay attention to those situations where harm has not been done and change laws as needed to avoid prosecution in those situations.

Re:Not good enough.

[ultranova]

No it isn't. It is a very simple one, charge based on harm. child porn=abuse, abuse=harm, harm=jail.

Actually no, it isn't at all simple. For example, if some pedophile masturbates to pictures of me in a bath as a baby, he's clearly finding them sexually exciting, and thus pornographic, yet I was not harmed in the least by either them being taken or by his activities about them later. And as this case shows, since the law defines everything under 18 as "child pornography", and since teenagers under this are already sexually aware and often active, we get to the situation where laws that were presumably intended to protect kids from predators are used against people interacting with their peers, or even photographing themselves.

As an end result, we have laws based on oversimplification of someone's wistful thoughts about reality where everyone under 18 is a "pure, innocent child" and things like "pornography" can be defined. Such a world has never existed and will never exist, yet we're enforcing laws based on it and harming the very people they were supposed to protect in the process.

Of course I'm making a rather huge assumption here: that the lawmaker was merely incompetent, rather than outright malevolent. However, my more cynical side agrees with your assessment that this is all going according to their will...

You shouldn't look at the law as a means to enforce what is "right" and "wrong" from a moral stance, but as a means of protecting peoples rights. If you don't, more laws like this will come out of the woodwork.

That won't work. That standard is just ripe for abuse than the standard of right and wrong. Once upon a time, when women were struggling for a vote, one of the arguments against it was that it would "sully" them with politics, thus violating their "right" to be pure. This would simply lead to similar arguments used to justify abuse, all in the name of protecting the victim of course.

You can't come up with any kind of principle that power-hungry people couldn't twist to serve as an excuse to lord it over other people. It's just not possible.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are biologically much more a woman than a girl. (my friends daughter had C boobs at 13...)

Pics or it's not true!

Re:Not good enough.

[Roachgod]

on the whole, those all sound like great ideas.

Re:Not good enough.

[Miseph]

I've actually seen a story about a guy who's on the sex offender registry in Texas because when he was 18 he and his girlfriend, who was 16 (can't remember the exact age, and it doesn't much matter) at the time were a long term relationship and having sex. She got into a fight with her mother, who in a moment of stupidity called the cops and reported that he was committing statutory rape... not to cause trouble for him, but to "punish" her daughter for something totally unrelated. the DA wouldn't drop the charges, even after everyone involved expressed that there was nothing actually wrong and that pursuing such criminal charges would just ruin his life for no reason. So now he's married to his "victim", with the full blessings of her parents, hasn't committed any crimes of any nature, but still has to deal with being registered sex offender for the rest of his life.

Kind of makes you wonder how these people sleep at night, doesn't it?

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

~300,000 years of evolution says a 25+ year old sleeping with a 15,14 or sexually mature 13 year old girl is natural.

Re:Not good enough.

[Eudial]

Since when have they had balls? (let alone a spine?)

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

The legal system does not define nor recognize a difference between the 4chanisms 'jailbait' and 'cp'.

Re:Not good enough.

[celle]

You forget that in this country we ignore laws that are on the books all the time. In many places there are speeding laws from the 1920s when the limit was still 15mph. They are still valid just not enforced. Its amazing that we deny kids all the freedoms that adults have, under the constitution they actually have them, and then we charge them with adult violations for doing things that are actually legal as adults. Just because some puritan prosecutor/lawmaker is in office shouldn't shift how laws are interpreted. I hope the kid/parents challenge on discrimination which is what it is. Let's not forget the idiot lawmakers who passed these crappy "for the children" laws that are now harrassing children.

Treat this as the kid to kid garbage that it is, There's no adults, well except the cops and school adminstrators (should they be charged too?), involved so I don't see how its child porn anyway. There's alot more out there to worry about than kids new version of "you show me your wee-wee and i'll show you mine". Any prosecutor that punishes for this, after all he probably did it too, should be run out on a rail. I won't get into what we should do to lawmakers wasting public time and money on this.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah the crime level is THAT low... I like how it's expressed in Perry Bible Fellowship webcomic.

Re:Not good enough.

[homes32]

let not forget Nirvana's Nevermind. how many of us should be thrown in the lockup or owning that disc, and the stores prosecuted for distribution?

Re:Not good enough.

[Obermeister]

I have my own theory. It's all about the Benjamins. It's not about protecting people, it's about giving the system lots of money. The parents of these kids will now each need to retain the services of lawyers to try and minimize the unspeakable harms the state will now attempt to do to their lives. If they can't afford that, then they get to go to jail and employ lots of other people in the "justice system".

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of a Kids Next Door episode where the government builds safety robots to remove any sort of harm from children, which ends up having the robots wrapping kids in bubblewrap and killing adults in the process.

Re:Not good enough.

[Schadrach]

Of course they are the victims being innocent teenaged girls and all, but since the girls did take the pictures, they are also the perpetrators of this horrible crime. =)

Re:Not good enough.

[bytesex]

Yes, but proving intent to arouse is easy - it only takes a testimony, proving 'arousingness' is also easy - it only requires somebody declaring that they were aroused, but proving 'encouraging further abuse of children' seems wholly impossible. I mean, how you're gonna do that ?

Re:Not good enough.

[thtrgremlin]

This is where statute law comes in. The intent of a law is very important. Even though the prosecutor / DA really wants to make an example out of these kids, any lawyer worth his weight in water should be able to show this was not the intent of the law.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>acne at one end of a dimple

Thanks for that. I'll never look at close-ups the same again. :(

Re:Not good enough.

[Thiez]

> But I would not argue that taking and having pictures of oneself, even a young girl in nude provocative poses, makes that same person a child pornographer.

Could that be because you associate being a child pornographer with being a criminal? Surely if someone produces material that is considered child pornography this makes that person a child pornographer, by definition?

The problem is that the law appears not consider the circumstances under which the child pornography is made. Of course, there are some advantages to this approach, such as eliminating the need to prove that the child was harmed by the pornographer ("I didn't traumatize this homeless girl, she was like this when I found her"), but also introduces some problems such as the one that triggered this whole discussion (being abused by yourself?) :)

Re:Not good enough.

[thtrgremlin]

Ha ha ha. The only thing funnier than that was the fact that you got moderated all +4 insightful rather than funny.

Re:Not good enough.

[samriel]

Who was being exploited here? Isn't that the point of the laws, to deal with the sick fucks who exploit children?

That's the beautiful thing about the legal system. It doesn't matter if these girls took the pictures themselves, or if good ol' uncle pete did - it's still CP, somebody still created the CP, and somebody disseminated the CP.

That said, I agree about the system being wrong. These kids, sadly, will probably be charged as adults, and do hard time.

Re:Not good enough.

[TheQuantumShift]

My guess is that the offending photos were set to screen saver, wallpaper, incoming call picture, and possibly even a vinyl skin covering the outside of the device... Or more likely, the student was shouting "L@@k at the hawt nekkid pix 0f my gf!!!1!! in the middle of class.

Re:Not good enough.

[thtrgremlin]

You are already +5 insightful, but I still think what you are saying is under rated. The only harm that will come out of this is the criminal case itself, if not the conviction, which I find unlikely. This should incident, technically, should not have gone beyond the school, and the parents. The behavior with regard to the school could warrant suspension on the grounds of "disruptive behavior". Without any harm, it is just morality police.

Re:Not good enough.

[Forge]

Want to see ridiculous age related law? In many parts of the US you can start active duty in the police force at age 18. You can also join most (if not all) branches of the military at that age. However you can't drink alcohol ontil age 21 in most parts of the US.

This is inconsistent because in most western cultures (including America) it is expected that decent people who are forced to kill will drown their sorrows in some ethanol for a few days afterward. Yet, yore government puts people into jobs where killing inevitable for a certain percentage of those in that job while making it illegal for those same people to drink.

As for porn. Totally different issue. Sex is naturally, private and personal. Pornography is a public activity shared with strangers. Not only that, a person who dose porn today may still be recognised as a porn star decades later. The implications are more far reaching and long lasting.

Re:Not good enough.

[duckInferno]

It appears you may have spunked out some brain matter along with.

Re:Not good enough.

[thtrgremlin]

From what I have noticed, parents that have healthy communications about sex and sexuality with their children end up with well adjusted children that know and understand that unwelcome advances should not be tolerated and that there are people that will help the child. On the other hand, parents that teach their kids that sex is dirty may feel much more ashamed to tell their parents that they "participated" in something sexual and hide the truth of their abuse as so not to be labeled "dirty". Abusers exist EVERYWHERE! The only difference is whether or not we have a culture that teaches kids to watch out for danger signs, and feel comfortable coming forward if abused, or not. Ignorance protects nobody.

Re:Not good enough.

[Chyeld]

By not doing it. I'm the devils advocate here, not a proponent. But they don't bother proving that point because it is assumed that if you are aroused by 'child porn' that makes you far more likely to be a pedophile.

Kind of like how back in the Cold War era they adopted the requirement for school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and altered it to include a reference to "One Nation under God" because it was suppose to keep the 'godless communists' away.

There is no logic behind the argument, its pure emotion and fundamentalism.

Re:Not good enough.

[kohaku]

Don't worry! If they try and procreate we'll have them brought up on charges Statutory rape of what-was-once-a-minor.
Think of the people who used to be children!

Re:Not good enough.

[rossz]

I'm not sure that is possible since there is no end to those pricks.

Re:Not good enough.

[Kalriath]

Simple. Make it impossible to prosecute the subject of a photograph for manufacturing. I'm not sure how to deal with the distribution though.

Re:Not good enough.

[kalirion]

I, for one, won't rest until everyone who tries and fails to commit suicide is charged with attempted murder.

Re:Not good enough.

[tompaulco]

It's even worse than this. The subjects don't even have to be under age. They just have to look underage (whatever that means).
It's even worse than this. The subjects don't even have to exist. Drawings of human beings, whether based on an existing person or not, who appear to be under the age of 18 can also be considered child pornography.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe an interesting question is: "How many times have teachers or administration known about similar pictures on phones or computers, but kept a copy for themselves, rather than calling law enforcement?"

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Taken care of already... sending 'evidence' with kleenex and lotion for long private hearings!

Re:Not good enough.

[EdIII]

Actually, according to Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan of Saudi Arabia, two eyes is too immodest. Therefore, women should cover up all but one eye.

What a fucking nutball. That so hilariously tragic. It's like watching a train wreck. Pathetic.

Many claim this is a cultural thing, but it is clearly religious. This guy is actually saying that Allah does not want women to have depth perception . How off the wall stupid is that?

I think the men in the Middle East should just use their resources and get their Final Solution. Kill all the women as they are impure and start reproducing men through test tubes and cloning.

Re:Not good enough.

[Fluffeh]

and eating that one thing we used to eat when we were kids

What on earth does eating snot and boogers have to do with anything?

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm certain I remember a story about some parents getting in trouble for having pictures of their kid having a bath. I believe it was the photo booth worker that turned them in.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

>>>They were sexual in nature.

I don't see how something can be "sexual in nature" if there's no act of sex. That's like those idiots who say, "Clinton was the first black president" when he's clearly not black. Porn should be strictly defined as those photos or videos that display sexual acts (intercourse, masturbation, oral). The naked body, by itself, should be protected by free expression/speech laws. Which means you can take a photo of yourself at the topless beach, and not get arrested by some Christian zealot prosecutor who has delusions of Godhood.

Re:Not good enough.

[cpricejones]

Remember that pornography is legally defined on a "I know it when I see it" basis, i.e. if it arouses sexual interest. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pornography

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Heck, until recently, album covers by Blind Faith and the Scorpions were not considered child porn...until recently with this mindset that we have to 'think of the children'.

I took a look at those album covers - two hours ago - now I can't _stop_ thinking of the children. Is that wrong? Should I not be doing that?

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

P.S.

>>>female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14 or 15 years old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession.
>>>

If I were president, I would ask to see the photos myself. If the photos displayed sex then I'd do nothing, but if the photos just displayed naked bodies, I would instantly pardon all of them on the grounds that their rights are protected by the First and Ninth Amendments.

Possession of an image of God's work is not a crime. The human body is God's masterpiece, not a sin.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

On a even more serious subject, whoÂs going to sue the school personel for snooping around other personÂs cell phone files?

Re:Not good enough.

[Alvare]

I totally agree with you, and if the idea is to "Protect the Children" then sending them to trial won't make their puberty easier.

Re:Not good enough.

[Fjandr]

I wish it caused people like that to lose sleep at night. The really sick thing is that it is unlikely that it causes the people who push these cases to lose any sleep.

Guess they didn't like my submission of this story, so here's the original news story and one from Faux News.
Similar incidents in Ohio and Indiana.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

>>>he argument most often used against child porn is that it 'encourages the abuse of children', this often allows 'them' to go after even non-photographic items such as drawings or computer renderings.

The argument I most often hear coming from Christians is: "The Bible says nudity is wrong, and we MUST make everybody else conform to our beliefs, even if they are not Christian." Basically it's a belief that nobody else is allowed to be free, unless they conform to a narrow Christian viewpoint. Tyranny.

It's also the argument used to ban gay marriage, or sex before marriage ("jail the sinners!"). The U.S. Founders fought long-and-hard to remove Religious tyranny from government, but it seems the battle still continues on.

Re:Not good enough.

[Jarik_Tentsu]

[quote]Can we neuter them ? We don't want that kind of genes polluting our gene pool.[/quote]

Eh, that'd be kinda redundant. I doubt many of them get laid anyway.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

Cloning is banned.

Perhaps we should open the doors to all oppressed women in Arabia, and let them come to America. After a few years of sucking the females over to the States, the Arabs will find it hard to procreate and maybe then they'll start treating their women like equals, instead of inferior slaves.

Re:Not good enough.

[LandDolphin]

Really? Why do you think she sent the photo? I'm pretty sure that a photo taken by a teenager on a cellphone was not taken for artistic purposes, and I highly doubt that it was taken durring her vacation to the nudist camp.

So, you would be in the camp that says that Playboy photos where there is no simulated sex acts occuring are not pornographic?

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

+1 Funny.

Someone labeled you troll, but I thought your comment was hilarious. It plays up the hypocrisy of those Christians who proclaim a naked body is wrong, and yet are busy fondling them in the backrooms. There was nobody Jesus hated more than hypocrites (hence his attack on the thieves in the temple).

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

So? "No man has a right to harm another, and that's all that the government should restrain him." - Democratic Party founder Thomas Jefferson

I can understand the need to have statutory rape laws because underage persons can not give consent to contracts (either oral or written), but I see no reason to ban my smoking of marijuana as I watch the inauguration, or banning my selling of my body (either fox sex or programming), or to stop me from throwing-away my money on poker, or to stop me from striding across a beach naked, or taking pictures of my kids doing the same. Repeal these stupid laws and let people have freedom to LIVE, so long as they don't physically harm somebody else.

Re:Not good enough.

[tool462]

statistically the average age that people lose their virginity is 14

[citation needed]

According to this, 17 is the average.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500826.html

I showed you mine, now you show me yours.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

That's true. Brooke Shields posed nude when she was 13, 15, 16, and 17, and now those photos float around the internet, causing Miss Shields to have a mental breakdown and completely fail to get hired by any employers.

Oh wait. That never happened. Because most *reasonable* people are not offended by a naked human body. Or a naked deer. Or a naked cow. Or a naked tree.

Most people aren't nuts.

Re:Not good enough.

[HiThere]

I don't know if that's true or not. I didn't see the pictures.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

Don't worry about it.

Those of us who live in Pennsylvania try to ignore those who live in the redneck western half. It's like Obama said, they cling to guns and religion out of fear of change (15-16 year olds are not sexually-active young adults - they're still just children, by gum!). Yeah right.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey in their defense: It's worded so badly that DRUNK MEN who happen to take a pee out where somebody can see them can get written up as a sex offender. Friend of mine's girlfriend was a social worker for the prison system for a while and said most (I don't remember numbers ATM, but something ridiculous) was people who'd been convicted as sex offenders for things that should've never been classified as one. In a similiar note, there were a bunch of college students who streaked at their class graduation a few years back and got slapped with something similiar. Apparently now any form of public nudity is enough to get you labelled sex offender for life.

Re:Not good enough.

[LandDolphin]

Take a quick gander: http://www.playboy.com/

Re:Not good enough.

[tompaulco]

Yes, and the incidence of rape in those countries compared to western countries shows that head to toe covering is not an inhibitor.

Re:Not good enough.

[Golddess]

It could be a picture of your fat Uncle Eddie in a mouse suit when he was 8, it doesn't matter. It's considered child porn.

I never thought I'd see the day when an 8 year-old boy in a full-body Halloween costume could be considered "pornography".

Re:Not good enough.

[damaki]

Worse already exists. They have these clothes that cover everything and there is an integrated veil in front of the eyes but you cannot see the eyes from outside. I saw shots of behind this shit and it looks like you are looking through a grid of small bars, just like a wearable prison.

Re:Not good enough.

[karnal]

That's not a woman, that's a NINJA!

Re:Not good enough.

[Hatta]

So, good luck getting anyone to vote for such a proposition. You are correct that the moral thing to do is to live and let live. But the so-called crusaders of morality won't let people do that. How do we deal with that?

Re:Not good enough.

[karnal]

Pictures last forever.

Not on a Maxtor they don't.

Re:Not good enough.

[joocemann]

I agree 100%.

Wtf is the problem here?

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, by your reasoning, having a bunch of underage film producers, and suddenly child porn is legal?

A sexual act lasts for a short time, and cannot be shared beyond it participants. Thus, relative age limits can be set to protect minors.

Pornography exists to be distributed beyond initial sex act. Say a 13-year-old records a 15-year-old. Then, the video gets upload to the net. Then, minors who view/own the video is not prosecuted but people 18+ gets punished? I don't see such a skewed standard working.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

It has been my experience that a majority of district attorneys are more interested in winning than in anything resembling justice. There are exceptions, of course, but holier-than-thou DAs are more evil and rotten than the slimiest defense attorney.

It's been said that judges are the last bastion of tyranny in our country. I disagree; at least judges can be impeached. But there is no recourse against an overly ambitious District Attorney.

Re:Not good enough.

[Fastolfe]

download it, and jerk off to it, suddenly that person would be in possession of child pornography

No, I said it would be porn, in my opinion. Just because it qualifies as porn in one context doesn't, in my opinion, mean it should be illegal in another. But it's disingenuous to say that pictures of a naked person, clearly intended at the time to arouse and "titillate", aren't porn, simply because you can fathom a context where it could be seen as artistic or non-sexual.

Though feel free to disagree with me on that. The very fact that there is so much disagreement on what porn is, and whether a picture of a naked minor is something that should be criminal, suggests this whole thing needs to be scrapped and approached a little more rationally.

Re:Not good enough.

[LoRdTAW]

Actually no, it isn't at all simple. For example, if some pedophile masturbates to pictures of me in a bath as a baby, he's clearly finding them sexually exciting, and thus pornographic, yet I was not harmed in the least by either them being taken or by his activities about them later. And as this case shows, since the law defines everything under 18 as "child pornography", and since teenagers under this are already sexually aware and often active, we get to the situation where laws that were presumably intended to protect kids from predators are used against people interacting with their peers, or even photographing themselves.

That's the biggest problem, someone might find them sexually exciting. But that does not mean anyone gets hurt. If he wants to yank it to an innocent picture of a 3 year old in the tub then what is he doing wrong? He is not hurting anyone and if he never harms a anyone then he has committed no crime.

The "child porn=abuse, abuse=harm, harm=jail" is very legitimate. The only problem I could see is nude photos of minors being leaked. That child's life could be ruined but its up to parents to educate their kids on what is appropriate and what is not. Teaching them the risks of taking and distributing nude photos is the best defense against such actions.

Re:Not good enough.

[LandDolphin]

pornography

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=pornographic


sexual

1. Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions.
2. Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.
3. Relating to, produced by, or involving reproduction characterized by the union of male and female gametes: sexual reproduction.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sexual


Look at the definition of Pornography. I think ti is fairly obvious that the girl sent the photos to cause sexual arousal in her boyfriend, or whoever she sent them to.

Also, look at sexual. It does not have to involve a "Sex act", symbolizing erotic desire is sexual. You can do that without faking/performing a sex act.

Re:Not good enough.

[serviscope_minor]

Not just the DA at fault. What about the 12 ordinary citizens? Why did they find him guilty?

Re:Not good enough.

[glitch23]

And, they were taken by the girls themselves. Who was being exploited here? Isn't that the point of the laws, to deal with the sick fucks who exploit children? Not to mention 15yo girls are *JAILBAIT* not CP. A law that can be used so easily to prosecute somebody for the wrong reasons needs to be abolished.

Whatever happened to people who didn't want everyone to see them naked and preferred to wait until they were at least out of high school before people of the opposite sex saw them naked? How young should we let this go? With younger and younger kids getting cell phones exactly what is the cut off point (if 14 and 15 isn't it) where we say to someone that they should be a little more responsible, a little less open with their bodies, and try to get it in their thick heads they don't need to be sending naked pics of themselves to begin with? What happened to society to cause 14 and 15 year old *girls* to *willingly* do this? I emphasize girls because guys are always willing to send naked pics. It's the women who don't like receiving them and now they seem to be more than willing to be the distributors.

Re:Not good enough.

[Fastolfe]

I agree. The question of whether an image should be illegal is somewhat orthogonal to the question of whether an image is porn. But if the law ties them together, it's unreasonable to say that something you used as porn shouldn't be illegal in your case, because it could be non-porn in other situations. If society wants to say that underage porn should be illegal, but underage nude art or candids shouldn't, you have to look at how you're using it to determine whether the act is illegal. And if you're spreading naked pics of yourself around, with the intention of turning someone on, it's porn, and if it's illegal as porn, then it's illegal.

That being said, all of this is far too subjective, arbitrary, and based on all sorts of assumptions that I flat out disagree with, so don't take any of this to mean that I support these child porn laws, or the way that they're being applied in this case.

Re:Not good enough.

[Fastolfe]

Wait, so it's only porn if you get off on it? You want to make masturbation illegal?

