Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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.
investigation turned up 'no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds
That seems hard to believe, but ok.
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.
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.
If i wanted to hear bullshit, i'd go to church.
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.
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.
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'?
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.
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".
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.)
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
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?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
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.
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
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'. ;(
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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.
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...
Palm trees and 8
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.
t
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.
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
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?
The truth shall set you free!
"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...
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.
Can we neuter them ? We don't want that kind of genes polluting our gene pool.
morcego
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.
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
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.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
It is comments like this that make me sad that slashdot moderation only goes up to +5.
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.
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?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
No, their lives are ruined because society is punishing them for following basic human instincts: exploring and trying to understand their sexuality.
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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'.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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 ...
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
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.
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".
I am not a crackpot.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.