Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

6 Pennsylvania Teens Face Child Porn Charges For Pics of Selves

Posted by timothy on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:39AM from the nudity-is-for-in-person-only dept.

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.'"

91 of 1,044 comments (clear)

Think of the children by the_arrow · 2009-01-20 04:41 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
1. Re:Think of the children by cbiltcliffe · 2009-01-20 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm no expert on American law, but wouldn't this evidence be inadmissible in a court case, as there was no warrant, and therefore the search of the phone was illegal?
  I realize this is a "OMG!!THINKOFHTECHILDEEHJRJEIEAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!111LOL!!" kind of thing, where legal formalities are frequently tossed aside because "they're only child molesters."
  But seriously....wouldn't this be a illegal search in the first place?
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
2. Re:Think of the children by haystor · 2009-01-20 05:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm sure they're going with the idea that every student consents to a search when they attend school.
  Of course, they are required to be a school and failure to attend can result in charges in some states. Thus, they are required to consent to searches.
  
  --
  t
3. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-20 05:09 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  This thread is useless without pictures!
4. Re:Think of the children by erroneus · 2009-01-20 05:09 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
5. Re:Think of the children by Tacvek · 2009-01-20 05:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
6. Re:Think of the children by fishbowl · 2009-01-20 05:17 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Teacher who confiscates a nude photo that a teenager took of herself, becomes the first adult in possession of the image. Where is the specific guarantee of immunity to charges?
  
  --
  -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
7. Re:Think of the children by trmj · 2009-01-20 05:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
8. Re:Think of the children by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-20 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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
9. Re:Think of the children by DM9290 · 2009-01-20 05:50 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
10. Re:Think of the children by Chyeld · 2009-01-20 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
11. Re:Think of the children by dk90406 · 2009-01-20 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
12. Re:Think of the children by NormalVisual · 2009-01-20 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They may have looked at the contents in order to identify the owner of the phone so that it could be returned to the proper owner.
  
  Or they could just as easily have made a note of who they took the phone from, and return it to that person.
  
  The part that gets me is that there's been no common sense applied here. The supposed "victims" are going to end up with just as much of a criminal record as the boys they sent the pictures to, so what exactly is the net benefit to society here? Sounds to me like there's a DA that's more interested in his political ambitions than anything else, and hopefully this will clearly show this individual's lack of fitness for office due to his lack of judgement.
  
  --
  Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
13. Re:Think of the children by Rob+the+Bold · 2009-01-20 06:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  OR
  The kids can actually OBEY the rules (gasp, horror) and not use cell phones in violation of campus rules!
  . . .
  You know, sometimes the kids actually deserve to get caught. I know that all these "rules" are a pain, but if you teach contempt for rules (even if you don't like them) you'll end up with people who CAN NOT fathom why there are any rules in the first place, and who don't know which rules to follow, so they end up SHOCKED when the rules are enforced.
  I see what you're going for here. Rules are rules, and it they're not obeyed there will be chaos, dogs and cats sleeping together, etc. Now I'm not an authoritarian personality type like you, but I do agree that if kids break the "using cell phone in school" rule they should be disciplined. However, I think they should be disciplined for the infraction of breaking the "cell phone in school" rule, and not the "distributing kiddy porn" rule. Cause when we start charging murderers with speeding and kidnappers with building code violations and parking violators with treason, the law and those enforcing it start to appear, for lack of a better word, stupid. And the more people believe that the law and its enforcers are stupid, then the fewer people are gonna go along with your "order at all costs" campaign. So it's in your interest too to make sure that we follow the old maxim and make "the punishment fit the crime".
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
A great victory in the fight against child porn! by HungryHobo · 2009-01-20 04:41 · Score: 5, Funny

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 by Trekologer · 2009-01-20 04:43 · Score: 5, Informative