No and no. I think you misinterpreted something I said. I'm talking about whether something becomes "not porn" if there's a context in which it could be seen as "not porn". If you seek it out because you want to get off on it (or you want to share it with others that want to get off on it), then it's porn. And if it's illegal to possess it, in part, because it's porn, then you've broken the law. I do not believe porn should be automatically illegal, nor do I necessarily agree with any of our current anti-porn laws.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you've lead a sheltered existence. I'm in my early forties, and I recall the precocious kids having sex in 6th grade (the earliest of which I was aware was the summer before), and blatantly sexual talk was not uncommon in 2nd grade. Your part of the US (or the world) may vary. We in the US tend to prolong childhood (legally and culturally) for a variety of reasons, some of them perfectly valid, but you seem to hold the view that at some point in the past youngsters were uniformly much more chaste than in current times. I'll clue you in: the same thing described in TFA used to happen with Polaroid instant cameras in the 1970s, just to a lesser extent due to the nature and cost of the older technology. Your perception does not hold universally; I suspect it never really has throughout history.

- T

Re:Not good enough.

[Sibko]

Actually no, it isn't at all simple. For example, if some pedophile masturbates to pictures of me in a bath as a baby, he's clearly finding them sexually exciting, and thus pornographic, yet I was not harmed in the least by either them being taken or by his activities about them later.

So what's the problem?

I can't possibly agree with you on this. If no harm is being done, then why prosecute for it? The ONLY connection to harm you can make, tenuous at best, is thoughtcrime: That someone who masturbates to child porn will become a person who harms children through child molestation.

Liberty or Security. Choose one.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you would be in the camp that says that Playboy photos where there is no simulated sex acts occuring are not pornographic?

I am not the GP, but I would say that Playboy photos with no simulated sex (or any photos of naked people actually) are Erotic, not Pornographic.

Re:Not good enough.

[glitch23]

Perhaps you've lead a sheltered existence. I'm in my early forties, and I recall the precocious kids having sex in 6th grade (the earliest of which I was aware was the summer before), and blatantly sexual talk was not uncommon in 2nd grade. Your part of the US (or the world) may vary. We in the US tend to prolong childhood (legally and culturally) for a variety of reasons, some of them perfectly valid, but you seem to hold the view that at some point in the past youngsters were uniformly much more chaste than in current times. I'll clue you in: the same thing described in TFA used to happen with Polaroid instant cameras in the 1970s, just to a lesser extent due to the nature and cost of the older technology. Your perception does not hold universally; I suspect it never really has throughout history.

Well there will always be kids whose parents didn't teach them how they should act and there will be kids who always disobey what their parents teach them *not* to do. For every case like this there are unreported cases of kids who don't do this and who wait until their 20s and/or until they are married before they get this open with their bodies. Those types of kids care what people think of them and aren't going to take explicit photos of themselves to share with other teenagers. These kids obviously don't care or they probably weren't taught to care or they don't listen. I think your 6th grade example is on the extreme side just as this is. There will always be stupid people unfortunately.

Re:Not good enough.

[T Murphy]

It just says he violated their policy. He may have been using the phone to take pictures against the rules, in which case it would make perfect sense for them to check the pictures on the phone. If he simply had it out or was calling with it, though, I agree it makes no sense to search it.

Re:Not good enough.

[Insanity Defense]

The argument I most often hear coming from Christians is: "The Bible says nudity is wrong, and we MUST make everybody else conform to our beliefs, even if they are not Christian."

That story always bugged me. Here we have Adam and Eve tramping around the garden naked and thereby sinning every day while God does nothing. Then along comes the serpent who by getting Eve to eat the apple allows them to understand that they are sinning and stop doing so.

So who is the good one? God for keeping them sinning on a daily basis and therefore dooming them to Hell?

Or is it the serpent who allowed them to understand the error of their ways, to mend those ways and repent and thereby earn the chance at heaven?

Just who is really the good one? To me it seems to be the serpent.

Re:Not good enough.

[ZosX]

Hey. I resemble that remark! Though, Pittsburgh is really the gateway to the rust belt and the midwest. I fail to see what is wrong with clinging on to guns. If society breaks into total social disorder the few people with guns will be the ones who start making all of the rules.

Re:Not good enough.

[xero314]

You shouldn't look at the law as a means to enforce what is "right" and "wrong" from a moral stance, but as a means of protecting peoples rights. If you don't, more laws like this will come out of the woodwork.

The problem with this is that the protection of one "right" is by definition the oppression of another. My right to live is a violation of your right to kill me.

Because of this, for there to be anything but chaos (not anarchy), there needs to be another measure used to determine what is allowed or not allowed in a given system. Politically this tends to be either moral, or economic. I tend toward believing a governments responsibility is one of economics and not morals, but I certainly do not consider myself to be in the majority.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

>>>I'm pretty sure that a photo taken by a teenager on a cellphone was not taken for artistic purposes,

So? Is it the job of government to control what people think now? Mind control? I hope your answer to that question is a firm "no". In a truly FREE country it shouldn't matter what was going through the young woman or young man's mind. The government should frak-off, instead of trying to police our brains.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

>>>I think ti is fairly obvious that the girl sent the photos to cause sexual arousal in her boyfriend,

So???

Since when is sex between two biological adults bad? Jesus H. Christ you people are a bunch of paranoid prudes!!!! My own nation, the US of A, reminds me of 1984 where the protagonists were jailed for, shocking, going nude. Oh horror. A naked human body. Send them off to Big Brother's reconditioning center! (rolls eyes). Meanwhile on 24 last night I watched Jack Bauer shoot a guy in the head.

How odd that we find a naked pussy or penis more horrifying than a head spraying blood on primetime television! I give up. I'm moving to the European Union where sex is fun, and nudity is ENJOYED instead of feared.

The EU citizen at www.domai.com has the right idea.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

[edit]

Since when is sex between two biological adults bad? [Barack H. Obama] you people are a bunch of paranoid prudes! ..... How odd that we find a naked pussy or penis more horrifying than a head spraying blood on primetime television!

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

>>>With younger and younger kids getting cell phones exactly what is the cut off point (

Age 0.

Nudity is not something to fear. There's no more reason for a human to wear clothing than for an ape or a deer or a cow to wear clothing, especially in a warn setting like a beach. Why cover up? From infant to old age, there's no reason to hide the beauty that is the human form.

"Because God created the human body, it may remain unclothed and still preserve His splendor intact." - Pope John Paul the Second. I am not ashamed. Why are you ashamed of God's work? It is just as perfect as the Creator.

Re:Not good enough.

[TheoMurpse]

The subjects don't even have to be under age. They just have to look underage

[citation needed]

I mean, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, a SCOTUS decision from 2002, says otherwise. The law you're citing is the CPPA, of which the SCOTUS had this to say:

In contrast to the speech in Ferber, speech that is itself the record of sexual abuse, the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not âoeintrinsically relatedâ to the sexual abuse of children. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts. The Governmentâ(TM)s argument that these indirect harms are sufficient because, as Ferber acknowledged, child pornography rarely can be valuable speech, see id., at 762, suffers from two flaws. First, Ferberâ(TM)s judgment about child pornography was based upon how it was made, not on what it communicated. The case reaffirmed that where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the First Amendmentâ(TM)s protection. See id., at 764â"765. Second, Ferber did not hold that child pornography is by definition without value. It recognized some works in this category might have significant value, see id., at 761, but relied on virtual imagesâ"the very images prohibited by the CPPAâ"as an alternative and permissible means of expression, id., at 763. Because Ferber relied on the distinction between actual and virtual child pornography as supporting its holding, it provides no support for a statute that eliminates the distinction and makes the alternative mode criminal as well. Pp. 11â"13.

And here is the summary of the case provided by the SCOTUS itself:

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) expands the federal prohibition on child pornography to include not only pornographic images made using actual children, 18 U.S.C. Â 2256(8)(A), but also âoeany visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or pictureâ that âoeis, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,â Â2256(8)(B), and any sexually explicit image that is âoeadvertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impressionâ it depicts âoea minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct,â Â2256(8)(D). Thus, Â2256(8)(B) bans a range of sexually explicit images, sometimes called âoevirtual child pornography,â that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children, such as through the use of youthful-looking adults or computer-imaging technology. Section 2256(8)(D) is aimed at preventing the production or distribution of pornographic material pandered as child pornography. Fearing that the CPPA threatened their activities, respondents, an adult-entertainment trade association and others, filed this suit alleging that the âoeappears to beâ and âoeconveys the impressionâ provisions are overbroad and vague, chilling production of works protected by the First Amendment. The District Court disagreed and granted the Government summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed. Generally, pornography can be banned only if it is obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, but pornography depicting actual children can be proscribed whether or not the images are obscene because of the Stateâ(TM)s interest in protecting the children exploited by the production process, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 758, and in prosecuting those who promote such sexual exploitation, id., at 7

Re:Not good enough.

[TheoMurpse]

Not to mention 15yo girls are *JAILBAIT* not CP.

Stop using 4chan definitions. CP = "child pornography," a legal term. Child pornography clearly covers those under the age of majority in the US.

PS Jailbait is, according to the wiktionary,

jailbait (uncountable)
(slang) A person below the age of consent for sexual activity, considered as a potential sexual partner.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

Actually it's just a story, so it doesn't matter. The Bible is meant to be illustrative, not literal. For example, the sun didn't really stop moving in the sky for one whole day. That's impossible.

But if you want to pretend the G of E story is real, well there was nothing wrong with nudity. There's still nothing wrong with nudity (many human tribes run around all day naked w/ no guilt whatsoever). The crime was not obeying God when he said, "Do not touch the tree." (Apparently God is some kind of control freak who likes to build a paradise and then entrap his victims for fun.) But like I said, it's just a story written by some nomads who didn't bathe. I wouldn't put too much stock into it.

Oh, and no Rome was not founded by Romulus and Remus.
Or King Arthur pull a sword out of a stone.

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

No *obscenity* is legislated by that basis.

Pornography is not necessarily obscene. (What's obscene about a husband and wife making love & capturing it to videotape? Nothing.)

Re:Not good enough.

[commodore64_love]

Ask the crusaders for morality this simple question: - If your neighbor in the privacy of his own home does X, does it harm your property, or your body, or your individual rights? "No." Then there's no reason to forbid your neighbor from doing X.

X may be "smoke marijuana" or "worship Allah" or "have sex with guys" or "parade around naked".
None of these activities should be banned.

Re:Not good enough.

[cpricejones]

I'd definitely agree with you regardless of what a judge might say. If that husband and wife were under 18, I think things would get more interesting. Or, forgot about the husband and wife labels, if two consenting persons were having sexual intercourse, what's obscene about that if they are videotaping it ... it all depends on context. If the principal sees it, it's obscene. Perhaps the act of observation (judgment) makes it obscene.

Re:Not good enough.

[Insanity Defense]

Actually it's just a story, so it doesn't matter. The Bible is meant to be illustrative, not literal. For example, the sun didn't really stop moving in the sky for one whole day. That's impossible.

Some Christians insist that the bible is literal and would call you a heretic for that comment.

3:7. And the eyes of them both were opened: and when they perceived themselves to be naked, they sewed together fig leaves, and made themselves aprons.

3:10. And he said: I heard thy voice in paradise; and I was afraid,because I was naked, and I hid myself.

They knew they were naked and they feared "god" once they had eaten of the tree of knowledge.

If this "god" were just and merciful he would not have punished them for eating of the tree of knowledge as they did not have understanding of right and wrong and therefore could not know that disobeying was wrong.

Also of course it conflicts with the "all knowing" and "all seeing" claims for god, he should have been aware of the temptation of Eve and taken steps to protect them. Not to mention his all knowing abilities should have made him aware of what would happen before he even created the garden, the trees and Adam and Eve. His omniscience seems to have failed him.

Re:Not good enough.

[Archades54]

For a person like me, If a colleague was found to be a porn star I really couldn't care. Big deal, but I guess many people look down on others for it and that's sad. People are too damn judgemental at times.

Re:Not good enough.

[rwa2]

The DAs would probably get in trouble if some third party found out that they knew about a crime that they didn't prosecute to the fullest extent. It's that whole full accountability thing. Bureaucracy can be a bitch.

So I wouldn't dismiss them as being evil, just part of the machine :/

Re:Not good enough.

[ejasons]

Not just the DA at fault. What about the 12 ordinary citizens? Why did they find him guilty?

Because current judges never admit to the existence of viability of the concept of jury nullification. The teens were clearly of violating the law, it is just that the law is unjust...

Re:Not good enough.

[cayenne8]

"For every case like this there are unreported cases of kids who don't do this and who wait until their 20s and/or until they are married before they get this open with their bodies."

I'm in the same age group as your other poster, and while his experience was younger than what I saw...we kids were easily into trying to see each other naked, and trying to have sex in junior high and high school at least. It has been pretty common for teens to try to get each other naked for quite awhile now. We just didn't have cameras with us 24/7 like they do today, but, I assure you it has been quite common for kids teen and pre-teen not being real uptight with nudity and sex. I don't actually know anyone that made it past high school a virgin, nor anyone that waited till marriage to have sex.

Re:Not good enough.

[Meski]

So if we all get tagged as sex offenders, it'll end up meaning nothing, and would tie up the courts...

Re:Not good enough.

[MidnightBrewer]

The kids' parents should sue for invasion of privacy. Exactly how easy was it for the teachers who confiscated the phones to find those photos? You'd have to be looking through all the photos on the phone to find them, or reading personal messages. That in itself is a serious crime. I take cell phones off of kids in class often, but the idea of looking at the contents of their phones? Absolutely not. I'd get in all sorts of trouble.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

I also know someone where something like this happened. The 17 year old daughter got pissed off at her dad and claimed this fellow who was a friend of the family raped her to get back at her dad. Nobody believed her, not even her family except the prosecutor. She changed her story constantly and eventually she admitted making it up. The prosecution still went forward and he had to serve 6 months in jail and get registered as a sex offender because he couldn't afford a decent defense.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your more likely to accidentally shot your daughter than you are to lay down the law after a revolution.

Re:Not good enough.

[Ghubi]

better yet, email them to all the members of congress.

Re:Not good enough.

[MaskedSlacker]

Depth perception be damned!

How are they going to flip my pancakes now?

Re:Not good enough.

[MaskedSlacker]

Which is a very good reason for teachers not to give out their phone numbers. Or addresses. Also, it's happened before (students putting porn on a teacher's computer).

Re:Not good enough.

[tcolberg]

I dunno, guns are pretty noisy. While you've been at the gun range, I've been working on my stealth stats and my ability to wield a board-with-a-nail-in-it.

Re:Not good enough.

[Random Destruction]

My guess is it was a Half Baked reference

Brian: Get some sour cream and onion chips with some dip, man, some beef jerky, some peanut butter. Get some HÃagen-Dazs ice cream bars, a whole lot, make sure chocolate, gotta have chocolate, man. Some popcorn, red popcorn, graham crackers, graham crackers with marshmallows, the little marshmallows and little chocolate bars and we can make s'mores, man. Also, celery, grape jelly, Cap'n Crunch with the little Crunch berries, pizzas. We need two big pizzas, man, everything on 'em, with water, whole lotta water, and Funyons.

Kenny: That's it?

Thurgood Jenkins: Yeah, get me a box of condoms, and, what was that thing we used to eat back in the day? What was it... oh yeah, pussy.

Kenny: You got it.

Re:Not good enough.

[ps2os2]

Get a GRIP.... This is *NOT* a child pornography ring. It is simply young teenagers exploring their sexuality (not necessarily in a healthy way). It is not for profit, not really done to distribute to anyone outside of the group. Now if someone sent it to say a older person (over 18) and that person distributed it then it might be considered child porn (I am not an expert here) but before yelling child porn sit back and look and listen to the receivers of such pictures. Yes they were in poor taste but child porn (maybe in the strictest sense but common sense says NO).

Re:Not good enough.

[DrLang21]

DAs ignore crimes all the time. There just isn't enough time for DAs to prosecute all known crime. For example, with the war on drugs and terror picking up, white collar crime prosecutions have been declining. You can make all of the conspiracy theory claims about that as you want, but the fact remains that the man hours just aren't there. DAs often have to pick and choose which crimes they will move forward with prosecuting.

Re:Not good enough.

[ps2os2]

Excellent point. I have seen various picture like that people bring to the office to show their peers their family life. Should they? Probably not but it is a poor judgement indication. Should they be kept in the family photo album, maybe. I am certainly not going to get upset about such pictures. Some families are open and not afraid to display nudity. That is nice for them. What harm would such pictures do? Even 10 years later the young teen probably could not be identified from the pictures, even if they could be so what?
Family photo albums are semi private to the family they are not looked on for sexual content in any context.

Re:Not good enough.

[tom's a-cold]

The whole hijab controversy in Europe was just inept marketing. It should have been called an "anti-sexual-harassment women's self-defense garment," then many European and American feminists of the uncritical kind would have embraced it.

Re:Not good enough.

[tom's a-cold]

No, what we're seeing is a law that originates in a deep-seated fear of sexuality and the belief that legislation can control it. It's not about preventing victimization of children: it's about preventing sexual expression. Just control for its own sake. This can be seen by the inane overreaching of these poorly-formulated laws.

Re:Not good enough.

[DrLang21]

This was a decision passed down on the CPPA. The government shortly after passed the PROTECT Act which once again outlaws cartoon and simulated child porn. SCOTUS has yet to rule on this law and people are being convicted of posession of drawn child porn.

Re:Not good enough.

[LandDolphin]

So???

Who whole reason I've been responding to you is because you said:

I don't see how something can be "sexual in nature" if there's no act of sex. That's like those idiots who say, "Clinton was the first black president" when he's clearly not black. Porn should be strictly defined as those photos or videos that display sexual acts (intercourse, masturbation, oral). The naked body, by itself, should be protected by free expression/speech laws. Which means you can take a photo of yourself at the topless beach, and not get arrested by some Christian zealot prosecutor who has delusions of Godhood.

AS For:

Jesus H. Christ you people are a bunch of paranoid prudes!!!!

I never said sex between two people (adults)was bad. I called a poster out for saying :

So now...simple nudity == porn?

When it was quite obvious that is was not simple nudity (Child in a Bath tube), but more pornographic (aka sexual) in nature.

Also, for:

Jesus H. Christ you people* are a bunch of paranoid prudes!!!!

You appear to have missed judged me fully. One of my favorite quote comes from (Paraphrased from) the Bernie Mack Show: Boobie never hurt anyone, boobie feeds the world.

AS I said previously, are discussion is over if the pictures the girls took were pornographic or not. They were. Wether or not Pornography is bad/good and should be legal/illegal is another topic we've have not touched on.

* BTW nothing with that statement ever comes out saying good. I always picture tghe guy in Tropic Thunder saying "You People?"

IF something is horribly messed up in this post, I am a little drugged at the moment (Been to the hospital). So please excuse me :-)

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the naked baby I saw on the beach on Sunday? Child pr0n!

Posting AC because I already moderated a bit...

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Especially given how many girls take nude pics of themselves. It seems kinda fashionable lately. Do I have to mention 4chan & co?

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed...with links of course

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a preparation for that docile prison experience! The total lack of rights is prevalent in most modern and traditional societies. It is something to do with controlling the reproductive behaviour of a child and the attached responsibilities, that is, it's all about the money. No wonder children are still raped and subjected to insest all over the world.

Re:Not good enough.

[ultranova]

I can't possibly agree with you on this. If no harm is being done, then why prosecute for it? The ONLY connection to harm you can make, tenuous at best, is thoughtcrime: That someone who masturbates to child porn will become a person who harms children through child molestation.

You know, that was kind of my point...

Liberty or Security. Choose one.

Since it seems that the children in this particular case have neither, and are in fact actively hrmed by the law in question, getting either would be an improvement.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

It could be a picture of your fat Uncle Eddie in a mouse suit when he was 8, it doesn't matter.

I was with fat Uncle Eddie in a mouse suit when I was 8, you insensitive clod!

Re:Not good enough.

[Alsee]

I"m a little shocked too at the leap the level to trigger a crime has come to.
So now...simple nudity == porn? In this case a nude person under 18 is now considered child porn?

It's worse than that.

This subject comes up, and we get all these crusading posters thinking we're talking about little children getting fucked.

Child porn does not have to include sex, molestation, or even nudity. All it takes to qualify as child porn is for someone to decide that the the camera is a little too centered on the genital region, or to decide the pose/expression looks too sexual. God-forbid a picture of a 17-year-old in a ballet leotard has a bit of camel toe and some prosecutor finds it arousing. That is essentially the definition of child porn - does the prosecutor find it arousing. And then there's the real insane kicker - it doesn't even have to be a child or even a real person. Is it an 18 or 19 or 20 year old that looks young? Child porn. Is it a DRAWING? Child porn.

I don't remember where I saw it, but last time one of these stories came up I came across a website with statistics on the photos from child porn prosecutions. The photos get categorized in some sort of levels system. The substantial majority of photos in child porn prosecutions are photos like the ones in this story, basic nudity or partial nudity or even fully clothed images that the prosecutor decided he got horny over, and that only a tiny percentage - some small single digit percent - were in the high classification involving "hardcore porn" meaning porn involving actual genital/oral/anal contact sexual activity. I don't remember the exact details, but it was about what it said. The substantial majority were classified in the lightest category like the photos in this story.

But heay, someone might download a drawing of a fictional-20-year-old-who-looks-17 wearing tight cloths and suggestive curves and a potentially suggestive pose, so lets outlaw the internet. We have to save the children, even when those children are fictional. And we most especially have to save the children by putting them in prison when the take naughty pictures of themselves.

Me? I'm an evil insane radical. I have this wacky idea that the police should spend a little more of their time going after people who actually molest flesh-and-blood real children, and a little less time sorting through photos from nudist colonies trying to decide which ones are innocent family photos and which ones make them horny meaning it's kiddyporn.

-

Re:Not good enough.

[PMBjornerud]

Actually the argument most often used against child porn is that it 'encourages the abuse of children', this often allows 'them' to go after even non-photographic items such as drawings or computer renderings.

Similar to how Hollywood movies are banned because of drawings or computer renderings of illegal violence?

Re:Not good enough.

[Alsee]

album covers by Blind Faith and the Scorpions

You forgot Led Zeppelin.
And Poland.

Imagine if someone today tried to publish an album with one of those covers? It would be almost as big a deal as Janet Jackson's right nipple.

-

Re:Not good enough.

[Alsee]

any lawyer worth his weight in water should be able to show this was not the intent of the law.

Yeah, good luck with that.

We must save the children.

In fact the MAJORITY of images in child porn prosecutions are images like these. Self-photos, or simple nudes or partial nudity or even fully-clothed images that the prosecutor decides arouse him, or even drawings and computer-generated graphics. Oh, and don't forget the images of adults who look underage, those can be prosecuted as kiddyporn too.

Just remember never ever to criticize any kiddyporn law. Anyone who complains about kiddyporn law is a witch and must be burned at the stake. Anyone who opposes passing new and more expansive kiddyporn laws is a witch and must be burned at the stake.

