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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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]

"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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[cbiltcliffe]

Reasonable doubt? In a child pornography case?

What planet do you live on?

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!

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

child pwnography

[damnfuct]

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

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...?

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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[baKanale]

Does that mean masturbation is rape?

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: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.

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

[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.

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: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.

May I be the first Anonymous Coward to say

[Anonymous Coward]

pics or did not happen!

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: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'?

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. :-(

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[couchslug]

No child should do anything sexual without benefit of clergy.

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.

[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.

[Eudial]

Since when have they had balls? (let alone a spine?)

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[karnal]

Pictures last forever.

Not on a Maxtor they don't.

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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".

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

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.

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: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: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: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...

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?!

[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?!

[Opportunist]

So Palin's daughter is a filthy, nasty pervert?

Ok, given the mother, it's understandable...

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.

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: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

[Blimey85]

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your militia.

something seems wrong about this...

[acedotcom]

what was the school administration doing by looking through the phone in the first place?

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: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: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.

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.

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...

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: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.

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: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.

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.

Excuse me, but. . .

[MagusSlurpy]

. . . pics or it didn't happen.

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: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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Of course that isn't *actually* Hitler

[Junta]

That is Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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!

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.

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.

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!

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!

All I have to ask is...

[Symbha]

Why does so much of our legislation not pass the commone sense test?

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.

"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: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.

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....

Damn

[benmarvin]

Where were these girls when I was in school?

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.