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).
1. Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions by DustyShadow · 2009-01-20 04:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
2. Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-20 04:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
3. Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions by TheGratefulNet · 2009-01-20 05:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Their lives are ruined
  how long will it be before someone whose life is ruined like this takes matters into his/her own hands and 'snaps', seeking revenge?
  its not hard to understand the terrorist mind; when you are pushed and have NOTHING (perceived) left - you do what you feel 'needs' to be done to right a major wrong.
  suppose some kids are given criminal records and they find they can't find jobs (etc) later in life. do you REALLY think they will sit quietly and accept a ruined life?
  we are creating time bombs. count on it - its just a matter of time.
  I hope that those kids find justice before their lives truly are ruined. this is a FAIL on society that kids can have a life ruined for 'being kids'. ;(
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
4. Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions by Dun+Malg · 2009-01-20 05:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wonder if the school administrator who turned them in realized the damage that would be done to these kids. Their lives are ruined. They will fight for a long long time to get this off their record.
  Probably didn't even think of it. I work for a large school district, and the one thing I've noticed is that it's not just the cream that floats to the top. A depressingly large fraction of school admin people are complete idiots--- and not just the regular street-variety dodo, but the worst kind of idiot, the kind that has a degree and subsequently thinks they're brighter than everyone else. The kind of self-righteous twit that makes a stupid decision and then defends it to the death, even when faced with prima facie evidence that they totally screwed the pooch.
  
  --
  If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
5. Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions by Xebikr · 2009-01-20 05:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
6. Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions by ArsenneLupin · 2009-01-20 05:44 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ... that they totally screwed the pooch.
  Offtopic: That would be zoophilia, not paedophilia...
7. Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions by hattig · 2009-01-20 05:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
8. Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions by Evanisincontrol · 2009-01-20 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions by profplump · 2009-01-20 08:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
Wow. by Irish_Samurai · 2009-01-20 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Wow. by Irish_Samurai · 2009-01-20 05:03 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  How the fuck is this a troll?
  Charging a child with taking their own picture is punishing the victim!
  Jesus people.
2. Re:Wow. by Shadow+of+Eternity · 2009-01-20 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
3. Re:Wow. by dgatwood · 2009-01-20 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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....
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
child pwnography by damnfuct · 2009-01-20 04:44 · Score: 5, Funny

A classic case of child pwnography.. someone had to say it.
Take this as a lesson by ternarybit · 2009-01-20 04:46 · Score: 5, Interesting

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...
looking in a mirror by SoupGuru · 2009-01-20 04:46 · Score: 5, Funny

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...

--
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
Hmmm. by CannonballHead · 2009-01-20 04:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

investigation turned up 'no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds
That seems hard to believe, but ok.
1. Re:Hmmm. by cbiltcliffe · 2009-01-20 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'd say the investigation itself, at least by the administration, is inappropriate activity on school grounds.....
  
  --
  "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn by cthulu_mt · 2009-01-20 04:47 · Score: 4, Funny

They're old enough to consent, but god forbid I videotape it for later.

--
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn by 0100010001010011 · 2009-01-20 04:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by houghi · 2009-01-20 04:50 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
1. Re:Family album by mewshi_nya · 2009-01-20 06:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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? by Durrill · 2009-01-20 04:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

In all honesty, what harm was being done? Teens will do much more than acts of nudity with each other. This generation we have cell phones, digital cameras, internet, and web cams. So things have gone from adults "knowing" that this kind of stuff is going on to "proving" that it is true. With proof they decide to nail their asses to the wall? Thats ludicrous. Kids will be kids. If this kind of behaviour did not exist, we wouldn't be able to propogate the human race. Grow up and leave those kids alone. Those of you who actually had sex in highschool would understand my view point.