-

Re:Not good enough.

[Zencyde]

Er, I can tell you that's false because the legal age of consent here in Texas is either 17 or within 3 years. Don't go spreading silly and useless information like that.

Re:Not good enough.

[Kharny]

I always thought The US version of "legal rights" was seriously ass-backward.

-drive at 16
-gun licence at 18, afaik.
-allowed alcohol at 21.

Am I the only one who thinks this is asking for trouble?

Re:Not good enough.

[Alsee]

You're funny.

Across most of the world and throughout most of history kids commonly got MARRIED in their teens, or even earlier. And you go on some delusional rant about ages going DOWN (laugh!) and *shock* *horror* some people see naked bodies before they graduate highschool.

Across most of the world and throughout most of history kids commonly got MARRIED in their teens, or even earlier, normal routine common marriages with their parents approval. And you go on some delusional rant *OH MY GOD some people see naked bodies* before they graduate high school because there are a few freakish parents who don't teach their kids anything.

You are an absolute riot. A delusional riot.

I have news for you. People get horny. KIDS get horny. It generally kicks in pretty hard when puberty hits, and often earlier. Some parents have run to the doctor terrified that their infant is having some sort of epileptic seizure - turns out the infant's "seizure" was the rhythmic grinding of their genitals against the center post of the infant-seat between their legs. Hell, even FETUSES IN THE WOMB have been caught playing with themselves on ultrasound video.

The idea that normal kids have no sexual thoughts or sexual feelings or sexual experimentation before the age of 18 is an extremely recent candyland fantasy. The notion that there has been a DECLINE in age is totally delusional. The notion that it only happens to the children of freakish irresponsible or perverted parents is totally delusional.

Humans are born with a hardwired programmed urge for air.
Humans are born with a hardwired programmed urge for food and drink.
Humans are born with a hardwired programmed urge for sexual stimulation.

The idea that it doesn't exist or doesn't kick in until your wedding night a decade after puberty is not normal.

When I was in elementary school I up and grabbed by babysitter's tits and started squeezing them. Why? Because as a human male I am (and was) genetically programmed to find females attractive. Because as a human male I am (and was) genetically programmed to find tits extremely attractive and sexually arousing. That is NORMAL. Trying to blame it on my parents is as delusional as blaming my parents when I sneeze after getting pollen in my nose.

Oh, and by the way, she enjoyed it and she was kind enough to return the favor.

-

Re:Not good enough.

[Alsee]

On a more serious note, when did mere nudity = porn?

On an even more serious note, NON-nudes are prosecuted as child porn if the prosecutor decides the camera is focusing to close to the genital regions, or if he decides the pose is too sexual, or if he feels the model has a sexually inviting expression on her face. Basically if the prosecutor gets horny, that makes it child porn. And images of adults are child porn if the person appears underage. And drawings are child porn. And computer generated graphics are child porn. And people have even been prosecuted for written fiction - just plain words on a page. Fiction written in his private secret diary. But it's ok he went to prison, they were really really naughty words describing really really naughty fictional things, and he was a bad guy anyway.

-

Re:Not good enough.

[master_p]

> statistically the average age that people lose their virginity is 14

Have you realized what you just posted on Slashdot? do the words 'insensitive clod' mean nothing to you?

Re:Not good enough.

[JD-1027]

Liberty or Security. Choose one.

Slight clarification:

Liberty (which is essential) or Security (which is only temporary). Choose one.

Re:Not good enough.

[bwcbwc]

...well nowadays it's more "porn degrades women as sex objects" rather than "porn encourages immoral behavior".

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there will always be kids whose parents didn't teach them how they should act and there will be kids who always disobey what their parents teach them *not* to do. For every case like this there are unreported cases of kids who don't do this and who wait until their 20s and/or until they are married before they get this open with their bodies.

There was a lady on the radio here a couple of days ago talking about being raised like this, and she regretted it deeply. She was talking about how she wasted her entire life waiting until she got married, never had sex, never experienced getting children of her own, no children to pass her genes on, nothing. And being 86 now, it was too late for her to do anything about it.

Re:Not good enough.

[bwcbwc]

Not to mention the legal double-standard here:
The girls are being prosecuted as adults, but for the purposes of the charges, they are considered minors.

Maybe the way out of this kind of mess is to make the sex-offender registries meaningless. Broaden their scope so that (nearly) everyone is a sex offender. Putting all parents of children born out of wedlock on the list would be a great start in that direction. Plus it would provide a great boost to the paternity testing industry in these troubled economic times.

Re:Not good enough.

[DwySteve]

So eye patches are back in fashion? Yarrr, that's good news for me matey!

Re:Not good enough.

[Kirth]

I.e. a 25 year old guy will spend years in prison for screwing his 15 year old "girlfriend". A 18 year old guy gets probation.
That's actually draconian from a swiss point of view. Here, the age-difference matters, and three years are allowed, up until both partners are 16 years old (age of consent). So an 18 years old teenager may fuck with a 15 years old one, but not a 14 years old one. And a 14 years old one may fuck with 11 to 17 years old ones.

Re:Not good enough.

[home-electro.com]

How about manufacturers of camera phones? Without those bastards there would not be this issue.

Re:Not good enough.

[FuturePastNow]

Set that password on your phones, kids.

Re:Not good enough.

[Hatta]

You are trying to apply reason to a position that it generally based in religion. It's not going to work. If it did work, it would have happened already.

Re:Not good enough.

[ForShizzle]

I'm sure there have been many that have tried to go after the National Geographic photographers too. They just failed. I don't entirely remember if anyone made a stink about the little baby boy on the cover of the Nirvana - Nevermind CD, but under such loose laws, that would pretty much be covered under child porn. How about seeing Eric Cartman's cartoon penis on South Park, or Bart Simpson's cartoon penis in the Simpson's movie? I'm certain that people have flipped out and filed lawsuits over this, however, I do have faith that not every official takes these things serious. I do believe that a lot of us have better sense about us. We are supposedly a centrist country in the USA, but we always have to hear about the idiocy of the far right/left jerks who feel the need to impose their views on everyone else. I could, of course, be entirely wrong and we're all just screwed.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember that scene in Mars Attacks where they vaporize Congress? Man, we need some martians....

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens if he and his former "victim", now his wife, have children? Can his kids be taken away because he's a "sex offender"?

Re:Not good enough.

[torkus]

No it isn't. It is a very simple one, charge based on harm. child porn=abuse, abuse=harm, harm=jail.

To turn your own back on you: Child porn, depending on your definition i suppose, does not necessarialy imply abuse or harm. What if these girls took explicit pictures of themselves masturbating? It would certainly qualify as CP but it's also something most people expect teenagers to do (the act, not necessarialy the pictures). But who was abused and/or hurt? Yet that child is now guilty of creation and posession of CP.

Sexuality develops WAY before 18. Uptight controlling christian views aside (i do agree with you there) there's a huge disconnect between reality and legality. We're spending more time hurting people by making criminals out of them then we are actually helping people understand and make their own educated decisions.

The argument that a 15 year old is not sexually mature enough to make decisions about their body is rather laughable. Why? Because most people refuse to adequately educate a 15 year old about sexuality to properly make those decisions.

Re:Not good enough.

[hesaigo999ca]

LMAO

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

The interesting difference between the MSNBC article and the CNN commentary though is the MSNBC article indicates the involved teens will have to register as sex offenders (another law which is somewhat abused), while the CNN commentary said since they're minors it wouldn't have any long-term negative repercussions.

Is that something that has to go onto a college application? I imagine it's a felony so it would go on job applications. It might make it tough being accept just out of high school.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Either a person is able to consent to sex, or they are not. If that person can consent to sex with an 18 year old partner, they are able to consent to sex with a 50 year old partner.

Disagree. I think the Half Plus Seven Rule should be coded into law. It would keep the 20somethings out of the clutches of rich seniors, leaving more of them for middle-aged guys like me.

Re:Not good enough.

[Reziac]

Because anyone who has the balls to stand up and say "See here, this law is unjust" won't find their way into the jury box in the first place.

And in today's political climate, I'd be worried about being investigated after being so bold.

Re:Not good enough.

[thtrgremlin]

Guess it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

What if "X" is molest his children?

Re:Not good enough.

[ps2os2]

Agreed. If all these people are so gung ho about this why not burn down practically every museum in the world? If you do not want to go to that extreme just take all the pics of babies and young kids and burn them. There is a thing called art people, does photography fall under it yes. Name me one great painting that shows any sexual pictures and I would be surprised. Nudity is natural people nothing to get bent out of shape about. DAVID is a great statue by the standards being talked about here one should take it out to the stone quarry and bust it up. People get real and think before you suggest that this was pornography in any shape.

Re:Not good enough.

[rossifer]

There actually is a different name for it: ephebophilia.

• pedophilia: sexual attraction to pre-pubescent individuals.
• hebephilia: sexual attraction to pubescent individuals.
• ephebophilia: sexual attraction to post-pubescent but still adolescent individuals (teenagers).

I freely admit to being a ephebophile (aka a "Dirty Old Man"). Teenage girls have impossibly perfect feminine bodies with all the right curves. The whole cheerleader fantasy is an ephebophilic trope in sexual literature. If you're an ass-man just walking down the street, you will admire the curve of a healthy woman's butt in front of you. If the owner of that butt happens to be 15, you're not a criminal or a pervert, you're just a healthy male with typical interests.

Very importantly: physical attraction does not imply a willingness to seduce or otherwise pursue a teenage girl. Even aside from the fact that I'm committed to a monogamous relationship (with a woman my own age), listening to what passes for conversation between teenagers is more than enough to instantly remind me that I'm admiring the figure of someone who isn't really prepared for sex with an adult. So I try not to be too obvious when admiring the hindquarters of women walking down the street.

Re:Not good enough.

[Agronomist Cowherd]

You're an idiot.

When I was 5 or so, before I was in first grade, a neighbor girl of the same age took me into the woods so we could see each other naked. This also involved kissing. With tongues.

All this was suggested by the neighbor girl (I think her name was "Jane"), and we both enjoyed it (although I was scared of getting caught), and it was slightly sexual in nature (but not actually sexual).

Little girls and little boys have been doing this sort of thing forever. If you don't have a similar memory from your childhood, you've lead a ridiculously sheltered existence.

This was all back in 1968 or 1969 or so.

Re:Not good enough.

[Lost Race]

I"m a little shocked too at the leap the level to trigger a crime has come to.

My parser just exploded. Can anyone help?

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Law enforcement, social workers and other vested interests are always trying to push the envelope of obscenity and pornography laws so that simple nude images are ruled illegal in court.

All it needs it some judge to find (depending on the country and the laws) that an image is "lewd" or lascivious" or that there is rather too much emphasis on the genital or pretty much any other potentially sexual region (even if clothed!).

No sexual activity is required any more in the sense that you mean, and that has been the case in many countries for years. There was an international treaty (2nd Optional Protocol on Prevention of Child Trafficking etc etc) that contained a definition of child pornography along these lines. Countries that have ratified this are required to have their laws tow the party line.

Japan had an entirely different attitude to this sort of thing but has been bullied by the US and other countries into changing its laws - I'm not sure how far that program has gone though.

Re:Not good enough.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

My point Exactly! Thanks.

Re:Not good enough.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I was with my friend when she brought her a bra. Sorry to disappoint.

Re:Not good enough.

[dpastern]

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

That's all I have to say.

Dave

Re:Not good enough.

[SCHecklerX]

Bad parenting?

Re:Not good enough.

[Asic Eng]

Well certainly this law by itself is now abusing children. (Actually adolescents, but I guess soon everybody under the age of 40 will be a child in the US...)

Re:Not good enough.

[Asic Eng]

That is basically the point of these laws. Anyone can be convicted of distributing or possessing child pornography, regardless whether they are guilty or not. There is an obvious advantage to that: if the DA finds a case actually involving child porn he can bring the case quickly and convict efficiently. Since everybody is presumed guilty a DA can go through a much higher workload than would otherwise be possible.

This is one of the essential concepts in a fascist state: the state is by definition good, therefore safeguards against the state are not necessary. Since there are no safeguards it's easier to get things done. Some people find the latter so attractive that they are willing to put up with the former.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted RIGHT HERE yesterday, and now my post has vanished. Paraphrasing (again):

Depiction of a sexual act is not required to define an image as illegal child porn in most countries. It boils down to zealous prosecutors and special interest groups conspiring to re-define as many nudes as possible as pornographic. If a judge can be convinced that an image is "lewd" or "lascivious" (actually genitals don't even have to be visible in some cases and places) then it is child porn.

The 2nd Optional Protocol on Child Trafficking etc (or something like that) (an international treaty) contains a definition of child porn that ratifying countries have to enact in law - it does not require a sexual act to be depicted.

Re:Not good enough.

[clone53421]

GP's post didn't mention the boy; I would presume GP would think it's just as unproductive to charge the boy as it is to charge the girl. As GP didn't specifically mention this, I'm only presuming and I suppose I could be wrong about that.

Re:Not good enough.

[clone53421]

All your points are completely useless in the scenario created by gfxguy. If a student stands up in court and testifies that "he said he'd give me an A if I sent him this picture", the teacher's ass is cooked. It's their word against the student's, and we all know that rock-solid proof is the only thing that would convince the jury that the student is lying. Unless the teacher can prove that he/she didn't say that (and how would you prove this?), it's over.

Re:Not good enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, what are the current punishments for what I did as a kid. I went beyond pictures, and did a "You show me yours, and I'll show you mine".

To play the devil's advocate: I did the same thing, but that lasts moments... a picture lasts forever.

I agree that prosecuting the kids is stupid, but I can see that taking pictures is even more serious than physical contact if those pictures find their way onto LimeWire.

Re:Not good enough.

[leereyno]

The guy who murdered his parents did not do it because he played video games or watched Rambo.

He did it because he is an evil piece of shit. 36 years is a light sentence.

Re:Not good enough.

[pAnkRat]

While you're at it,

<caps>

"This Thread Is WORTHLESS Without Pics!"

</caps comment="damn lamensss filter" >

(someone had to say it)

Re:Not good enough.

[clone53421]

"Sinning" = "doing something God said not to" (e.g. eating the fruit from that particular tree after he said not to).

"Knowledge of good and evil", on the other hand, means "the ability to make judgment choices based on your own conscience as to whether something is good or bad". In other words, the instant Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the conscience was created.

Look at what God said when Adam and Eve described their shame: "Who told you that you were naked?" God hadn't said it was wrong for them to be naked. However, violating one's own conscience is wrong (we're told this elsewhere in the Bible), so from that point forward they had to wear clothes – and God emphasized this point by making clothes for them.

On an aside, they might not have been "naked" in that sense: evidently Moses, after meeting face-to-face with God, shone so radiantly that it hurt people's eyes to look at him. It's possible that Adam and Eve, who walked with God on a daily basis before the fall, were so bright that you couldn't see their bodies – and equally possible that their radiance disappeared when they lost their close fellowship with God. This would certainly explain the shock and shame they suddenly experienced.

Re:Not good enough.

[Forge]

I was with you up to the "striding across a beach naked" comment. Seeing you naked could possibly do me serious, even permanent mental harm. My eyes can only tolerate so much pale, pimpled flab.

replacement repression

[Tom]

Psychologically, I say this is the extreme conversatives who would really like to outlaw nudity, masturbation and while we're at it, even thinking about sex. Since they can't, they are looking for alternatives.

Stripping away all the legality nonsense, what they've done is outlawing the naked human body, at least as long as it's young. That's a step in the "proper" (according to their belief) direction.

There is no thought about "harm" because it is replaced by a strong belief that there is "irrepairable moral harm". And by "strong belief" I mean "belief that is unimpressed by proof".

Re:replacement repression

[Anonymous Coward]

Please change that from "extreme conversatives" to "extreme christians".

It's possible to be conservative in fiscal matters yet not buy into the mainstream assumption of religiousity.

Re:replacement repression

[BigAssRat]

Why don't you research the political leanings of those involved and let us know what they are so you can PROVE that these people are in fact "conservative". Chances are that school officials/teachers are rather left leaning. Why don't you give us some information rather than put out some crap about what conservatives want to do with human sexuality.

Re:replacement repression

[Anonymous Coward]

"extreme conversatives"

?????

You are aware most schools are run by liberals?

Or can you demonstrate that the people involved (he or she who confiscated the phone and the school administration) are those most hideous of creatures...... conservatives?

And while you are attempting to do so..... learn to spell.

Re:replacement repression

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware most schools are run by liberals?

And that's relevant 'cause the principal makes the laws and runs the police department and directs the prosecutors on which cases to take or drop?

Liberals make their fair share of "think of the children!" laws and have their fair share of Tipper Gores, but when it comes to porn laws, people think of the bible thumpers, and the bible thumpers are overwhelmingly conservative.

Re:replacement repression

[DeadCatX2]

Being embarrassed at the sight of nudity says more about the observer than it does about the person who is naked. It is a pity that our culture is this way.

Klump vs. Nazareth High

[mtg169]

Similar cases like this are popping up all over the country. I did some research awhile ago and found a case in Pennsylvania, Klump vs. Nazareth, and the courts actually found the school guilty of violating the students' privacy and constitutional rights by looking at the contents of their phone. This case basically stated that although the school can have a no cell phone use policy, it does not give the school or school officials the privilege to search the contents of the phone at will unless it is believed that the student is using the phone to violate another policy (IE: using the phone to cheat). The point is, in order for any school official to search cell phone contents, the student would have to be violating another policy other than the no cell phone use policy. Being that this case is also in PA, it could be used as case law and charges would most likely be thrown out. PDF here: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0400P.pdf

Re:Klump vs. Nazareth High

[Leafheart]

I hope the parents use this to throw away the charges under an illegal seizure. Although probably the defense knows this already, if someone could forward this to them it would be good.

Re:Klump vs. Nazareth High

[HungryHobo]

So what's to stop every school adding a second policy to their no cell phones policy reading "No pictures of any kind on any phone on school grounds"?
Wouldn't that defeat this limp wristed judgement?

Re:Klump vs. Nazareth High

[nicodoggie]

http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0400P.pdf

How strangely appropriate to the topic...

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a good example of the spirit of the law versus the letter.

Where's justice?

[jav1231]

Our system is called the "Criminal Justice System." Where is there any "justice" in this case? I blame judges. The judge should simply throw the case out, period. "As a judge it is my duty to see where justice can be served. I feel there is no better result for the public than for prosecutors to learn the lesson that our system always prosecute with an eye towards justice. Maybe throwing this pathetic case out will help them learn this lesson or at the least encourage the public to demand prosecutors who do so!"

Re:Where's justice?

[dragonsomnolent]

That's the way it should be, unfortunately, it won't happen like that. If the judge did that, his political rivals could throw out that he let 6 sexual predetors walk because he doesn't care about the children. Yes, he could bring up the specifics of the case, but it would do him no good, they got the first whack at him, and he'd have to play catch up. Yes, the judge should throw it out becuase the whole case is nonesense, but he won't, it would be career suicide. Instead, I hope he gives the defense team free reign, and overrules every objection the prosecutor throws out, maybe even citing prior case law to throw out the evidence. One can hope....

Re:Where's justice?

[DustoneGT]

Hooray for victimless crimes. We wonder why our prisons are overcrowded and the US has more prisoners than China.

Re:Where's justice?

[hyades1]

I'd go further and file charges of malicious prosecution. Put a couple of these asshole cops and prosecutors in jail for a while and teach them some sense of right and wrong. The kids need discipline from their parents, not involvement with the legal system.

And what do you want to bet some cop has copies of the pictures carefully hidden away somewhere?

Re:Where's justice?

[corsec67]

I'd go further and file charges of malicious prosecution. Put a couple of these asshole cops and prosecutors in jail for a while and teach them some sense of right and wrong. The kids need discipline from their parents, not involvement with the legal system.

Maybe, but it would be better to get the law changed so that it can't apply to people consenting to having their picture taken. Don't make it a case-by-case thing as to whether a person under 18 is going to get charged with making "underage porn", change the law. This IS supposedly a country with rule of law, so if the law is wrong that should get charged. It is worse if there are laws that are rarely used to charge people, since that means that police have more power than they should have.

And what do you want to bet some cop has copies of the pictures carefully hidden away somewhere?

Yeah, that is called the "Evidence Locker".

Re:Where's justice?

[Firethorn]

I'll hold off on blaming the judge at this point - it hasn't even gone to trial yet. I'd blame the school and the prosecuter's office at the moment. Possibly the police; depending on who's recommending charges be pressed.

Also, as a situation that's reached national attention, the judge would be better off burying it, otherwise he'll be known as the judge who added girls who took pictures of themselves as teens to the sex offender list.

Re:Where's justice?

[FourthAge]

Thing is, their hands were forced. What would you do in their place? Imagine how it would look in the police files if they didn't blindly press on with the prosecution.

Type of offence: Possesion/Manufacture of Child Porn
Number of suspects: 6
Action taken: None

Look at that. No action, against SIX suspected pedophiles! A whole pedophile ring! There's only one possible answer - the investigating officers are corrupt! They've turned a blind eye to these monsters. Obviously, the police are child rapists too.

Seriously, this is why there is a court system. The police don't want to be accountable for ignoring a "child porn" offense, but the courts can be, when all the facts are heard and the defense lawyers have spoken. The case will probably be thrown out. Nobody will get a criminal record, and the careers of the policemen and prosecutors will also be safe, because they stuck to procedure instead of taking the risk of applying common sense.

Stuff like this goes on all the time in England, where police are even more afraid of using their common sense. It's Cover Your Ass, all the time. But because of the courts, silly accusations don't normally lead to convictions. Just lots of wasted time.

Re:Where's justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure he wouldn't look too good if he jailed 14 year old girls to protect them.

Child porn charges for teenagers who have pics of themselves is the real perversion here.

Re:Where's justice?

[rocketPack]

That's why Judges are sworn for life. They cannot be removed from their position (save for very difficult processes involving grave misconduct), do not have to be re-elected, etc. They're given that status so that they can confidently make tough decisions in the name of justice -- even when they face stiff opposition. There's no excuse for a judge to accept this case or allow it to go to trial.

Re:Where's justice?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss it? That's the point; the Justice System is Criminal, and crime's not about justice!

Re:Where's justice?

[Abreu]

Maybe, but it would be better to get the law changed so that it can't apply to people consenting to having their picture taken. Don't make it a case-by-case thing as to whether a person under 18 is going to get charged with making "underage porn", change the law. This IS supposedly a country with rule of law, so if the law is wrong that should get charged. It is worse if there are laws that are rarely used to charge people, since that means that police have more power than they should have.

The problem with that is questions of whenever a minor can legally consent to having his/her picture taken...

Re:Where's justice?

[corsec67]

The problem with that is questions of whenever a minor can legally consent to having his/her picture taken...

These students were allowed to have sex with each other, based on the age of consent, so it seems like having a picture taken in the nude should have less legal repercussions, not significantly more.

Re:Where's justice?

[dragonsomnolent]

Perhaps in PA, I know in Missouri when you're a judge, you get appointed, then have to be voted back in (It's a simple retain judge X yes or no?) but you still face the election cycles. The MO Bar association claims this has decreased judicial corruption (maybe it has, I don't know), but they are still subject to the whims of the voters. I knew a few people in St. Louis who voted to not retain any judge, ever, citing the War on Fun our Federal government declared seeping down into the state and local level. Just an FYI.

Re:Where's justice?

[Abreu]

Good point, I had missed that.

I still find it strange that in several places in your country teens are allowed to have sex and not drink

Re:Where's justice?

[jav1231]

Exactly but who benefits? Lawyers because they will have to be represented. In fact, lawyers are why we have letter-of-the-law indictments in the first place. All the more reason judges should simply nullify such cases when they hit their desk. "Sorry, this case is bullshit. Next?"

Re:Where's justice?

[bhtooefr]

Alternately, the judge could go on a pre-emptive attack. The instant he throws the case out, have his own campaign team spam the hell out of every medium possible, saying that he freed six children from being raped by the giant dick of the government. (In other terms.)

Re:Where's justice?

[Builder]

The fact that China shoot a lot of convicted felons in the head also goes some way to cutting down on numbers. But I'm not sure that's the solution we all want to be following :)

Re:Where's justice?

[hyades1]

I loved your line, "...where police are even more afraid of using their common sense". That's flat-out brilliant, and sums up the situation perfectly. I'd have thought one look at the age of the kids involved would have tipped them off that this isn't some creepy teacher manipulating the little darlings.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Laws != prevent harm

[corsec67]

In all honesty, what harm was being done?

Hahahaha, you think that laws are about preventing harm done to anybody?

There are plenty of laws that cause harm, from the bans on marijuana, prostitution, speech, guns for self-defense, carrying over $10K in cash, etc.

(I agree with you, but laws haven't been about preventing harm for a long time. Really a law should have to show that something is harmful to other people before it can be banned. Water being more toxic than marijuana by LD50 is a good example for that.)

Re:Laws != prevent harm

[Anonymous Coward]

carrying over $10K in cash

There is no law against carrying over $10k in cash, otherwise all the armored car drivers are breaking the law.

There is a law against carrying UNDECLARED amounts of cash greater than $10k in/out of the country.

Re:Laws != prevent harm

[plams]

"by LD50" isn't a meaningful way to compare water and cannabis, but if we compared the ratio between dose for desired effect and LD50, water is still orders of magnitude more toxic. (ref: see "Marijuana Overdose")

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[erroneus]

I recognize that your comment was intended to be sarcastic.

We attempt to paint this picture that is far too black-and-white for practical purposes when reality is too far removed from the ideology behind the laws we have in place.

Fact is, teenagers will figure out sex and sexuality with or without adult guidance. Making their own experimentation criminal is simply a huge mistake. At the very least, an institutionalized grey area needs to be present. For example, if there is a "teen" in the age of the suspects, a lot more consideration needs to be applied. Do the words "raging hormones" mean nothing to legislators and prosecutors? Does the fact that for most people their first genuine sexual feelings begin prior to the age of 13?

Criminalize nature all you like, but it will not change nature. Today's ultra-cautious political state is simply out of control. If today's standards for children applied when I was a kid, I'd have been put into jail forever for some of the crap I did. Everything from fireworks to B-B guns would have gotten me marked for life. And yes, I too had partaken in various forms of cruelty to animals as there was an abundance of insects, frogs and tortoises in my area where I grew up... not to mention birds and squirrels.

We need a LOT less legislation of morality. Some child pornography is very obvious and needs control -- older adults with ten year olds is very obviously wrong. A 20 year old and a 16 year old is less obviously wrong. And kids taking pictures of themselves and sharing them with friends in an environment commercial exploiting sexuality as a means of getting attention for their selling ads is just wrong. You can't allow the environment to exist without expecting young people to be affected! Take Paris Hilton off the air, off of covers of magazines and newspapers! She is famous for ONE reason alone.

Frankly, if I was the parent of any of these teens, I would start filing suit against EVERY major media provider that influences children with their unavoidable crap selling sexuality to teenagers. You can destroy every TV, magazine and newspaper in the home and teens are STILL going to be at risk of influence from it. And yes, I know it is futile and stupid. But attention to the real problems will never be drawn until obvious clashes between culture and law are reconciled.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[TheMeuge]

This is a 2nd amendment issue. The parents of the children in question, for the security of a free state, should collect firearms, organize a militia, and shoot dead everyone who has fast-tracked this case into the courtroom.

Wrong way to stop this activity

[betterunixthanunix]

This is definitely something that needs to be curtailed -- these are not adults making a rational decision about these pictures, these are teenagers who think it is exciting. Arresting them will not stop the behavior, it will just drive it underground. What is needed is better parenting and education.

Of course, that is always the case...

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[Leafheart]

This is definitely something that needs to be curtailed -- these are not adults making a rational decision about these pictures, these are teenagers who think it is exciting.

Please, define to me how that can't be a rational decision on their part? The girls thought it would be nice to tease the boys, I imagine, with whom they want to maintain sexual relationship, sending them pictures of themselves. I'm not sure on the law in Pa, but in most states if they 6 were having an orgy, they could give consent. But they can't consent on their pictures?

So you can see in person, but you can't see it by a picture? And more important, I can look at myself in the mirror, but I can't picture it??? WTF is wrong with that? Who in their right mind could conceive this law as reasonable????

From TFA:

Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends. "It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing until it's already done."

Let me translate it to you. We, the authorities, decided that we will screw the lives of this 6 forever, marking them as sexual offenders, so kids learn not to embarrasses themselves if those pictures hit the web. And we believe it will work...

Thanks goodness I don't live in USA, and if anyone in Brazil starting doing something similar there will be a lot of outcry for the ones I know.

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[LateArthurDent]

This is definitely something that needs to be curtailed -- these are not adults making a rational decision about these pictures, these are teenagers who think it is exciting.

That's because it is exciting. It's a nude body, a perfectly natural thing, what can possibly be the harm of showing it?

Just to clarify, I don't have anything against you for holding those beliefs, I just disagree with them and wanted to voice my own position. You're obviously a reasonable person for not wanting them to be arrested for behavior you don't approve of.

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that people think it is somehow wrong that young adults going through puberty exploring their own sexuality is somehow wrong. The more we make this into an "evil" act the more twisted these kids' views on sexuality will become. This is pretty common stuff for teenagers to be doing, and pretty natural for them to be doing it.

Treating this kind of situation the way prosecutors are will only make it more difficult for teens to express themselves, discuss sex with parents and learn how to be safe and responsible.

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you want to stop young people enjoying their bodies?
Do you hate joy or did you god tell you that your penis is evil or what?

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[JaredOfEuropa]

This is definitely something that needs to be curtailed -- these are not adults making a rational decision about these pictures, these are teenagers who think it is exciting

Curtailed, sure. If by that you mean educating children and parents about the risks of making such pictures and sharing them with friends. But we do not need any damn law against children photographing themselves. The judge should think of the children, these children, and throw the case out. Prosecuting and punishing this will mess up the rest of their lives more than the average internet perv ever would.

In general, I am suspicious about anyone who wants to "get tough" on child pornographers. Sure, exploiting children like this is and should be a crime, a despicable one, and it should be punished. But let's not get carried away here. Already in my own country it is illegal to make or own stuff that looks like child porn, even if they're computer renderings with no actual children involved. A politician here got done for having a whopping 2 images of suspected (not proven or glaringly obvious) child porn in his considerable but otherwise vanilla porn pile. Suspected child molesters are treated like Hitler, Stalin and Satan all rolled into one, and yes, I do think we're getting carried away there. And I do suspect the people who are egging us on for having some hidden agenda. People like that always start with the easy, universally disliked enemy. And then they move on to the next.

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[east coast]

What if there was better parenting and education but this kind of thing still continues? Defiance of a parent is far from abnormal now of days. What do you suggest in that case? And who says that wasn't the case here?

Let's face facts. Kids do break the rules their parents set out for them. Maybe the punishment for this kind of thing is harsh but it certain that the problem itself can't be winked at. To act like letting this kind of thing go (which seems to be what you're suggesting by saying "Arresting them will not stop the behavior") is a sure way to let it get worse.

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[lord_sarpedon]

Better parenting and education?

What if all parties are fine with the nudie pics, including parents? One can't blanket label the act as "morally wrong"

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[slimjim8094]

This has a particular significance to myself; I am 17.

I want you to ask yourself what would be different, I mean really different, if these girls and boys were 2 years older.

They aren't any more smart about sex. From experience, people who are stupid about sex by age 15 (or before) stay stupid.

They aren't any more rational. Similarly to the above, people who make bad decisions at 16 won't do any better.

The only difference is that they wouldn't be arrested and have their lives destroyed.

Let me quote one of your statements:

these are not adults making a rational decision about these pictures, these are teenagers who think it is exciting.

What exactly happens when you turn 18, and go from being a 'teenager who thinks it is exciting' to '[an] adult making a rational decision'?

I can tell you right now that you don't remember yourself at 16, nor your age group. Nothing much changes in those two years except wisdom (and this isn't a wisdom problem)

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they need better parenting and education about this particular issue?
It's not like they did anything wrong. It was completely natural; that was basically doing what teenagers always did, if only on a new medium. The law, if not parenting and education too, needs to adapt to nature, not the other way around.

Re:Wrong way to stop this activity

[Anonymous Coward]

This is definitely something that needs to be curtailed -- these are not adults making a rational decision about these pictures, these are teenagers who think it is exciting. Arresting them will not stop the behavior, it will just drive it underground. What is needed is better parenting and education.

Of course, that is always the case...

What is really needed is for people to stop digging into other people's business! Who the fuck cares if they are sending nude pictures to each other - they are all around the same age and no one felt violated so these people are simply caring too much about NOTHING!! I wonder what would happen if there was a REAL problem? I bet these clowns would be shaking in their boots! LOLOL

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me fucking glad I don't live in Amerika.

I already see the form of the protest

[NikLinna]

Thousands of teenagers sending nude pics of themselves to teachers, school board members, and law-enforcement personnel...shudder.

Re:I already see the form of the protest

[silanea]

Where do I sign up?

Re:I already see the form of the protest

[Voyager529]

And with what it costs for picture messages these days, I'm wagering that Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile won't be complaining all that much.

Re:I already see the form of the protest

[toriver]

Where do I sign up?

To send, or to receive?

Ok. Its mob time again.

[unity100]

go fetch my torch and you all get your pitchforks. we are doing overtime these days dammit ...

Chasity Belt

[BarkingGhostAR]

I find this a little abusive of the laws that were put into place to protect non-adults from adults a la sexual predators. Non-adults playing together and showing each other their 'wares is a part of becoming familiar with yourself and others. Next they'll be passing a law to require a Chasity belt for boys and girls and make them asexual for when they turn 18.

Seriously...WTF?!

[thesolo]

From the article (emphasis mine):

Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends.

"It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing until it's already done."

Wait, what? First of all, no, the cell phone isn't put on the internet, the photos might be, but whatever, that's nit-picking. The real issue is that first statement. They're going to make these kids register as sex offenders to "send a strong message to other minors"?!

These kids didn't do anything wrong. They're teens, they're full of hormones, and they're going to have sex with each other. And it's not the state or federal government's place to stop them. This has gotten far out of hand when 15 year olds willfully showing their bodies to 16 year olds can be prosecuted as child porn.

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

And lets not forget the fact the photos were discovered unlawfully to begin with. ROFL

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[snowgirl]

These kids didn't do anything wrong. They're teens, they're full of hormones, and they're going to have sex with each other. And it's not the state or federal government's place to stop them. This has gotten far out of hand when 15 year olds willfully showing their bodies to 16 year olds can be prosecuted as child porn.

You OBVIOUSLY haven't heard about the success of abstinence-only education. Kids aren't having sex anymore, unless they're filthy nasty perverts!

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[Wildclaw]

Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends.

Someone please put a bullet through the brains of however is in charge of those authorities. That would count as as really protecting the children.

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[kid_oliva]

But it has become the federal and state government's responsibility when the parents refuse to do their job. Our new president believes in using government to affect people's attitudes and mold them. More not less government will be enacted I fear. I hope I am wrong.

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[Opportunist]

So Palin's daughter is a filthy, nasty pervert?

Ok, given the mother, it's understandable...

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[DigitalSorceress]

Wow, Obama's been sworn in for all of three and a half hours and it's his fault?

Honestly, that argument is just plain bogus. Either that or you live in some kind of scary parallel world.

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[canajin56]

That's the boilerplate that the DA always uses when charging children with molesting themselves. We're trying them as adults to protect other children. If we give these children 20 years in prison and put them on the sex offender list for life, hopefully driving them to suicide just like my last case, then other children will see this and realize that its a bad idea because I just might destroy their lives, too! I'm protecting the children.

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[Cajun Hell]

(aside from your main point)

First of all, no, the cell phone isn't put on the internet

It can be. Phones are just little PCs. We haven't the mass cellphone disaster yet, where people get the sudden reality check that they know even less about these devices' security than their PCs. When a bunch of people get all their pics and messages sucked off their iPhones without the user wanting to forward any of them, that could change.

Seriously, I give the "authorities" some big-thinking credit here, even if they are evil and their statement only happened to be inadvertently insightful. Unless they're using OpenMokos or something like that, the kids don't know where the pictures are stored, how easily/difficultly anyone can access them, or how securely they are transmitted to the people they do opt to share with. They don't know the risks and implications. Even most techies don't know.

It's definitely something to think about and a good issue to publicize. It's just a shame it'll get lost in the noise of the stupid decision to charge people with violating themselves by not getting their own consent to a likely-harmless act, since they don't have the capacity to give that consent but they'll still be held responsible for the decision, whatever that means.

Re:Seriously...WTF?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll reply to your flamebait. In no way was I saying that it is Obama's fault. I was clearly laying blame at parents who will not raise their kids and the government ends up raising them, which is not their job. I would invite you to go to www.whitehouse.gov so you are at least informed in what you are saying.

This will just lead to a cyper romeo / juliet law

[FireStormZ]

Technically they did break the law, all they need is a sensible judge to set a president here..

How about this? We KILL the children who engage

[crovira]

in such depravity, just like the Taliban pretend the Koran tells us to do.

We could line them up face down on the ground against a wall and put single bullet from a Kalashnikov through as many heads as it'll go through.

Well, all the girls anyway. Boys get their week-end pass privileges revoked.

That ought to please all the religious whack jobs who says that being naked is punishable by something...

Re:How about this? We KILL the children who engage

[Kokuyo]

I resent the person who modded this troll. While very cynical, I find it describes the current problem very adequately.

Also in Utah

[ink]

Charges coming in Davis County over nude photos

"It's out there and it's happening," Dunn said. "It's felonies, potentially federal felonies, and kids are clueless. They think that because the person is across the room and you're sending it across the room that it isn't a big deal. It's not the case."

These kids could end up on the sex-offender registry, which would further deflate its usefulness and also deny a whole host of opportunities from these kids. What they did amounts to "show me yours, I'll show you mine" in my opinion -- but our culture is so wrapped up in sex offender mania that we're conflating rapists with innocent behavior.

When we bought our house close to the University of Utah, we looked on the state's sex offender registry and were alarmed by all the incidents around. After drilling down to specific cases, however, it turns out that most of them were of the drunken-college-student variety. Now, when I hear that someone is a "sex offender", I'm not certain if they are a violent rapist, or if they took a dare to run down the block naked.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[HungryHobo]

wait... what?
You start out saying teens will be teens and will be interested in sex then move on to denouncing "every major media provider that influences children with their unavoidable crap selling sexuality to teenagers".
So is sex evil now or not?
do you want teens kept in a sex free bubble or in the real world?

I'm just not exactly clear after reading that.

TREASON

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoever filed the charges should be hanged for treason. PERIOD!

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[frosty_tsm]

Is the age of consent in PA really 14? I've heard of certain states having 17 or 16, but 14!?

I'm not saying you don't make a bad point.

We've been heading this way for a long time now

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

The United States has been heading this way for a long while now, at least since Anita Bryant started her "Save Our Children" campaign, when she was under the impression that homosexuals could only increase their number by "recruiting" innocent children. Then John Walsh turned his personal tragedy into a national, and now a global tragedy with his movement that deceived the nation into believing that the thousands of children who run away from abusive homes each year were in fact millions of children who were being raped and murdered by strangers each year. (The quasi-governmental organization Walsh founded, the National Center for Misusing and Exploiting Children, is the king of dubious statistics - at one point they were telling Americans that over a million kids went missing annually. More recently they have been claiming that the non-existent child porn industry is larger than the legal pornography industry and Hollywood, combined.) What started out as an anti-homosexual movement has turned into an anti-child and anti-man movement, and in fact an anti-everything-good-about-the-world movement.

(As a curious aside: Anita Bryant made a name for herself as a singer, and one of her hits was a tune from the 1950's musical "The Music Man", which was set in the early 1900s. "The Music Man" was about a charlatan who deceived parents into believing their children were in danger so that he could sell them the cure. Sound familiar?)

So now we have reached the point where we are putting children who are "doing what comes naturally" in jail, or blacklisting them for life, in the name of "protecting them". Protecting them from what, exactly, no one has been able to satisfactorily explain, but protect them we will, by God, if we have to kill every last one of them!

I feel for both the boys and girls who have been caught up in this situation, in which the only real crimes were those committed by the principal who violated their right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure and those committed by the police and prosecutors who pursued charges.

When combined with such things as The Drug War, it is getting harder and harder every day to do anything but laugh at the notion that the United States is home to the free or the brave.

"And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the fear and the home of the slave!"

Play ball!

Re:This will just lead to a cyper romeo / juliet l

[RasputinAXP]

Isn't that what happened in the 2000 US elections?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[erroneus]

Actually, my last lines spell it all out.

The REAL problem is the disconnect between nature/culture and our morality laws. They are moving in separate directions.

We had similar problems with smoking at one point until laws were create to reign that in... now that we have laws preventing children from smoking and laws preventing its advertisement, we are at least consistent. But laws against sexual expression in advertisement will be a LOT harder to come by and a lot harder fought. Meanwhile these sappy laws "protecting the children" even from themselves are in dire need of revisitation and reconciliation with our present day standards and culture.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

You're most likely to be molested/raped by your mother.
You're most likely to be physically abused by your mother.
You're most likely to be emotionally abused by your mother.
You're most likely to be killed by your mother.

But men are evil.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Blimey85]

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your militia.

Sounds like a great business opportunity!

[cdrguru]

Buy up pictures from teens for resale. Easy, electronic transactions that are nearly untracable and a virtually unlimited supply of pictures.

We all know there is a market, and nothing sells like porn. Time for some real home-grown kiddie porn from the US. I wonder what sort of domain name would work for this?

something seems wrong about this...

[acedotcom]

what was the school administration doing by looking through the phone in the first place?

Re:something seems wrong about this...

[Cajun Hell]

Keeping us safe from the terrorists.

The digital world is ruining our children

[captainbeardo]

Whatever happened to "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"? And the timeless art of "playing doctor".

How is this a crime?

[moniker127]

The girls willingly sent those photos. Who is the victim here? Arent laws only there to prevent the abuses of rights? Its not like the 15 and 16 year old boys are creepy old balding men who told the girls to send them photos. This is bullshit anyway- the phones were taken for a completley different reason- and whatever creepy old teacher took them didnt have a right to look through the memory card. Its like arresting someone for j-walking, and then using that as a warrent to search their house for drugs. Thats now how warrents are supposed to be used. If you see people coming out of someone's hosue with bags of weed- you get a warrent, and then you search the house for the weed, and if you find the weed while you're in there, then that person is in trouble, but thats the only thing you are allowed to look for, nothing else is useable in a court of law because the warrent was just for the weed. These laws were set up that way to prevent exactly this sort of abuse of power. Bottom line is the phone charge and the child pornography charge are fucking unrelated.

Re:How is this a crime?

[TheLink]

It's certainly seems like a crime to me.

The children are being violated and abused by the Government and people who have been placed in positions of trust.

They might even be scarred for life.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahahaha. Modded Insightful. You guys's cracks me up.

Re:This will just lead to a cyper romeo / juliet l

[uffe_nordholm]

I think what you mean is a a sensible judge should set a precedent.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is indicative of a very sick nation that such a radical measure is fully justified. For the security of a free state (if we have one) this cannot be allowed to stand.

The 2nd amendment was written to give citizens an absolute method of defense, a final safeguard that should never be circumvented. External threats are no longer the chief danger to a free state, it is internal injustices like this that should never be tolerated.

Re:Sounds like a great business opportunity! or no

[Anonymous Coward]

nice way to screwy someone life in 4 simple steps:

1. get some underage photo

2. get the target phone and send it

3. call the cops

4. profit!!
 
  no ??? this time...

"these are not adults . . ."

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

"these are not adults making a rational decision about these pictures"

When I saw this, my first thought was "Yes, that principle and the prosecutors obviously are not adults, and are obviously not making a rational decision about these pictures.

Then I realised you were talking about the teens.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[meist3r]

When they move they'll have to notify the county where they live. They'll have to let their neighbors know (So they can keep their kids away from these nasty people).

*Ding Dong*

"Hi my name is Megan, I just moved in next door. I'm 20 and I have to inform you that I will probably force you to see me naked."

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! We can't let that happen.

Oh, Wow

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, it's funny reading all you parents of children comment on...oh wait, none of you will ever have children much less get that close to a woman.

Get some kids then see if you feel the same.

Get them all

[Anonymous Coward]

Quick. Forward those images to the teacher's phone, the principal of the school, and the judge too. Let's have them all be registered sex offenders.

Re:Get them all

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. And lets publish them too, they way we can ring up charges on anyone who has a network access. It does not matter if anyone _actually_ downloads them, just that they could have is enough for a conspiracy charge.

The New World Order is not happy unless everyone has criminal status. It is far easier to find an excuse for control for these people.

I don't expect any objections for microchip tracking of CHILD MOLESTERS! (Do don't object to tracking CHILD MOLESTERS do YOU!@)

Child Molestors

[db32]

We need to enforce these laws much more heavy handedly to protect our children from sexual predators! You do realize how many child molesters there are out there waiting to prey on children MANY TIMES A DAY! You all know this to be true! Most of you were molested as children many times per day by the same person in many years of cruel sexual abuse. That person was always there, waiting for the next opporunity to strike.

Everyone under the age of 18 that gets caught masturbating should be immediately sent to prison for child molestation!

Re:Child Molestors

[Belial6]

I know I have far more fear that my child will be arrested and excommunicated (what else can we call it) from society for doing nothing wrong than I have of any 'terrorist' blowing him up. The US/state/local governments are definitely more of a threat to him than the 'terrorist' and the 'internet pedophiles' by a wide margin.

Re:Child Molestors

[db32]

I'm guessing noone understood the rant, or noone is actually reading the whole thing, neither would surprise me.

If you played with yourself while you were under 18 you were molesting a child(yourself) and should be put in prison. You know...the same way the girls taking pictures of themselves were producing child pornography. Since most people HAVE played with themselves, especially while under the age of 18...that makes most people child molestors...

Re:Child Molestors

[bhtooefr]

You know, a couple nights ago, I watched a movie... "Shooter," and in it, the main character was ex-military, and had sworn an oath to protect the US from its enemies, foreign and domestic.

And (rot13ed, as it's a spoiler of the ending) ur qvq xvyy n HF frangbe, nzbat bguref, to protect the country.

Maybe something like that is called for here.

Re:This will just lead to a cyper romeo / juliet l

[loteck]

Fortunately for you, a President WILL be set today. Something tells me you were maybe hoping for a precedent to be set in this case, though...

link please

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked everywhere and can't find a link to the pics in question...?

Re:This will just lead to a cyper romeo / juliet l

[FireStormZ]

lol, yea too much trusting firefox not enough actually reading what corrections it would make ;)

They are children!

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally believe that kids about this age should never be tried for possession child pornography unless it can be proven that they did wilfully download it. Who here wouldn't keep a photo of a cute girl if you were their age?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[kalirion]

Frankly, if I was the parent of any of these teens, I would start filing suit against EVERY major media provider that influences children with their unavoidable crap selling sexuality to teenagers.

How is that different from what Jack Thompson did?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

17 year old guys can be pretty stupid, maybe it was his wallpaper, or maybe he was showing the pics to his friends at school and a teacher saw.

Either way, I only hope that more arrests like these happen and that the girls get to explain WHY theyre sex offenders when going door to door. Maybe then awareness might be high enough that the laws can change.

What about sex?

[Anonymous Coward]

If kids have sex with each other does that make them paedophiles?

Re:What about sex?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes

Minor charged with viewing elicit images in mirror

[DayBoyUSA]

In other news, a minor was just charged with viewing elicit images of a minor in his bathroom mirror!

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[pauljlucas]

What is up with all of the voyeurism lately? Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?

Apparently, yes.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[TheMeuge]

"Troll"

WTF? Someone certainly must be on crack here. Children who did nothing, other than violate school rules, and experiment with their sexuality get to have their entire lives ruined... and nobody along the way says "hold on..." ... and I get marked "Troll". You guys have a twisted view of the world...

you sir, are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

You see the harm that results from the completely broken system we have, and you think that you can tweak it so it works. Ain't gonna happen. The whole system is rotten. And why, exactly, is it so bad if a kid willingly gets it on with an adult? It seemed to work fine for all of human history, and suddenly in the past century we discover that it's the most evil thing of all time? What's wrong with that picture?

Re:you sir, are an idiot

[freemywrld]

And why, exactly, is it so bad if a kid willingly gets it on with an adult?

I would suspect that the reasoning is that children are more easily manipulated than adults. Especially by adults. They may be "willing" but the greater question becomes "why" they are willing.

The reasons may not be what you think.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Doctor Faustus]

They're old enough to consent, but god forbid I videotape it for later.
I'm actually cool with that. Recordings are a lot more likely to cause trouble in their lives than just having sex.

What I think is perverse is that someone could be old enough to have sex with you, but not to *watch* a video of you having sex.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Dragonslicer]

Do the words "raging hormones" mean nothing to legislators and prosecutors?

Dear Lord, I hope so.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

What in those words support your conclusion in any way?

20% of all tenagers in jail?

[GbrDead]

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy reported last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20 percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude photos or videos of themselves. That number was slightly higher for teenage girls - 22 percent - vs. boys - 18 percent.

So Mr. Seranko wants to put 20% of all teenagers in jail? Yay for him and the twisted "justice" system.

Re:20% of all tenagers in jail?

[Aladrin]

Damnit. Further proof that wasn't one of the cool kids in school. Nothing like that ever happened to me.

Re:20% of all tenagers in jail?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't just the a bunch of class mates to the children snap photos of themselves and send anonymous to the school teachers, the police and the judge involved and the absurdity of the situation would be kind of pointed out, or they go to jail. Either way will do for me.

it's up to the courts to decide

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the DA need to show the offending to a grand jury and judge? At that point, who's distributing child porn?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I had to wonder about that - they confiscated it back in OCTOBER and it took this long for charges? What were they doing with the pics during all that time?

Please don't attribute to "conservatives"

[Shivetya]

what is more rightfully attributable to out of control government officials who feel as if they must make us "learn" to do things right and their holding of a public office gives them the right to determine right and wrong and enforce it when they deem necessary.

Too much is easily passed off to one form of bigotry or another but never properly attributed to ego. After reading some of the statements its very obvious that someone has a chip on their shoulder.

Re:Please don't attribute to "conservatives"

[tmosley]

Mod parent up. The problem here is big government forcing their way into our lives. The so called "conservatives" who were in charge weren't really conservatives, but rather fascists (pro-war, anti-freedom) masquerading as liberals (big spending) masquerading as conservatives (outrage over anything having to do with sex).

It was the worst of every major ideology of the 20th century all rolled up into one hideous bloated monstrosity.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[QRDeNameland]

According to Wikipedia:

The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 years of age. Teenagers aged 13, 14 and 15 may legally engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 4 years older.

So it would seem in PA that though 14 is under the age of consent for an adult, a 17 year old having sex with a 14 year old would not be illegal. Looking at the rest of the page, this would seem to be typical of most states.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[hattig]

It just means that the term "sex offender" is meaningless.

The dangerous people get lost in the crowd.

Not one brain cell has gone into thinking these policies through.

there have been a number of cases

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

This has been happening for a while now, with or without pictures.

In one case, one poor girl got put on the sex offenders registry for playing doctor. She was TEN at the time. She was playing doctor with her step-siblings, their biological father found out and decided to punish his ex-wife by taking it out on the girl. She's a woman now, and can't get a job because she's a registered sex offender.

But the pictures thing has been happening too, in a number of jurisdictions. Seems like I hear of a case every few weeks. There's no end to the stupidity. Kids are too young to consent to sex, but old enough to be held criminally accountable for the rest of their life if they TRY to consent to sex.

Hormonal Imbalance causes Anti-Social Behaviour

[RCC42]

There's a research paper brief here http://www.caah.chw.edu.au/conference/papers/paper_49.pdf that indicates the hormonal shift during puberty encourages what is defined as 'anti-social behaviour' but I would conclude from what's written in the paper brief that the hormonal balance as defined would raise the 'risk' of teenagers in engaging in risky behaviour.

While that's about the most obvious thing I've said all week, there is research in the area that shows a correlation with the anti-social behaviour occurring at the onset of puberty rather then at a specific age (highschool age or otherwise).

Here's an excerpt.

"This research investigates the possibility that during puberty, adolescents experience disruption to executive functioning, and that this 'dip' in executive functioning explains the increase in antisocial behaviour during adolescence. For example, as an adult, if I see that someone has left their car keys in the ignition, I might think that it would be fun to take the car for a ride around town, but when I consider the possible consequences, I inhibit this initial impulse. In contract, an adolescent with diminished executive functioning may not foresee getting caught, and what the possible consequences of that may be; they may not consider that someone may be distressed to find their car having gone missing, or even reflect on whether they know how to drive the vehicle, and thus may simply act on the initial impulse.

This (car) analogy could be stretched to one that describes the case in TFA quite easily.

While I haven't touched on the moral or legal ramifications of this topic, I think I covered the physiological ones to a degree.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Kabuthunk]

Do the words "raging hormones" mean nothing to legislators and prosecutors? Does the fact that for most people their first genuine sexual feelings begin prior to the age of 13?

Nope. They can't hear that over the sound of the promotion they're getting for putting away another child molester.

As a parent...

[HikingStick]

...I find the stance taken to prosecute these kids as something that is criminal. I don't condone the behavior, but the kids don't need a rap sheet. These kids need to understand the downside of taking and posting such photos (e.g., they almost never stay private or with the intended recipient). They also need to understand that their real worth and beauty in this world does not come from their naked bodies. Shame on the prosecutors who are making these kids out to be criminal peddlers of child pornography! If they were taking photos of other kids and passing them around, I can see some sanction (a juvenile offense), but this is just rediculous.

How would you feel if you were a parent of one of these kids? They made some stupid choices. We all--to varying degrees--made stupid choices when we were younger. When I was a kid, they just called it "growing up".

Re:As a parent...

[Opportunist]

The sanctions in this case should be left to the parents. You know? The people allegedly supposed to tell them what's "good" and what's "bad" behaviour.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[AnyoneEB]

Sorta. Wikipedia has the full details, but here is the relevant part:

The age of consent in Pennsylvania is 16 years of age. Teenagers aged 13, 14 and 15 may legally engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 4 years older.

Letters

[Anonymous Coward]

letter writing perhaps? Honestly I'm not sure people realize how serious an issue this is, children's lives are being destroyed by an extremely misguided system. We should all be writing letters to the governor of PA to change legislation, and pardon the affected persons in this case.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[CRiMSON]

And untill cases like this affect a bigger population or start affecting people with power (there kids getting caught, etc) nothing will change. Because people simply brush you away and say "It's protecting the kids... hush" and go on about there day.

Excuse me, but. . .

[MagusSlurpy]

. . . pics or it didn't happen.

Re:Excuse me, but. . .

[Icegryphon]

I see /b/tard written all over those words.

Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully? Soon.

Society needs a common outcast, and pedophiles make a damn fine target. So fine, in fact, that collateral damage is obviously acceptable, due to an abundant lack of reform on these laws.

You can only label so many witches before you're drowning in them.

registered sex offender list...

[Anonymous Coward]

But he noted that convictions would have "serious, serious implications," including forcing them having to register as sexual offenders for at least 10 years

Add this to the endless list of reasons why america desperately needs a very vicious bloody uprising against the present failed government.

illegal search?

[DragonTHC]

did the school administrator have the legal right to search the devices memory for said materials?

Re:illegal search?

[EmagGeek]

Yes. School Administrators are acting en loco parentis, which means they have the same rights as the parents with respect to the child. They can search the child, their person, and their belongings, just as a parent can.

Re:illegal search?

[clone53421]

Wrong. In loco parentis does not permit civil rights violations. Read the wiki if you don't believe me:

it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.

Charges of child porn

[matterOfact]

This happened in my town last week. School boards make a policy to ban cell phones with now intention of enforcing or a method in place to enforce. Goofy kids taking pictures of themselves, because they can, are in danger of being labeled sex offenders when some offended parent goes off and calls the cops. There is only one law that cover this and that is the child porn law. It is a good law. But in school systems common sense needs to be applied. Parents you are responsible for our children. Don't let that fall to someone else.

funny

[Anonymous Coward]

so they can have sex and really look at each other but when they just share photos it becomes illegal.

Loki?

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

How the hell did we both end up on the same side?

Re:Loki?

[Loki_666]

LOL.... Loki was known for falsehoods among other things... maybe i am lying. ;-)

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

>Fact is, teenagers will figure out sex and sexuality with or without adult guidance. Making their own experimentation criminal is simply a huge mistake. At the very least, an institutionalized grey area needs to be present.

Or at the very least, the govt/school staying the f... out of none-of-their-business until one of the involved parties actually asks them to step in.

>Take Paris Hilton off the air, off of covers of magazines and newspapers! She is famous for ONE reason alone.

"one day I started to correct all the mistakes I've done... good that I realized what I was doing in time [and stopped correcting them]."

The above is one of the best quotes I've ever heard about having someone to blame / psychological projection / ...

Until the people don't realize that they are being had, nothing will change. The govt does NOT want to protect your children. Speak after me: It does NOT.
Why would it?

All they care about is for it to look like they are doing something, anything at all, that _you_ think is them helping you.

>But attention to the real problems will never be drawn until obvious clashes between culture and law are reconciled.

They don't want to draw attention to the real problems. That's the whole point. Fog and mirrors. Heaven forbid people sees the real problems. You're going to have a riot on your hands. They're not stupid.

Proof that the US legal system is fatally sick

[WCMI92]

We need more prosecutions of overzealous prosecutors and judges.

Start putting some of them in the klink and then maybe you will have some rational common sense return to the legal system.

Child porn laws exist and were CLEARLY intended to apply to ADULTS who created, obtained, or distributed such photos/whatever.

Anyone who has baby pictures better burn them/destroy the evidence... IMHO, this is a way of manufacturing a crime in order to make some idiot prosecutor and the equally irresponsible court that will hear this look like they are doing something.

Re:Proof that the US legal system is fatally sick

[TubeSteak]

Child porn laws exist and were CLEARLY intended to apply to ADULTS who created, obtained, or distributed such photos/whatever.

At the lowest level of the legal system, Judges have no discretion but to strictly apply a plain reading of the law.
IIRC, in order to start delving into legislative intent, you have to take it to an appeals court.
This is why broadly written laws are dangerous.

If the intent was to criminalize adults taking pictures of minors,
the law should have been written to say that.
It wasn't and this is the logical conclusion.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Kjella]

Before, when some crazy shit happened it was only for those actually there. If you weren't at the party you never saw that girl flashing her tits, and while some talk might get around if you were a parent you wouldn't be present nor would anyone tell you about it. Parents *want* to have a certain blind spot like this, it's kinda like not wanting to think of your parents having sex. Documentation shatters that illusion, kids this generation actually do the same stuff you'd almost managed to forget you did as an impetus teens. I'm now thirthyish and people have stopped telling only the "moral" stories some time ago. The last generation or even further back did a lot of things that were stupid, illegal, dangerous and sexual as teens too. Particularly before legalized abortion it doesn't take much more than birth dates and subtraction to figure out what was going on. So yeah, in many cases the problem people have isn't what's happening but the video tape.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Ethanol-fueled]

But they can't even get that right.

I tried looking for 2 girls 1 cup and all I found were a bunch of stupid attention-starved kids making yucky faces and otherwise behaving like retards. I feel cheated!

WTF Mods.

[db32]

Flamebait? Did you not read the whole post? You are hereby metamoderated -1 Poor Reading Skills or -1 No Humor, or both.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[princessproton]

What is up with all of the voyeurism lately? Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?

Lately? "Reality television" has been inordinately popular for years.

conservatives + feminists = insanity

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

"Psychologically, I say this is the extreme conversatives who would really like to outlaw nudity, masturbation and while we're at it, even thinking about sex."

That's only half of it. The liberals are also idiots, especially the feminist faction.

There have been at least two cases where women have been put in prison for being raped by teenage boys. Yes, you read that correctly, they were put in prison for being the victims of actual, honest-to-god, forcible rape. Because their rapists were less than 18 years old, the victims were convicted of statutory rape of a minor. Unlike Saudi Arabia, where the public was outraged when a woman was convicted for being a rape victim, nobody cared much. And where did this happen, some conservative bastion in the backcountry? No. It happened in Madison, Wisconsin - a famously "liberal" enclave.

This idiocy is coming at us from right and left, and frankly I think the feminists on the left are worse. The conservatives at least have some moderating influences like a belief in the power of forgiveness and millennia of history.

Re:conservatives + feminists = insanity

[Mr2001]

The liberals are also idiots, especially the feminist faction.

There have been at least two cases where women have been put in prison for being raped by teenage boys. Yes, you read that correctly, they were put in prison for being the victims of actual, honest-to-god, forcible rape. Because their rapists were less than 18 years old, the victims were convicted of statutory rape of a minor. Unlike Saudi Arabia, where the public was outraged when a woman was convicted for being a rape victim, nobody cared much. And where did this happen, some conservative bastion in the backcountry? No. It happened in Madison, Wisconsin - a famously "liberal" enclave.

This idiocy is coming at us from right and left, and frankly I think the feminists on the left are worse.

I'm not wholly disagreeing with you: there are certainly plenty of ageist, prudish idiots on both sides of the aisle, and even as a liberal, most of what I see described as "feminism" pisses me off. Visit any feminist blog and you'll see that they've moved past equal rights and fair treatment, and are now more concerned with absolving women of all responsibility for any situation they might ever find themselves in.

But I must point out that your anecdote here has nothing whatsoever to do with feminists. Putting more female rape victims in jail is not part of any feminist agenda. And it has little to do with liberalism, either: the law in question was surely a state law, and Wisconsin seems pretty evenly split on the statewide level.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Eli Gottlieb]

Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?

Hey, maybe the kid was a Slashdotter.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[jitterman]

...

I'm not saying you don't make a bad point.

Saaaayyyy... are you sure you're not a lawyer of one type or another?

on the internets! the world will end!

[johnny cashed]

Yes, it is very dangerous business, having nude photos of underage persons floating around on the internet. Society will crumble! Thank god they've arrested the perpetrators and will now prevent the victims from being scarred for life because a nude photo of them was seen by everyone. Now the victims will be scarred for life for being labeled a sex offender. Justice is served.

But really, is a nude photo pornography, child or otherwise? It is a nude. That is very different from a photo suggesting sex or displaying sexual contact.

I have to wonder if the authorities in this case are seriously concerned that if this is left unpunished, the kids will think that it is perfectly ok to send each other nude photos of themselves and there will be rampant "sexting" among the young population? Is that it?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[fyoder]

Never mind you're more likely to be molested by your Uncle or your Mom's new boyfriend than some stranger in a van.

Or by the reasoning here it may be that you're most likely to be molested by yourself, at least prior to the age of consent. After that it's ok, since it's an act between a consenting adult and themselves.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[tiny1877]

According to www.ageofconsent.com Pennsylvania is 16. That dude must have PA confused with West Virginia where you can marry your cousin, too...

Here have some Godwin

[TurinPT]

The State must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation. ~Adolf Hitler.

Does anyone else find it ironic...

[EGenius007]

Does anyone else find it ironic that while it was illegal for these minors to share nude pictures they probably could have had consensual sexual intercourse (and/or may have already had) without running afoul of the law?

Re:Does anyone else find it ironic...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if you consider statutory rape charges not to be "running afoul of the law".

Re:Does anyone else find it ironic...

[Opportunist]

I stopped finding any law ironic (or moronic for that matter) that somehow deals with sexual topics. These laws are, essentially, most of the time anything but sensible, logical or otherwise based on facts or reason.

GODWIN'S LAW ACTIVATE

[Anonymous Coward]

Form of: "Think Of The Children!"
Shape of: The Religious Right!

GOOOOOOOOOO PLAN- Wait, that's not how it goes.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[frosty_tsm]

That's nothing. In a certain county near Chicago, you can marry your sibling.

Granted, you both have to be over 50 years old (so you can't have kids), but hey.

Please call/write the District Attorney's office

[JimBobJoe]

Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file

I just confirmed that the Westmoreland County District Attorney's office will be handling this case.

I'd ask any interested slashdotters to call the Westmoreland District Attorney's office and tell them that the prosecution of these individuals:

a.) is not in the interest of the individuals involved
b.) is not upholding the intent of the statutes as written
c.) is completely stupid, without merit and lacking in common sense
c.) will be an embarrassment to the district attorney when he runs for re-election in 2010, should the voters of Westmoreland County find out that that valuable public resources will be used prosecuting teens for something which is hardly threatening the public.

John Peck, District Attorney
Phone: 724.830.3949
da@co.westmoreland.pa.us

Can we see the evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we see the evidence?

Just outlaw puberty

[NicknamesAreStupid]

By most states' laws protecting minors, any minor could be convicted of "committing a sex act with a minor" by masterbating oneself. That would make almost every minor a pedophile. Therefore, the remedy is to prohibit puberty until the age of 21. While they are at it, I suggest they repeal the law of gravity, which I find to be very annoying. Then there is the law of unintended consequences, which should definitely be revoked BEFORE repealing the law of gravity.

Re:Just outlaw puberty

[clone53421]

Don't forget Murphy's Law...

Re:Refrence to example

[Technician]

Just for grins, I flipped through a few old copies. An example of nude women and children making pottery is in the FEB 1964 issue page 174. Now you can get arrested for photos like this? Who knew we would become that crazy.

We've lost our minds as a nation

[pedrop357]

So, the theory is that teens don't have civil rights and/or have a lesser degree of civil rights due to their status as "children" or "minors" and even fewer civil rights in school under the theory that, in addition to being "minors", the school has to be able to ensure safety/security of its students and this need necessitates certain infringements on liberty.

Of course, the teens are being tried as adults or almost like adults-most of the protections of the juvenile courts have been dissolved, rendering them as nothing more than kangaroo courts where kids are punished nearly like adults without the requisite protections.

So, teens can searched at school for reasons/in manners that would not be allowed for adults, held to a reduced standard of rights/privileges as "minors". But, the fruits of that search can see them tried as/almost like adults and thus held to a full (relative to adults) standard of accountability/responsibility. In short, they're searched as children, then tried like adults.

If they're "adjudicated delinquent" (found guilty in juvenile court speak) or found guilty in criminal court, there is nothing to stop them from being forced to register for life as sex offenders. Any concessions/reduced sentencing by a judge that says they won't have to register can always be undone by future legislation. See the Lautenberg amdendment and its affect on gun owners with decades old misdemeanor domestic violent convictions.

We're screwed up as a nation to allow this kind of thing to keep happening. That it's happening to young people, who have the least amount of political and economic power, is an even bigger travesty.

Any Governor who claims to care about families and children would use whatever power he had to stop this and/or pardon them (preemptively, if possible) to ensure that these kids aren't ground up in the legal system and/or their families needlessly disrupted or torn apart.

Hard lessons

[Stanislav_J]

I'm pretty sure the parents of these kids didn't want them sharing naked photos of themselves with each other. I'm also pretty sure, however, that they didn't consider that doing so would result in their kids possibly facing criminal charges, the scarlet letter of "sex offenders," and an adulthood ruined before it even starts. Yet, I wonder how many of the parents were previously 100% in favor of the paranoid, overly-broad, "one size fits all" laws that have now ensnared their children?

There's a lesson to be learned for the kids, too. In the electronic age, kids think nothing of digitally documenting the most intimate aspects of their lives and baring themselves (figuratively AND literally) to their peers. A hard and fast rule: never commit to text, image, or video any act which you would not want parents, teachers, or cops to know about.

All that said, dude, this is pretty fucked up right here.

Re:Hard lessons

[Opportunist]

(sing) And if you tolerate this, then your children will be next...

Hey, chances are good. Teenagers may be not much, but they are hormone filled and eager to let those hormones take control of their life.

longterm mental developmental effects from exposur

[Anonymous Coward]

It is an amazing invasion of privacy. The school had no right to search the seized phone.

The girls now have had their nude photo seen and passed around by many other people (school administration, police officials AND FRIENDS of) which is very disturbing and may cause long-term effects on their mental development and integration in society.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[garylian]

Here is a website that lists all known ages of consent. It's easier to look up here.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

Registered-sex-offender school vacation

[Anonymous Coward]

They only did this so that they'd have to register as sex offenders, thus making it illegal for them to attend, or even go remotely near, a school.

Of course that isn't *actually* Hitler

[Junta]

That is Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

Re:Of course that isn't *actually* Hitler

[TurinPT]

Well, half of it is. Its true, I read it on the internet.

Re:Of course that isn't *actually* Hitler

[tmosley]

It's a quote from Mein Kampf, doofus. Google the whole thing to see for yourself.

Re:Of course that isn't *actually* Hitler

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello

I searched google and found a Mein Kampf english translation, as a pdf file. In that file I could NOT find the quote.

Can you please provide me with a web link to a copy of Mein Kampf in English, that has the infamous quote?

The picture mania

[Animats]

The weird thing about this is that there's such an emphasis on pictures. Penalties for live acts are much lower. A club in Dallas had a 12-year old working as a stripper, and nothing happened to them. No charges at all. A 14 year old stripping in Kentucky resulted in no penalties for the club owner; the kid's aunt, who was driving the girl to work at the strip club, got 60 days in jail.

Live acts are only subject to municipal regulations, apparently. Many jurisdictions don't regulate this at all.

This is a child labor issue, and the Bush Administration didn't want to "unduly impact businesses" by actually enforcing child labor laws.

Re:The picture mania

[Opportunist]

Someone got paid for that, while there's no money involved when kids swap pics of themselves.

Think about it: Would the porn/sex industry be successful if no porn/sex law existed?

Re:Please call/write the District Attorney's offic

[Knara]

Mod parent up.

People like this

[sjames]

This is a loud and clear message. Anyone in this case who is trying to push it forward as child porn needs to be kept as far away from any sort of authority as possible. They have demonstrated very clearly that they lack the judgment and maturity needed to appropriately handle a position of authority.

They should be employed somewhere where other more mature people make the decisions for them.

While we're at it, we need to consider that the minors involved are being exploited right now by adults in authority for political purposes. Just a bunch of supposed adults who have an uncontrollable need to feel like they're in charge without regard for who gets hurt in the process.

'Authorities' in PA have sent a message loud and clear to these teens and their friends that in fact, authorities are simply out to get you any way they can and have nothing whatsoever to do with protecting society.

The school officials, supposedly acting as an adjunct to parents (in loco parentis) have also profoundly failed. The role of parent or guardian (permanent or for the moment) does NOT include throwing kids to the wolves at the first sign of trouble.

It would seem that not one adult involved in this whole madness has even considered the well being of the minors they are in charge of.

The judge should start by dismissing each and every one of these cases with prejudice and then move on to punishing the criminals who are abusing the minors and the justice system for their own gains.

What the kids need is a good sit down conversation with their parents. What they did is not 'OK', but it also isn't criminal.

Re:People like this

[bhtooefr]

The thing is, with the school... they're required to report things at the first sign of trouble, or the school could be sued, and the person who didn't act could be charged with child pornography charges him/herself.

Re:People like this

[sjames]

The school should have reported it TO THE PARENTS immediately.

Of course, they also had the option to simply confiscate the cellphones until after class without pawing through the files on them. After all, the only school infraction was using the cellphone in school.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[FredFredrickson]

Recordings are a lot more likely to cause trouble in their lives than just having sex.

Did you think this one through? I'd rather have a surprise video in 9 months than something else...

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Fastolfe]

And kids taking pictures of themselves and sharing them with friends in an environment commercial exploiting sexuality as a means of getting attention for their selling ads is just wrong.

So I largely agree that our laws about minors and porn are really weird and can't reasonably be justified, but I think you (or perhaps others) are missing something that actually does seem reasonable:

Minors are presumed to be idiots^Winnocents, and may not fully realize the ramifications of what they're doing. They like the attention, get a little frisky, and take some pictures to send to their similarly-aged boyfriends (or vice-versa). IMO, there's nothing really wrong with this. They have plenty of opportunities to do far worse than this. A picture isn't that awful in comparison. But here's the catch: Those pictures stick around. They get stolen, or shared. Once these minors reach the age of majority, they may feel considerably different about taking pictures, or how much they should safeguard them. But by this time, it may be too late. For some people, having these pictures out there in the wild could be devastating. Should minors be protected from these mistakes? If so, how?

I think some form of intervention is needed here. I think convicting them of vanilla child porn crimes is absolutely insane, but at least until they reach the age of majority, minors need to be protected from themselves when it comes to decisions that could have lasting consequences.

Preventing Reverse Child Pornography

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, the metal detectors aren't working.

The only way to prevent this kind of unlawful misuse of contraband electronics, is to do a full cavity search of every student entering the school.

The searches could take a lot of time, so I propose accepting volunteers from local prisons.

The Streisand effect

[DeadCatX2]

Take a moment to appreciate the irony of the situation.

Saranko wants to send a message that any pictures you take might end up on the Internet, becoming an embarrassment for you.

Now, think for a moment. Do you know anyone, besides celebrities, who was embarrassed by naked pictures? Sure, you could google, but I bet you're going to stumble on mostly court cases.

Thus, without Saranko, the world would not know about six teenagers in Greensburg, Pennsylvania. Any embarrassment they suffer is a direct result of this prosecution.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[m.ducharme]

Well hopefully, the GP wouldn't put gay porn in his motions material.

Posting anon for obvious reasons...

[Anonymous Coward]

Pics or STFU!!1

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[billcopc]

Recordings are a lot more likely to cause trouble in their lives than just having sex.

That's interesting, because I've never caught herpes or had a child from watching porn. Maybe I'm just not trying hard enough.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[NormalVisual]

"You have my permission to stay on my lawn"

Re:Refrence to example

[apoc.famine]

Scary, isn't it? I really don't know how it snowballed this far without any public outcry whatsoever. No artists, no lovers of old paintings, no nude society threatened by laws such as this, no parents group who just wants to post pics of their kids being kids. Where's the counter group to the nude=porn group?

For that matter, how sad is it that the group who professed free love, drugs, music, and burned their bras in the 60s make up a solid part of this current social wave? How long before the next counter-establishment movement?

If only...

[Piranhaa]

They had Blackberries with BES servers attached.. What could the school have done if all of a sudden the phone went "blank"? It's only a matter of time that more and more phones get a 'remote wipe' feature built in I'm sure. Kids are just going to get smarter about how they store their data now.

What if the phone was 'locked'? Would they have had to give the password to unlock it, or would it even be a 'reasonable' search? Does this just mean kids are going to be more cautious and locking down their phones? I personally have a quick lock 'physical' button on mine in case I need to lock it quickly.

And as other people have mentioned. It's really sick that this will now go on their permanent records. Sounds like kids will just need to resort to the internets for their pornos now.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[billcopc]

We are! Because we men are violently bitter about not being able to use the vagina defense in court when we act foolishly.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

So whomever confiscated the phone didn't just turn it off and give it back after class, but the sick voyeuristic fuck actually rummaged though the phone's pictures, ran into the bathroom and beat off to it, then felt dirty and decided to call the cops to report CP?

Or he just had it set as his wallpaper.

Will they be tried as children?

[newgalactic]

Ok, so they are charged with possessing/manufacturing child porn. Will they be tried as children (suspended sentence)? Maybe there should be a slap on the wrist. None of the usual registration as a sexual predator stuff.

Re:Will they be tried as children?

[canajin56]

Nope. Just like all of these cases, the DA has already said they will be tried as adults to send a message to other children that taking nude photos of themselves can ruin their lives.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[philspear]

To prevent kids from being sexually exploited, and from exploiting themselves, we clearly need to neuter them.

The Police are negligent.

[Maudib]

They are missing the most egregious offenders. Clearly anyone under the age of 16 caught masturbating should be arrested for child molestation.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[tkg]

People with power simply sidestep the system when it affects them because they have enough money/influence to secure the necessary legal clout. They rarely change it.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Opportunist]

"Oh, if you're concerned about that, let's raise the age of consent to 18 and incriminate ALL minors having sex..."

You know this would be the usual reaction, don't you?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[philspear]

Never mind you're more likely to be molested by your Uncle or your Mom's new boyfriend than some stranger in a van.

I am?!? This is some very startling news. I didn't even know my mother was seeing someone!

There, fixed that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

There are porn beaches, pornist colonies, porn-allowed hotels, cruises, etc.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[philspear]

"Hi my name is Megan, I just moved in next door. I'm 20 and I have to inform you that I will probably force you to see me naked."

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! We can't let that happen.

Well, in 30 years she'll be middle aged, then you'll be glad she has to warn people.

Sexting

[Anonymous Coward]

In an annoying twist, the mass media has dubbed this "Sexting". Like "texting" but with, er, sex.

They also mentioned that they were being charged with child porn because there was no other charges they could really apply it to and that it an attempt to "get it across to kids that this is not acceptable behavior."

I found it a bit more amusing that one of the panelists said, when asked how they would punish the child, "I would definitely take away their phone!". I guess I was raised under different values to think taking away a kids mobile phone is some sever form of punishment to show that such activities are not acceptable.

Of course the other thought I had was how every panelist was claiming how "this is terrible and it's because of all this technology, blah, blah, blah". I could only think that this definitely isn't some new 'fad' made possible by cell phones because I'm pretty sure people where using Polaroids or doing it in person (flashing) for some time. It's just a new medium, not a new motivation.

Teenage carelessness...

[ChilyWily]

My experience with High Schoolers has been that:

1. Teens today are quite easily manipulated into many things that earlier cohorts may have resisted. Perhaps a changing of the times, where a media-driven culture sends out messages of 'everything is cool, the more 'kinky' the better...'

2. Don't understand the ramifications of a compromising photograph.
When 'everything goes', then who cares about a photo taken without a thought of its unintended usage. Not to mention, how easy it is for someone to pass the photo around. In one of my classes, I invited an HR person who explained how easy it was to take a picture and massively publish it... and pop up just at the wrong time for when a job offer may be at hand.

3. I deal with law enforcement at times and they say that the #1 way to entrap kids, especially girls, is to have them either do something (e.g., nude webcam, pics etc.) for which they know they will be in trouble with their parents. Once a predator has established this sort of blackmail, the poor kid will end up forced into far worse things.

I don't like this porn law being used this way because it detracts from the real issue(s) at hand. Yet, I can see that law may not fit the bill entirely in such cases. I would instead favor a system which educates kids/teens better and a social system that encourages kids towards greater self-esteem and understanding of such things by informing them of the bad and very real consequences for teens who made reckless choices.

Re:Teenage carelessness...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Predator? Are you high? These are teenagers passing nudie pics around; just ignore it.

Re:Teenage carelessness...

[R3d M3rcury]

When 'everything goes', then who cares about a photo taken without a thought of its unintended usage. Not to mention, how easy it is for someone to pass the photo around. In one of my classes, I invited an HR person who explained how easy it was to take a picture and massively publish it... and pop up just at the wrong time for when a job offer may be at hand.

Some of this may be us old "fuddy-duddies" who are currently in charge.

Suppose a 15 year-old girl takes a picture of herself naked and sends it to her teenage boyfriend. When they break up, the teenage boy posts it on the Internet. Advance the clock ten years and that teenage girl is now 25 and trying to find a job. Someone is going to a web search on her name and find a naked picture of her when she was 15. And, of course, the HR person will definitely not hire her because of something she did when she was 15?!

Even assuming that's true--and it wouldn't surprise me--times change. Which means that, in ten years, having a naked picture of yourself sitting on the Internet may not be such a big deal. It'll be more like a tattoo or something--a sign of something silly we all did to a certain degree as teenagers.

Re:Teenage carelessness...

[martinX]

>>having a naked picture of yourself sitting on the Internet

A picture of me 'sitting on the internet'. Sounds like a whole new class of pr0n pic.

Re:Teenage carelessness...

[ChilyWily]

Good point - perhaps my experience has seen too many such instances... Naked pics at 15, underage drinking at 18, sexual poses at 21-23... all neatly captured on a MySpace/Facebook/etc. page. Not to mention friends/peers who glamorize promiscuity, drugs etc.

It is amazing to see how many kids raise their eye brows when the light bulb goes off and they realize that a picture sent out is completely out of their control. Anyone can post it anywhere... or Photoshop it anyway.

Contrast that to another person who has none of such behavior in her background. Who really stops to check what circumstances let to the 'inappropriate' behavior? Patterns that are established, reputations based on a limited public image does impact the hiring (or other) decision because they are easily defended as disqualifiers. The importance of 'image management' cannot be emphasized enough in a world that's increasingly competitive. In my humble opinion, it is really a lifestyle choice yet sadly, not even discussed with teens today. Easy to get into, very hard to get out of.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Opportunist]

Sex is evil and if it wasn't, we couldn't sell so much porn because people would probably get it easier for free.

Agreed

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly, this thread is useless with out pics.

I'll show you mine....

[xgr3gx]

...If you show me yours. It's been going on as long as groups of teenage/preteen kids have been gathering.
It's only a problem now because cell phones offer tracable evidence. Not to mention the ability forward the images on to the world.

This always gets confused.

[scarboni888]

As the wiki on Hijab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab appears to state, this is more of a cultural phenomenon than a religious one.

There are plenty of Muslim countries where women aren't wearing it, some where it's full & covers the face, & yet others, like indonesia, where the face does not have to be covered.

This is Terrible

[nicobigsby]

I can't believe that their response to something like this is to try to ruin these kids' lives. Is there no compassion for these girls? Also, Logically prosecuting the girls for manufacturing child porn of themselves is illogical. Unless we start prosecuting underage teens for statutory rape of themselves when they masturbate.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Doctor Faustus]

Not watching porn. Making porn.

You have no autonomy

[Anonymous Coward]

It is against the law for children to take nude pictures of themselves....because their youth and immaturity make them more vulnerable to the kinds of harm that having a nude picture of one's self can cause...

and yet, they will probably be tried as adults, to make sure the punishment sticks.

Oh, the irony.

Re:You have no autonomy

[jasen666]

They must be protected from abuse by ruining their lives! It's the only way!

Re:You have no autonomy

[Khyber]

"It is against the law for children to take nude pictures of themselves....because their youth and immaturity make them more vulnerable to the kinds of harm that having a nude picture of one's self can cause..."

Then they'd better make it fucking illegal for a minor to even own a mirror, even in their bathroom, because imagine what harm would be done to them if they saw themselves, wet and nude, after a hot, steamy shower, day after day?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Today's ultra-cautious political state is simply out of control. If today's standards for children applied when I was a kid, I'd have been put into jail forever for some of the crap I did.

To tell you to truth, I think that goes for anyone who grew up. The problem here however is a lack of common sense. Back when there weren't any cellphones with cameras on them kids explored their sexuality in other ways. When I hear studies finding that kids are starting with sex younger and younger, I remember a girl in my high-school who got pregnant at 13. No stories about abuse, or anything that spectacular. Just enormous stupidity (which teenagers are known for) coupled with a hint of teenage love and exploring sexuality.

Take Paris Hilton off the air, off of covers of magazines and newspapers!

Yes please, but just because I can't stand her. I see a lot of blame being passed left and right when it comes to kids who expect that people like that are the norm. The music industry with their video clips full of this so called "booty" is ruining our children, the internet with it's pornography is ruining our children, etc etc... I read an article a few weeks ago how predators were molesting teenagers online by forcing them to undress on the webcam. Can someone explain to me how exactly that last one works?

Parents, please educate your children. Stop blaming TV/music/internet for how your kid or teenager behaves and make some time for them. Oh, they'll still be stupid, after all they're kids, but at least you'll have taught them that there is a big difference between how people really interact and how modern media portrays how people interact.

Finally, at least screen some of the stuff your children do. I'm not saying that you should lock'm up behind a bolted door, but at least don't hand a 6 year old a movie where blood and guts are flying every which way. Stop handing 12 year olds laptops with webcams and unlimited access to the internet. Your dad didn't hand you his porn collection either (which would've been an awkward moment I imagine), so don't do that either.

Frankly, if I was the parent of any of these teens, I would start filing suit against EVERY major media provider

What I'd do is try and get my kid off of the sex-offender registry, and raise awareness how wrong this kind of law is when followed to the letter instead of the spirit. I think that would have priority over spending money on a lost cause. Suing a major media company will only result in your loss, and the little awareness you'll generate will be for naught as soon as the other lawyer says "So, you didn't think you needed to tell your child that there is a difference between TV and reality?".

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a LOT less legislation of morality. Some child pornography is very obvious and needs control -- older adults with ten year olds is very obviously wrong. A 20 year old and a 16 year old is less obviously wrong.

http://xkcd.com/314/

MOD PARENT UP (AND SPREAD THIS INFO AROUND)

[Anonymous Coward]

...to anywhere you know of that has a little bit of common sense and respect for justice....hell, even 4chan, if that's all you can think of. Inform them of why this law MUST BE CHANGED.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Opportunist]

Zombies forget a lot of their previous life. Some patterns might remain, but usually the more "human" traits get lost in the transformation.

Re:Please call/write the District Attorney's offic

[thesolo]

Nicely done, thank you!

Lack of common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry about posting this as AC, but this subject is just the sort of thing AC is around for - to get true ideas said when saying them would get people too much and cause them to be dismissed. Anonymous speech is free speech on steroids.

Here are some facts:

• Almost all people have been sexually attracted to pubescent people. For example, when I was 13, I wanted to do the nasty with 13 year old girls. This does not make me a pervert or even weird. It makes me absolutely normal. Pubescent people can procreate. People with a sex drive are mostly wired to find people who are biologically able to procreate with them sexually attractive. This is so normal that you don't have to go back to the stone age to find many places around the world where this is taken for granted, and not even frowned upon.
• There is no reason for this to change, so in most cases it doesn't. Just because you age, doesn't change the fact that many if not most 13 year olds of the opposite sex are physically able to procreate with you. Therefore I am still sexually attracted to 13 year old girls. This doesn't make me a pervert or even weird. Though I was sexually attracted to famous adults as a 13 year old, it was only fantasy. I did endeavor to nurture sexual attraction that could concievably come to fruition - i.e. attraction to 13 year old girls my own age. I let thoughts of relations with sexually attractive females older than myself die on the vine for the most part, as they were useless at the time.
• As people age, they, for the most part, and myself included, continue to find those females in their lives to be sexually attractive. In my case, I allowed myself to appreciate more mature and developed females as I became old enough for those females to be within the realm of possibility to actually have a relationship with.
• As societal norms ( no chicken chasing ) remove teenagers from the realm of possibility. Most people ( myself included ) let thoughts of those people die on the vine. Obsessing about something you can't have is stupid, especially when there are better, possible, things to obsess about. ( I.E. possible partners your own age )
• However, in the same way as attractive famous adults are usually part of the sexual fantasies of 13 year olds, a particularly attractive youngster may be part of one's sexual musing. This doesn't make one weird or a pervert. It's biology at work.
• In the same way as it is unwise to obsess about a celebrity you can never have, obsessing about a youngster you can never have is likewise a waste of time. There are better things to obsess about.
• For the most part those your own age will have more to offer, since they have had time to aquire those things. And there are fewer inherent risks. Therefore the wise person turns their eye towards real and better opportunities.
• Those who actually obsess excessively to the point where their actions put them at risk for prosecution are probably not thinking clearly. They tend to have a few screws loose, and would be rather unsavory even without their chicken chasing behavior. Consider the sort of people you see on Dateline....

However, remembering myself as a thirteen year old, I don't see any reason why a consentual relationship with an *average* adult would have more or less potential to damage me than a relationship with someone my own age at the time. It is true that currently a relationship with someone with enough screws loose to actually attempt to have a relationship with a minor as an adult has *lots* more potential to cause damage to anyone, minors included, than is likely with a relationship with an average person. However this is likely an artifact of the societal norms around such coupling affecting the makeup of the actual pool of participants. Without those norms, the makeup of the pool of adults who couple with minors is unknown to me, though it may differ in some unknown ways from the general pool of adults.

Also, remembering myself as a thi

Re:Lack of common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use as your definition of perversion any sexual act that can not produce offspring ( and I think that is a good definition as it encompasses the notion of a perversion of the natural sexual drive )

Why is it a good definition? By that definition, intercourse during a time when a woman isn't ovulating would be "perverted", but intercourse between mother and son (or father and daughter) would not be.

Your definition of "natural" is that of a third-grade science textbook. If you did even a modest amount of reading, you'd see that non-procreative sex acts such as mutual masturbation, oral sex (both felatio and cunnilingus) and homosexual acts are enaged in by a vast number of animal species. These acts serve to reinforce social bonds, ease tension and promote herd harmony.

Re:Lack of common sense

[Skinkie]

They tend to have a few screws loose, and would be rather unsavory even without their chicken chasing behavior. Consider the sort of people you see on Dateline.

After some reading into it when there was a previous discussion of the matter, actually about a Dateline show. It seems to be that some older age offenders can basically stuck in a mental image of a relationship that never take place at young age, or had serious social problems at young age that was caused by bullying. Knowing this, the affirmation that exactly this might be one of the fundamental causes of adult psychological sexual abnormalities might be a reason to not ban things as 'free hugs' in schools but actually embrace them. As you already pointed out same age relations are extremely normal so unless abnormal relations develop, stimulating them is probably the way to go here. We are talking about technology in 2009 making it easy to make photos, maybe the new love letters... who knows.

Re:Lack of common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it a good definition? By that definition, intercourse during a time when a woman isn't ovulating would be "perverted", but intercourse between mother and son (or father and daughter) would not be

Granted, 'perverted' carries negative connotations that I don't really intend. How many times thoughout history has a fin been 'perverted' into a leg or procreative drives been 'perverted' into ways of cementing social bonds? For that matter, how many times has a small colonizing population been forced to make due with a smaller than ideal gene pool, yet managed to survive? And awful as it sounds, cannibalism is OK too in certain situations.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[billcopc]

do you want teens kept in a sex free bubble or in the real world?

You mean they're not one and the same ?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[elrous0]

Did you know that, thanks to the advent of "zero tolerance" and "school resource officers" (i.e. some cop that the school hires who then has to justify his job), that a simple fistfight will now often get a kid arrested and prosecuted? That's right, some kid gets a criminal record to follow him around for years because he got into a simple fistfight in school. If we had those kind of policies when I was a kid, just about everyone I know would have ended up with some sort of criminal record to follow them around (including more than a few who would have been labeled with the permanent stigma of "sex offender" for something as innocent as having sex with their high school girlfriend).

Why have we allowed our schools become such common-sense-free zones? Can anyone argue that these sorts of prosecutions were what lawmakers and the public even remotely intended these laws to be used for back when they were created?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Wikipedia, the age of consent in PA is 16 (although provisions for small age gaps in the case of younger teenagers having sex also exist).

There appear to not be any states at all where the age of consent is lower than this; however, it's 14 in many European nations, including (again, according to Wikipedia), Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, and a bunch of others (mostly in Eastern Europe). In fact, in Spain, it's even lower, at 13.

That being said, yes, the GP has a great point indeed.

Also, how much do you want to bet that they'll be tried as adults?

Ridiculous

[Vamman]

These kids are all of the same age range. These are hormone driven teens that have reached puberty that experimenting and trying to entice each other into sexual play. Which is actually healthy, normal, and certainly not something to be considered child pornography. Rather than our hard earned tax dollars going into this obscene judicial process, why not take these kids and teach them about safe sex, sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy, and morals and values about sexually conduct.

Even the bible teaches us males in the first chapter of geniuses about the woes of a woman. How old does the church consider Eve and Adam to be? Considering that man was suppose to have been created in how many days? The same nut jobs that believe that shit are the ones involved in this 'prosecution'.

The black man with the magic wand has a steep hill to climb I think.

searching rights?

[mckniffen]

I know school administration has the right to seize a student's phone, but isn't a little questionable to actually poke through the phone enough to look at all the pictures they have on it. IANAL, but that seems like illegal search with out reason to me. If I'm wrong please explain why.

Zero Tolerance

[steelcaress]

Actually this is another symptom of the Zero Tolerance laws that have replaced common sense in the schools in this country. Draw a picture of an explosion and you're a terrorist. Take a cough drop to school and you're a drug dealer. Take a risque pic of yourself and you're a child pornographer.

The solution is simple:
A) Throw out the ZT laws
B) Throw out the administrators, and make them register as sex offenders for allowing such a thing to happen at the school.
C) Make the admins follow a book on personal accountability. Make them read it, discuss it, do book reports on it, and bring it up at meetings.

A new set of ZT laws should be put into effect: Zero Tolerance for Studidity.

Mod parent TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

> Get some kids then see if you feel the same.

"Feel the same"? By that do you mean "feel that it would be morally wrong and inhumane for someone to throw my kids in jail for taking picture of themselves?"!?!? If so then YES, I DO FEEL THE SAME.

I hope to God that you never have children. You would rather see them have their lives permanently ruined by charges like this than have them suffer possible momentary embarrassment from a sexual relationship? You are utterly amoral and unfit to be a parent. It's people like you who should be forbidden from ever having contact with children again.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[sancho_pancho]

Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?

Hello. Welcome to the internet.

Same thing with Age of Consent.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Imagine if they'd been caught actually having sex -- it's not always about being 18...

What's frustrating and perverse to me is the notion that a teenager cannot consent. Clearly, there was no adult "taking advantage" of them. Why must we go to such lengths to try to protect people from themselves?

Also, from TFA:

last month that a survey of 1,280 teens and young adults found that 20 percent of the teens said they had sent or posted nude or semi nude photos or videos of themselves.

Any law which makes 20% of the population not just criminals, but registered sex offenders if caught, is a fucking worthless law.

Re:Same thing with Age of Consent.

[clone53421]

Imagine if they'd been caught actually having sex -- it's not always about being 18...

Well, fortunately most sane systems have created more rational age-of-consent laws. For instance, the PA laws put the age of consent at 16, and make an exception for 13-to-15-year-olds as long as their partner is less than 4 years older. So, in this case, if the 14-year-old had been caught having sex with the 17-year old, it would have been legal.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[R3d M3rcury]

On every job application they ever fill out for the rest of their lives they'll have to put that they're a sexual offender.

I'm not sure this is the case, since everyone involved is a minor.

Re:This will just lead to a cyper romeo / juliet l

[FredFredrickson]

Naw, living here in the US, that sounded right. We need a judge to set the president.

wow

[Reality Master 201]

You really had to struggle to provide that equivalence. You did manage to work in feminists, though, so good job.

Just wait...

[Kabuthunk]

If nudity is seen as porn, imagine when some higher-up realizes that mothers kissing their children on the forehead when they go to sleep is CHILD RAPE!

Re:Just wait...

[mrchaotica]

Or "worse," what about breastfeeding?!

What?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the boys are being charged for recieving a MMS(picture message) on their phone? So if girls want to send any guy to jail just send them a picture message, and they will be guilty of possesion?? Society is suffocating under its own "moral" and "politically correct" weight.

Ridiculus

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, so... If you're 16 and are naked anywhere, or seen naked by your significant other, the both of you are sex offenders?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[profplump]

Are you seriously suggesting that we need laws to protect children from everything they might do as children that will still be around when they are adults?

What if they write some really essay that they like and the time and share with their friends, but later find extremely embarrassing -- maybe it reflects some legal but socially unacceptable viewpoints (i.e. racism, etc.). What if a potential employer gets a copy of that essay and denies them a job?

Or maybe pictures are somehow unique in their ability to translate past regrets through time. What then do we do about pictures of say, a 17-year-old drinking a beer. Wouldn't pictures of that act be potentially detrimental in the future?

The whole line of reasoning is absurd. People, including children, do things that they may later regret, and which may have adverse consequences in the future. We can't stop that. In fact, I suspect that process is probably necessary to form well-adjusted adults. As parents, it's probably a good idea to help your children avoid devastating mistakes, but sometimes it can't be avoided except through absurdly draconian and ultimately self-defeating measures.

I also think you overestimate the potential harm from these photographs. First, it has not yet been established that the individuals in question can even be identified from the photographs. Second, there's already a lot of free, legal porn on the Internet -- it would be pretty easy for these pictures to get lost in the crowd, and somewhat unlikely for any to find the images and associate them with the girls later in life (and even less likely that they'd admit it). Finally, there are only a small number of situations where "nude images of me when I was young" is going to be anything other than an embarrassment, unlike the criminal record created by convicting these girls of a crime, which will create a significant barrier in many aspects of their lives.

Have americans become utter idiots?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's fucking amazing to see all the posts discussing the legal aspects of the situation and not seeing anything wrong with the blatant idiocy inherent in the fact, that child is criminally charged for taking a picture of himself.

Have you people lost your common sense for discerning right from wrong without someone passing a law telling what is what? Seriously, get a grip on your brains and start thinking like a free human beings you are supposed to be.

Re:Have americans become utter idiots?

[bhtooefr]

I think we all know that it's fucked up.

We're discussing whether it was even legal for them to be charged in the first place.

Re:Have americans become utter idiots?

[QuantumG]

become?

Prosecute Vanessa Hudgens

[Swifti]

Remember the nude photos that she took for her boyfriend and were then leaked online? Vanessa Hudgens should be prosecuted for manufacturing and distributing child pornography. If the government is going to ruin the lives of no-named teenagers, might as well be fair and go after the rich and famous.

All I have to ask is...

[Symbha]

Why does so much of our legislation not pass the commone sense test?

child porn is child porn

[moracity]

Child porn is defined by what it is, not who has it. There is no difference between someone who is 15 or 35 shoplifting. Why should be be different here?

This is another example children wanting to be treated like adults - except when it's inconvenient for them. Then, all of a sudden, they are "just children".

We live in world where 1st graders are performing oral sex on each other when a teacher walks out of the world. I guess we should just allow that to happen. After all, they are "just children".

Re:child porn is child porn

[QCompson]

Child porn is defined by what it is, not who has it. There is no difference between someone who is 15 or 35 shoplifting. Why should be be different here? This is another example children wanting to be treated like adults - except when it's inconvenient for them. Then, all of a sudden, they are "just children". We live in world where 1st graders are performing oral sex on each other when a teacher walks out of the world. I guess we should just allow that to happen. After all, they are "just children".

Not sure if you are trolling, but the obvious reason as to why it should be different here is that there are no victims involved. The only victimization is being caused by the state with their felony prosecutions. When a 15 year old or a 35 year old shoplifts, the victim is the same: the store. When a teen takes a picture of themselves and sends it to another person, they are not victimizing anyone.

And while we may not want to allow first graders to perform oral sex on each other, I certainly wouldn't advocate throwing them in prison for being child molesters.

Re:child porn is child porn

[russotto]

Child porn is defined by what it is, not who has it. There is no difference between someone who is 15 or 35 shoplifting. Why should be be different here?

This is another example children wanting to be treated like adults - except when it's inconvenient for them. Then, all of a sudden, they are "just children".

Eh, nice try, but you could drive a Freightliner -- the truck or the train -- sideways through the holes in that logic. If you consistently treat the "children" as adults, there's no issue of child porn, because pictures of themselves would not be not child porn.

Re:child porn is child porn

[clone53421]

This is another example children wanting to be treated like adults - except when it's inconvenient for them. Then, all of a sudden, they are "just children".

Ironically, these kids are "just children" in the naughty pictures, but in the courtroom they're all of a sudden being treated like adults.

Protest

[rhodan69]

I say get a 1,000 of your friends together (all under the age of 18). Get naked and walk through the streets of New York City or LA. Call the news department just prior to the nude walk (like minutes before). Then have the cops try to arrest you for displaying your naked bodies. ALL the news media that take video or pictures of the incident are committing illegal acts of child pornography. People on the streets watching and then not turning away can be prosecuted for not reporting child porn. Hell I'm even sure that a hundred or so bystanders would take pictures with their cell phones - thus more child porn. Make a big scene. Walk past Times Square or the Today Show window to get broadcasted live on network TV. Get other teens in other places to do the same thing at the same time. Then we'll see what the courts decide about "child porn" being manufactured by the same teens in the videos/photos.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[cthulu_mt]

Granted, you both have to be over 50 years old (so you can't have kids), but hey.

And since has managed to make that restriction pointless.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Until very recently, the age of consent in all of Canada was 14. It's not unheard of.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[canajin56]

They will, 100%. Happens almost every day. Usually the DA gives a speech about how it may not have harmed them now, but in the future, they might apply for a job, and a Google search would turn up that photo and they wouldn't get the job. Therefore, that's why we need to protect these children from themselves, hence the 10 year prison sentence and a lifetime on the sex offenders list, so they are completely unable to ever get any job ever, in their entire life. WITH A STRAIGHT FUCKING FACE THEY SAY THIS.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[knghtrider]

Even more so, is the fact that they will be required to submit to Megans Law registration for the rest of their natural lives.

Why did the school look at the cell phone?

[jinxidoru]

This is what disturbs me in the case. I feel like the whole thing could be thrown out by illegal search laws. I'm sure that the school official had the right to seize the cell phone, but what right did he have to go searching on in the contents of the phone?! In fact, why the hell was he looking around on the phone of a 16-year-old?! What relevance could that possibly have to the issue of the child using a cell phone when he wasn't supposed to be using it?

I feel like a good lawyer will be able to get out of this without too much trouble.

Re:Why did the school look at the cell phone?

[childoftv]

My guess is the teacher was looking for personal curiosity and found something illegal. Having seen this, hiding the crime might come with consequences

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Darby]

I am?!? This is some very startling news. I didn't even know my mother was seeing someone!

If she's not, then you damn well better keep an eye on your uncle.

Re:Please call/write the District Attorney's offic

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for digging up that information. I just called and expressed my opinion, I was told that my concerns would be "passed on". Lets flood them shall we?

"Works on contingiency? No, money down!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"Considering the photos themselves pornographic isn't stupid.

Oh yes it is, and so are you.

That the hell is that, the "I know you are but what am I?" defense, famously used in the 1872 case of Uh huh v. Nuh uh?

You aren't a lawyer, and you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

"It is my opinion that the sky is blue." "You aren't an astrophysicist, so STFU." Sounds logical to me.

I am a lawyer, and I am weary of idiots like you thinking they know how to interpret the law.

Would your name happen to be Lionel Hutz? Because with argumentative skills as shitty as yours, you can't be a very successful attorney (if you really are one, and not some punk kid who things saying "I'm a lawyer" grants you instant authority). I wouldn't hire you to represent me even if you did throw in most of an Orange Julius as a freebie to sweeten the deal.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[MBGMorden]

Frankly, if I was the parent of any of these teens, I would start filing suit against EVERY major media provider that influences children with their unavoidable crap selling sexuality to teenagers. You can destroy every TV, magazine and newspaper in the home and teens are STILL going to be at risk of influence from it. And yes, I know it is futile and stupid. But attention to the real problems will never be drawn until obvious clashes between culture and law are reconciled.

So your solution to this injustice is ... extreme censorship? You just mentioned above that it's in the nature of teens to be sexually curious. Hell it starts a good bit earlier than that for most. I know I, and probably most here played "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" with some neighborhood girl before they were 10 years old. It did no harm.

We don't need to sue anybody else or pass any laws to prevent this stuff. "Kids" is a definition that is too old now IMHO. We need sensible laws that are meant to prevent exploitation - not look for avenues by which to charge as many people as possible.

In my eyes, the solution is simple:

Nationwide sexual consent should be 16. For persons over 13, it should remain legal assuming that the pairs is within 2 years of age. Consent with one self should not have an age restriction (unless you plan on charging a masturbating 12 year old with child molestation, which makes about as much sense as these charges).

Pornography production or possession should then only be illegal if sexual consent would not be possible between you and the subject. 15 girl tapes or photographs herself? She can't be charged. Neither can her 17 year old boyfriend. A 25 year old could be charged with possession but she could never be charged with production because she could always consent with herself.

Problem solved IMHO.

Probably Inappropriate

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess "pics or it didn't happen" would probably be inappropriate.

First they laughed at us..

[msimm]

First they laughed at us for persecuting our president for having sex. Now they'll laugh at us for persecuting our children to...protect our children.

It's kind of weird living in a huge country forced to share a centralized government across a range of beliefs that very so fundamentally.

Re:Refrence to example

[ultranova]

I really don't know how it snowballed this far without any public outcry whatsoever.

Well, user kaos07 summed it up nicely in this comment: "I think only one group of people defend those who watch child porn with such a stupid argument and I bet you know who they are."

Everyone who speaks against "think of the children" crowd must be a pedophile, everyone who speaks against gun control laws must be a violent nutcase, everyone who speaks for them must be a fascist, everyone who speaks for abortion must be a bloodthirsty babykiller who wants to eat the aborted foetuses and everyone who speaks against it must want women chained to the stove. Everyone who speaks against Israel must be a Nazi, and everyone who speaks for it must be a supporter of Palestinian genocide. Everyone who speaks against death penalty wants murderers on the streets and everyone who speaks for it wants to execute jaywalkers. Everyone who is religious wants to brainwash our children to perform human sacrifices in a new Dark Age while all atheists are actually secretly worshipping the Devil and trying to get us all sent to Hell. In short, everyone who opposes me in any way is either evil, stupid or both and rapes baby squirrels besides.

This is the cancer that's killing anything resembling rational thought in politics.

This is serious

[bugs2squash]

The girls should be tried as adults.

Conservatives?

[wastedlife]

I lean liberal myself, but I wouldn't blame this one on conservatism. I'd say the term you are looking for is "religious nutjob". Although a lot of them see themselves as "conservative".

make the punishment fit the crime

[thtrgremlin]

And that is why we have Miranda rights. By your logic (and I agree, just to make it clear) This case can only be proven through clever, manipulative, self-incrimination. If the defendants totally keep their mouth shut, and they have a descent lawyer that understands privacy and pornography law, and the very important statutes regarding child porn, these kids must not be convicted. In simple terms, these are not the type of people the law was trying to protect society from. I remember hearing that with cases like this, it is making it very difficult for the FBI to track down child pornography rings because so often the publishers are children. The law isn't meant to protect people from having to possibly see children in sexual situations (as disgusting as that is) but to protect children from abusive adults of many kinds. Some people get off on recording depraved acts, others steal children, or buy them off the black market as slaves for adult films. It is a sick world and our law recognizes that and makes a very strong effort to shut such groups down with very severe laws

That is not what is going on here. Is it behavior that should be encouraged? Of course not! As you said, what is the intent by the model, photographer, and distributor?

There are some difficult questions to answer. The law also needs to be clear, but not by prosecuting these kids in a way that the law was never intended. I think some responsibility needs to go to the parents, but NOT the same charges. I think the harshest justifiable punishment would be some kind of counseling for the teens about appropriate school behavior, and the differences between appropriate minor vs adult activities.

Re:make the punishment fit the crime

[jahudabudy]

and the differences between appropriate minor vs adult activities.

In Pennsylvania, the age of consent is 16. If one of the participants is under 16, but over 13 (as applies here), the partner must be within 4 years of age (which is true here). So, it is perfectly legal for these boys and girls to fuck, but sending nude pictures is inappropriate. Yeah....

Re:make the punishment fit the crime

[thtrgremlin]

The biggest fear is child pornography rings and allowing any kind of loop hole. Also, the law needs to be explicitly clear. Maybe this is too much morality police, but I certainly don't want to be going by my usual porn site to see a consenting 13 and 14 year old, and I don't think it would be out of line to say that anyone collecting or buying up such videos from those minors and selling them in compilations should be able to have some kind of charges brought up against them. I am a big fan of judicial discretion, but at what point do you put the probable cause? Also, curious what you might think of the above response to a similar question.

Re:make the punishment fit the crime

[jahudabudy]

I think you have legitimate concerns, and make a good point about someone buying up compilations of self-created underage porn probably deserving some sort of charges. In your other post, I would say the dad that shared the photos with his friends, even if it really was just for a laugh, is at best a moron who deserves to be legally slapped somehow. But that is assuming he is a grown man. I just find it hard to reconcile a body of law that says it is OK for this person to have sex with this other person, but it is not OK for the exact same person to have a nude photo of the that same other person. Somewhere, there is an obvious disconnect that needs to be addressed. Adding complexities into it such as the current situation calls for certainly makes it more difficult to police, making it more likely that someone guilty will go free. However, I think not acknowledging those complexities will ensure that many many more "innocent" people will be ruined over this.

Re:make the punishment fit the crime

[brunes69]

That is not what is going on here. Is it behavior that should be encouraged? Of course not!

Should it be discouraged then? If so, why? Why should a 16 year old not be allowed to send a nude photo to her BF? How old were you when you first had sex? First played doctor? Just because we are in the digital age does not change biology. If it were 200 years ago these kids would be married and have a child on the way already.

I think the harshest justifiable punishment would be some kind of counseling for the teens about appropriate school behavior

None of this happed at school or during school time. It's not like they were getting naked in math class here. The only inappropriate school behaviour was the use of a cell phone at school. ... and the differences between appropriate minor vs adult activities.

That is the whole problem. Anyone who thinks that it is inappropriate for a 16 year old to see another 16 year old nude is seriously repressed, and if they think any law is going to stop kids from doing it, also seriously deluded.

Looking on phone?

[greenbird]

My question would be why the hell were they looking through what was on the kids phone in the first place.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

LimeWire?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm...

MILF!

No it isn't..

[Anonymous Coward]

"The State must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people"

That *portion* is in Mein Kempf. The second part of that quote was Rabbi Danni Lapin. Mein Kempf follows that quote with language that doesn't make it appear to be an excuse for goverment, but something to be taken scarily seriously, with rather creepy suggested things to do in pursuit of that (unfit parents should be shamed to have children, potentially fit parents should be shamed not to, etc).

The Rabbi was writing a fake letter from Hitler, with an alternative explanation relevant to what the Rabbi saw worthy of criticism.

BTW, you are the doofus ;)

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[GargamelSpaceman]

If they are ever denied a job because a google search turned up child porn of them, then they can just blackmail their prospective employer into hiring them and paying them more than they are worth for doing no work. After all if you know your boss downloaded child porn then that would be quite a useful bit of info indeed...

Re:Please call/write the District Attorney's offic

[Cajun Hell]

b.) is not upholding the intent of the statutes as written

If you're going to say that, then send a copy of your letter to your legislator too, please.

Damn

[benmarvin]

Where were these girls when I was in school?

Privacy violation

[Mystery00]

Sue the teacher for privacy violations?

Give tThose Girls an Award and Send Them To Me

[b4upoo]

Those young girls are nothing but sexually healthy. They should be proud and rewarded rather than punished!

Parents should take the fight to the police

[BeanBagKing]

"Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was "a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude."

Under the current laws, couldn't Capt. George Seranko be charged with viewing child pornography? Charge everyone, him, the teacher that discovered it, et al with viewing and disseminating (when the passed it to the next level of enforcement) child pornography. Even if they don't win, they could tie up the legal system for enough years and make enough stink of it that hopefully someone will listen and change the laws.

Personally, I think the girls were stupid for letting pictures of themselves go around on phones, but this is certainly no reason to ruin the rest of their lives by slapping them with "sex offender" charges.
Stupid...

Re: Give tThose Girls an Award and Send Them To M

[stonedcat]

Unfortunately most of the US still retarded.

Many European countries would see nothing wrong with this, there children learn about and talk about sex openly.
Criminalizing and punishing children for exploring and embracing their sexuality should not be a crime..

Granted there is often a need for some boundaries but these should be set between the children and their parents.
The state/federal government has no fucking business enforcing religious based laws and values on anyone.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[__aajoqa250]

What insight!!!

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually agree with you, though I think you were kidding. These little whores should get the book thrown at them, and should be required to register as sex offenders.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Please call/write the District Attorney's offic

[Blibblob]

I don't know. I'd actually like to see this go to trial. I want there to be a precedent set that this kind of bullshit is unwanted. If they have a jury trial I feel that at least ONE person will refuse to vote guilty and it'll be hung. Better yet they should get a jury of nothing but morons so the supreme court can throw it out.

Under 18 year olds hold all the power now

[OldHorton]

Don't like a teacher? Take a nude photo of yourself with your phone and send it to him then call the cops. Teacher is gone. Don't like a fellow student? Same thing applies.

This is incredibly ridiculous.

Collective Retardation

[Blancmange]

Isn't "culture" just another word for collective moral or mental retardation?

Here in New Zealand, we have a "culture" of driving the heads of children through bedroom walls in order to teach them to have respect for authority.

It's what the child abusers and murderers call it, whenever they end up in court.

School officials should be the ones charged

[Anonymous Coward]

...under child porn laws, because they're the ones who effectively forced the girls to provide nude photos of themselves to an adult against their will.

The photos were taken and sent consensually, but a school official searching a cell phone without permission is as much a breach of privacy as if they'd installed a hidden camera in all the places the photos were taken.

I've seen similar arguments against laptop searches at the border -- in our culture, digital devices now form an extension of our private minds and should be treated as such.

Shouldn't the teacher who confiscated it...

[skyphyr]

be charged? He/she has admitted to being in possession of child pornography as well as viewing it. At least according to the logic they seem to be following.

Re:Shouldn't the teacher who confiscated it...

[childoftv]

What was the teacher even doing looking at the photo content of the confiscated phone!

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Fastolfe]

Are you seriously suggesting that we need laws...

No, I said some sort of intervention is probably warranted. The most heavy-handed approach to this is the absurd laws we have today, such as those being applied in this case. I don't agree with those laws and I don't think they're being used appropriately. But sure, "something like that" is what I was seriously suggesting.

What if they write some really essay that they like and the time and share with their friends, but later find extremely embarrassing

I seriously doubt one could come up with an essay, or a picture of a 17 year old boozing it up, would have remotely the same impact on the average person in American culture as it is today. Again, all of this is horribly subjective and extremely culturally-dependent. There are plenty of individuals that wouldn't be embarrassed at all about having nudes of themselves all over the Internet. (Many do it on purpose.) All I'm saying is that some of these minors will be devastated by these decisions, and I see nothing wrong with something stepping in and trying to prevent that. Again, IMO, child porn laws, as they're written and applied today, don't seem like the best approach.

The whole line of reasoning is absurd. People, including children, do things that they may later regret, and which may have adverse consequences in the future

So are you taking the position that we should effectively dial back all forms of protection-from-self laws for minors? We don't let kids gamble, drink, smoke, set up porn sites featuring themselves, get tattoos, etc. If you're trying to take the position that any protection we give minors should be consistent (though perhaps proportional), regardless of the act/harm, I would agree with that.

I also think you overestimate the potential harm from these photographs.

Well "harm" like this is a bit difficult to measure in the first place, right? Most of it is subjective and depends on how the person was raised, the community they're choosing to live in, and what they want to do later in life that might conflict with their decisions in the past. Lots of people wouldn't suffer any real "harm" at all (not even embarrassment). Others would be embarrassed and perhaps harrassed to the point of suicide. Those in the middle might be limited in their careers. Any decision to intervene should probably take all of that into account. And if that's too difficult, you have to be arbitrary, which sucks.

Please note that I'm not suggesting how much we need to intervene, just saying that I think some sort of intervention is probably warranted.

re: destroy every TV, magazine and newspaper

[Anonymous Coward]

that's what frank zappa was sayin'
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank+zappa/im+the+slime_20057165.html

osama bin laden, 2...

i was just in greensburg last w/e...

No More interviews

[thethibs]

Police Capt. George Seranko isn't doing any more interviews. The laughter was getting annoying, and he's not sure what "doofus" means, but he doesn't think it's a term of endearment.

This is one of those cases...

[russotto]

...where summary execution really seems appropriate. After the judge had determined that yes, the prosecutor was pressing charges against a teenager for possessing pictures of herself, he would simply have the bailiff shoot the prosecutor in question. If his replacement didn't move to dismiss the charges... next! In some parts of the state I suspect the bailiff might have to reload.

self-abuse

[jbbernar]

Is masturbation by a minor now child abuse? Or only if I do it in school?

On Civil Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it can be argued that three civil liberties like due process, fair trial and especially privacy could be violated on daily basis by authority (eg. school). In other words by government since education is an executive branch of it. Since the whole points of Civil Liberties is to protect individual from the government and Civil Rights require Civil Liberties it can be safely stated that children lack Civil Rights due to lack of any one of Civil Liberties. Weather it is good or bad is a completely different argument.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

"They're old enough to consent, but god forbid I videotape it for later."

Are you over 18?

Re:Refrence to example

[thethibs]

Scary, isn't it? I really don't know how it snowballed this far without any public outcry whatsoever.

Easy. You keep sending Democrats to Congress. If you want a real education, look up who proposed and who passed these laws. It wasn't Republicans.

There's an interesting delusion on /. and most of the US media about the roles played by federal politicians. From up here in Canada it looks not just a little comical. The most interesting case of cognitive dissonance: The primary author of the Patriot Act is your new Vice President. Chew on that for a while. What can you do but laugh?

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, my name is john, I am a sexual offender. When I was 16 I recieved a photo from a classmate who was older then me... Your children are not safe near me..

Does this mean pictures of newborn babies not in clothing is child porn? What if the mother was 17 and the birth was recorded? If you show the recording to your mother, father, or husband you're now distributing child porn?

Where is the line drawn? From the sound of it the boys could be younger than the girls and they'll be the child molesters/sex offender!

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[couchslug]

"This is a 2nd amendment issue. The parents of the children in question, for the security of a free state, should collect firearms, organize a militia, and shoot dead everyone who has fast-tracked this case into the courtroom."

The new Administration would just do a Waco on the militia and is already committed to attacking the Second Amendment.

saved

[mpgalvin]

clipped and quoted. mod parent +2 awesome.

Re:saved

[Svartalf]

I wish we COULD mod that one up well past +5. It's spot-on with what's wrong.

better parenting and education

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we look up to Japan!

Prosecutorial Misconduct

[Anonymous Coward]

This is clearly a case of prosecutorial misconduct. Even the article states the only reason for the prosecution is to make an example of them.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

And kids taking pictures of themselves and sharing them with friends in an environment commercial exploiting sexuality as a means of getting attention for their selling ads is just wrong.

That's the key. Thinking about (and having) sex is normal teen behavior, but this broadcasting naked pics and general lack of personal boundaries when it comes to sex is the product of advertising execs who have no compulsion about making money by damaging our kids.

George Seranko is the child pornographer

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you Captain George Seranko. You are a scumbag criminal. Your responsibility is to protect these children not to make an example of them.

Something missing from my high-school experience?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever I see this kind of thing, all I can think is, why didn't any girls ever send me nude photos of themselves when I was in high school?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, sex offenders supposed to stay away from schools...wait...they are students...umm...

Welcome to the brave new world

[buggerybox]

This PC nonsense is becoming a new kind of totalitarianism.

What the hell... article has no pictures!

[Anonymous Coward]

:-) j/k

flickr.

[bronney]

http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=nude+child&m=tags

I must be an offender for possessing the cache.

Appropriate minor vs. adult activities?

[Omnifarious]

So, are kids going to be put in chastity belts by the state now until they're 18? I saw a non-representative sample of about 50-60 people, but in that sample the average age of the first clearly consensual sexual encounter was easily 13 or 14 and the youngest was 6. I would imagine that in a more random sample you would discover the age to be around 15-17.

I don't think taking nude photos of yourself is an 'adult' activity either. Kids share all kinds of stuff with each other, and once they start being sexual, they are going to share sexual stuff, and they are going to use whatever medium is at hand, and I don't think that's wrong or 'inappropriate'.

What we need is to recognize that children are sexual beings and often capable of making their own decisions regarding their sexuality. We need to recognize that there are varying levels of competence in making those decisions in different children.

The blunt instrument of statutory rape and child porn laws need to be much more careful and refined in how they operate.

But, right now, our society is in a phase where we want to pretend that children have no genitalia or sexual feelings whatsoever until they're 18. Including, it seems, you.

Re:Appropriate minor vs. adult activities?

[Khyber]

"What we need is to recognize that children are sexual beings and often capable of making their own decisions regarding their sexuality."

No. What we need to realize is that ANY SPECIES, once it gains the ability to reproduce, will attempt to mate. Displays of nudity are merely a courtship ritual. Girls will flash their tits, guys will drop drawers and waggle their cocks around. IT'S NATURAL FOR FUCK'S SAKE, and punishing these children under this law is absolute BULLSHIT.

The DA prosecuting the case needs to be dragged out into the street and stoned to death. Same thing with the teacher that uncovered all this.

Re:Appropriate minor vs. adult activities?

[thtrgremlin]

The issue I see is say that a teen takes pictures of herself in an obviously sexual way and sends them to her boyfriend of the same age. For the sake of drama, say the mother of the boy gets a hold of the pictures and furious that this 'slut' is corrupting her boy shows them to her friends to get some sympathy, discuss how they should handle the matter. Because she is a bit embarrassed to approach her son about the issue, she takes the pictures to her husband so that there can be a "man to man" talk about the whole thing, and downplays the issue basically saying congratulations, but please stop worrying your mother and hide that stuff. For a good laugh, the husband then shares them with his friends but unknowingly a friend borrows and posts them on the Internet. Pics get on 4chan, and while some guy / husband is browsing and downloading pics, wife / girlfriend whatever sees the pics and reports the guy as a possible pedophile. Police identify girl as under age, and man gets arrested.

Who all is in the wrong? How many of them should be labeled sex offenders? How many have committed a felony? How many should go to prison? Do anti-child porn laws really stop the exploitation of children? Is making the FBI's job of having to figure out the difference between different types of child porn a "necessary cost of ensuring liberty"?

I can understand where you are coming from, and I think what you are saying is under appreciated. I get that cameras are the technology of the times and it has gone from playing 'house' and 'doctor' to 'model' and 'porn star'. The biggest issue I think everyone is worried about is child exploitation and loop holes that might allow for people to get away with it. Do you think that if child porn is non-profit then that is good enough to stop child pornography rings?

the obvious question

[zenasprime]

what the hell were school officials doing snooping around on conficated phones? Conficating a students phone does not give them permission to perform some sort of search of that phone's content, does it? One would think that any such conficated phones would need to be held in the same manner as any other item that requires privacy concerns, and return to the parents of that phone, who would be the actual owners of that phone, wouldn't they?

Crap at this point what do they have to lose?

[s4ltyd0g]

Those kids should walk into the court room and flash the judge and everyone else in the room. Under this reasoning, they'd all be instantly guilty of viewing child porn.

Gee Whiz

[bill_mcgonigle]

Now, when I hear that someone is a "sex offender", I'm not certain if they are a violent rapist, or if they took a dare to run down the block naked.

They're putting guys who get caught peeing on the side of the road on the list too.

One is left to conclude if you say 'tallywhacker' out loud in certain ZIP codes, you'd be listed as well.

school

[Anonymous Coward]

No wonder half the kids say fuck school and leave who could blame them.
You have to give up your liberty to go to school.

Oh and slashdot sucks donkey dicks.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

how do we know that the girls who better not possess any mirrors for it is illegal for them to look at themselves now....did not send those messages from their friendly local cop shop while they were posing for the gestapo agents?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[nightfire-unique]

Sir, I came here to say this.

There is a time to kill. There is a time when it's justified.

If it were my daughter attacked by these thugs, it would be their last day on this earth. Probably mine as well. However, there could be no greater gift to a child then to give your life to protect them.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[nightfire-unique]

...and yes, this would apply if they were taliban or Iranian clerics as well.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Renraku]

Its been this way for quite a while.

We want to get away from our human urges, as they aren't under our complete control at all times. So, you're horny? That's great, find someone and go have some fun. Science has provided you with ways to get out of most of the downsides (aka pregnancy and STDs). Its natural to be horny, despite what people seem to think.

Human nature cares little for what society thinks. Even the most refined and upper class lady might look over at a grungy biker and wonder what he might be like in the sack. Teachers might look at their underage students. Students might look at each other or their teachers. Everyone is pretty much looking at everyone else that's past puberty.

The problem comes from people that are attracted to people that have not developed secondary sex characteristics..AKA children. Those are the creepy uncles and free-candy-in-my-van types. That's why all of those laws exist.

This is where human nature and society differ. Human nature says to go ahead and check that fifteen year old out. Society says that the creepy uncle who raped the two year old and the teenager that got sent some naked pics are both cut from the same cloth and need to be treated the same way. So both of them face the rest of their lives as being unable to find decent work, probably unable to find a decent urban locale to live in, and having to live with the stigmata of being a sex offender.

Could you imagine if we applied this to other laws, as well? The crimes of assault and of vandalism are now being lumped into the same category as arson. Your econobox car with the 120hp engine is being taxed/insured at the same rate as a $100,000 street-legal race car. Etc.

Privacy violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are the officials snooping in the first place?

Couldn't the kids counter-sue for unauthorized access to a computer?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[czaby]

And there are hundreds of intelligent people making comments here and not many reach this conclusion that the whole case is _ridiculous_.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Alsee]

Yep, your mom gives great head.

P.S.
I hope that skill runs in the family, I'll be seeing you tonight.

-

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes because an unwanted reputation is more damaging to your future than an unwanted pregnancy or an STD.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[argStyopa]

"Criminalize nature all you like, but it will not change nature."
So, does that apply to murder (and general violence against other humans) - arguably nearly as common as sex? That should be decriminalized?

That's just a foolish argument, based as much on personal morality as the absurdity that is our current conservative anti-porn legislation.

No, the irony here is that the superconservatives and ultraliberals are actually in the same ethical boat here: both back the use of the government and legislation to 'form' peoples' behavior in ways that they feel are "right"...from the absurd prosecution of some teen chick that takes a picture of her own boob to send to her boyfriend, to the legitimization of tenuous assertions of global warming to begin the implementation of a eco-marxist agenda that they've been trying to push with Chicken-Little predictions of doom since the 70s.

The answer to BOTH is: piss off.
The founding fathers proposed a de minimus role for federal government, leaving the execution of daily laws to the most LOCAL authorities, in LOCAL contexts, and (most importantly) subject to the democratic control of the LOCAL populace.

Leave it to the locality to decide if by their standards this is prosecuteable. If that community thinks so, it affects them and them alone, and people can (presumably) leave. If that community feels it's NOT a case of child abuse, then they can ignore it and need not prosecute.

Problem solved. Get government out of our daily lives.

So they are guilty of child abuse

[Anonymous Coward]

They let these kids be affected by Child porn. Worse, they ensured that these children were affected by it by actively encouraging it.

And, as parents and not police officers that are allowed to posess KP themselves in the course of their duty (though not outside that duty), these people are responsible for trafficking in KP. AND THEY ARE TEACHERS!!!!

Protect our children!!!!

Hang on a second...

[gigoguy]

So, are they going to be tried as adults?? *blink*

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[erroneus]

Here's a problem that has yet to be fully defined:

The people raising their children in this most absurd climate were, themselves, raised in a somewhat absurd climate. How can people without common sense teach common sense to their children?

At this stage, I can not see a way to return to common sense. I doubt any one thing will work at restoring good sense to people, but it is not to the advantage of the leadership that the people have good sense. I doubt we will see any positive movement from there.

I do take care of my own and fortunately, the worst thing I have had to deal with so far is bad grades. My oldest is almost 18 now. Did I manage to beat the odds with luck? Maybe. Maybe not. Religion is not the answer, but perhaps philosophy and psychology are. Teaching people to understand people is probably one of the most neglected aspects of curricula that should be addressed.

You burned me out but I'm back on your iPhone?

[smchris]

What a way for a girl to get even by telepresence.

You have no right to kill

[Anonymous Coward]

But once you're alive, there's a right to continue.

Doofus.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Another, completely]

Recordings are a lot more likely to cause trouble in their lives than just having sex.

I often get the feeling that people forget that sex can lead to pregnancy.

I agree with the strange contradiction though. Someone posted on a thread about prostitution the other day how strange it is that one person getting paid to have sex is illegal, but both getting paid to have sex while being videotaped is protected as freedom of expression.

Kids demand rights to porn

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids are now making kiddie porn for kids. Think of the children - they want the right to create and consume kiddie porn! Better give them real porn so they stay distracted.

Re:Refrence to example

[Svartalf]

You're in Canada... How in creation could you know which party presented and approved those laws, hm?

These sorts of laws are on the books everywhere- and it's not just Democrats passing them, it's as much the Republicans. Stop thinking in partisan terms here- those two parties are flip sides of the same coin these days.

CP rings

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

More of a child pornography ring than most reported cases.

The typical widespread child pornography ring you hear about consists of three people, and is only "widespread" because one of the guys sometimes visits his native Bulgaria.

Re:CP rings

[ps2os2]

SIGH... Europeans tend to be rather lenient as far as "porn" is considered (except maybe 1 or 2 countries). The countries I am somewhat familiar with the age of consent is 14. *I* am not saying it makes it right but each country has decided what is right. Don't judge others by our American standards. As someone else mentioned nudity is natural and nothing to get excited about (poor choice of my words). *IF* the girls had been shown in a sexual situation (having intercourse or masturbating yes I would agree then). Just plain nudity is yawn tiresome.

Re:Refrence to example

[thethibs]

And you're from Texas; the one state in the union with lots of real bullshit and very little figurative bullshit. We wonder what disease has afflicted the US whose cure is in the Texas water supply.

it depends on who has it

[Baldur_of_Asgard]

"Child porn is defined by what it is, not who has it."

Er, no.

Some years ago, in Pennsylvania (the same state as this case), a man was successfully charged with possession of child pornography because he owned a cheerleading video that was completely legal for others to own. He was successfully prosecuted because he admitted to being turned on by the cheerleaders.

You gotta to be kidding...

[hesaigo999ca]

My four year old kid got his hands on the camera by accident and snapped a shot of himself (awkard angle though) he got his upper torso....NAKED! My god he might be sent to jail for taking snaps of himself....or is it sending it to someone that is the crime....????

I hope this sets a precedent that is both logical and irrefutable.
These cops need to get a life and chase real criminals.
Trying to make an example out of these teens, is insane.

For the Children?

[Aetrus]

How is the fight against child porn "for the children", if you are throwing the children in the porn in jail?

Re:Refrence to example

[Phroggy]

Not only that, but you also have to choose a side: you can't oppose abortion AND warrantless wiretapping; you can't support universal health care AND the right to bear arms; you can't oppose gay marriage AND the invasion of Iraq. It doesn't matter that these are unrelated issues; they're a package deal, and if you don't choose one package or the other, you must be some sort of apathetic freak.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Phroggy]

What is up with all of the voyeurism lately? Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?

What do you think blogging is?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[Phroggy]

Frankly, if I was the parent of any of these teens, I would start filing suit against EVERY major media provider that influences children with their unavoidable crap selling sexuality to teenagers. You can destroy every TV, magazine and newspaper in the home and teens are STILL going to be at risk of influence from it. And yes, I know it is futile and stupid. But attention to the real problems will never be drawn until obvious clashes between culture and law are reconciled.

Relevant study: teens who watch TV shows with sexual content are more likely to have sex than those who don't.

More kid's without rights news...

[Anonymous Coward]

F that principal. When he asked for my phone, i would have delivered it to his nose! And I am 66 years old.

Contact the Authorities and Tell Them How You Feel

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of ranting at each other about this injustice, we should be calling the people bringing up these ridiculous charges and tell them how foolish they are. Here's their contact info:

Greensburg Police Department
City of Greensburg
416 South Main Street
Greensburg, PA 15601

Walter J. Lyons, Chief of Police
Phone: 724-834-3800
Fax: 724-838-4304

George Seranko, Captain of Police
Phone: 724-834-3800
Fax: 724-838-4304

Mayor's Office
724-838-4325

Council Members
724-838-4323

This case may be wrong, but the law is right.

[Cyberllama]

The prosecutor in this instance absolutely should have used some discretion in deciding how or whether to apply the law to these kids. But that being said, children should in no way be exempted from the law as a matter of statute.

If the law were changed to give underage offenders a specific exemption from prosecution, what would be to stop children from exploiting themselves? Little Suzy wants an X-box, so she takes some pictures of her own x-box and starts up a website charging for access. You think children wouldn't exploit themselves -- especially with encouragement from greedy parents -- if the law would allow it? They absolutely would. Not to mention the fact that it would allow abusive parents to hide behind the "but my child took all the pictures by him/herself" defense.

The law is not wrong, the prosecutor simply needed to exercise some discretion in this particular instance.

i dont uderstand

[freaksonmyspace]

I can't understand how children, as defined by law, who have pictures of other children are in possession of child porn and can be charged. If I'm 16 and my girl is 16 and I nude pics of her, i can go to jail. That can't be right. ---------- WhiteGirlsExposed.Com FreaksOnMyspace.Com

LOLOL

[Anonymous Coward]

What a joke! This goes to show you how flawed our legal system really is. What next? Arresting peaceful citizens for smoking marijuana?

Also, what right does the school have to go through the students' cell phones? I'm sure this is against some sort of law or policy.. At least it should be if people can get in trouble for reading another person's emails..

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[clone53421]

Put the child up for adoption and you're done with it; the video will last forever on the internet...

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[clone53421]

Pornography production or possession should then only be illegal if sexual consent would not be possible between you and the subject. 15 girl tapes or photographs herself? She can't be charged. Neither can her 17 year old boyfriend. A 25 year old could be charged with possession but she could never be charged with production because she could always consent with herself.

What if the 17-year-old shows it to the 25-year-old? Suppose the 25-year-old didn't know the girl was 15?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn

[rantingkitten]

I think the point is that our society is utterly two-faced about the situation. We market sexuality, much of which is specifically aimed at the teenage demographic, and then when the teens actually display sexual curiosity we condemn or -- in this case -- criminalise them.

We all clamored to see 17 year old Britney dancing around in a Catholic schoolgirl outfit, but anyone who actually interacts with a 17 year old girl is viewed as a sick, twisted individual.

We're okay with shows like Hannah Montana which feature underage girls in tight or skimpy clothing, but when the actual actress takes some racy photos of herself, there's a huge outcry from the morality police.

We can't get enough of the salicious tale of Jamie Lynn Spears being pregnant, buying tabloids and magazines to read all about it, but we also bash her for being a slut or "setting a bad example".

The law itself is just as absurd. In many states the age of consent is 16, so while it would be perfectly legal to have sex with a 16 year old, if a camera gets involved, suddenly you're the most horrible monster around.

So, I believe the original poster's point was that, particularly in today's litiguous and victim-culture environment, a strong case could be made that the teens in this case are actually victims of a cruel, exploitative media. Furthermore, the point in all his hypothetical lawsuits would be a way of announcing the hypocritical attitudes we all have -- a way of saying "Fine, if teenage sexuality is so evil, let's get rid of all this marketing! You can't have it both ways!" Might make people rethink their position on the entire issue... but probably not.