--
If i wanted to hear bullshit, i'd go to church.
Re:Nude != Porn by HungryHobo · 2009-01-20 04:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

You're kidding right?
The think of the children nutcases would label him first as soft on child pornographers, then a pedophile sympathiser and finally simply as a pedophile.
Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn by Ethanol-fueled · 2009-01-20 04:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Loki_666 · 2009-01-20 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-20 04:54 · Score: 4, Funny

We need to ban vision. If you don't willingly poke out your own eyes, then you must be a child molester.
1. Re:Not good enough. by mweather · 2009-01-20 05:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  They're already blind.
2. Re:Not good enough. by QRDeNameland · 2009-01-20 05:25 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
3. Re:Not good enough. by Technician · 2009-01-20 05:37 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  On a more serious note, when did mere nudity = porn? There are nude beaches, nudist colonies, clothing optional hotels, cruises, etc. I think someone may have crossed nudity with porn. Was there a sex act or adult involved?
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
4. Re:Not good enough. by morcego · 2009-01-20 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Can we neuter them ? We don't want that kind of genes polluting our gene pool.
  
  --
  morcego
5. Re:Not good enough. by Forge · 2009-01-20 05:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Nudity is an objective measure (Is that a clitoris or acne at one end of a dimple?) while Porn is a subjective measure (Isn't double fisting really art?)
  
  What should be done is to simply extend what already exists in common law (Jamaican, not US) for statutory rape to pornography. Specifically consent is a valid defense if the victim is the same age or older than the accused. Not only that when the accused is older the age gap in cases where consent is admitted is used to mitigate the sentence.
  I.e. a 25 year old guy will spend years in prison for screwing his 15 year old "girlfriend". A 18 year old guy gets probation.
  
  Apply that principle to child porn and you won't waste time prosecuting kids for pictures of themselves or their classmates.
  
  --
  --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
6. Re:Not good enough. by jythie · 2009-01-20 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It is comments like this that make me sad that slashdot moderation only goes up to +5.
7. Re:Not good enough. by cayenne8 · 2009-01-20 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
8. Re:Not good enough. by hedwards · 2009-01-20 06:04 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
9. Re:Not good enough. by apoc.famine · 2009-01-20 06:04 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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.
  
  --
  Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
10. Re:Not good enough. by Fritz+Benwalla · 2009-01-20 06:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  
  Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
11. Re:Not good enough. by mea37 · 2009-01-20 06:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "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.
12. Re:Not good enough. by cayenne8 · 2009-01-20 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "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'.
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
13. Re:Not good enough. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-20 06:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  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
14. Re:Not good enough. by oldspewey · 2009-01-20 06:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If only there were some way to force all girls and women to wear some kind of head-to-toe covering that conceals any hint of shape or form. Even catching sight of a female face might induce men to think impure thoughts, so it's probably best if only the eyes are visible through some sort of slit in a veil.
  Enforcement of this dress code might be a problem though ... so perhaps there is some way to make it a religious requirement that women be completely covered this way ... maybe by proclaiming that it is the will of God.
  Naaaahhhh ... that would probably never work ...
  
  --
  If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
15. Re:Not good enough. by Stormwatcheagle · 2009-01-20 06:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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.
  
  --
  This just in: SSJ3500 sucks!
16. Re:Not good enough. by Chyeld · 2009-01-20 06:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
17. Re:Not good enough. by Glimmerdark · 2009-01-20 06:45 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  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.
18. Re:Not good enough. by gregbot9000 · 2009-01-20 07:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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.
19. Re:Not good enough. by SCHecklerX · 2009-01-20 07:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
20. Re:Not good enough. by jeffasselin · 2009-01-20 07:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Ok..so, now, parents that take pics of their nude kids, not in sexual situations, are not manufacturers of child porn?
  Yes, at least according to some people. You haven't heard of heard of such cases of parents being accused of child pornography because they had sent pictures of themselves with their naked children in the bathtub to be developed?
  The charges were dropped after some outcry, but the accusations were raised nevertheless.
  The child pornography FUD is just a new campaign to give more power to those who would exploit us. After the War on Drugs, the War on Terrorism, now comes the War on Child Pornography. When everyone is a criminal, there is no need to fabricate evidence to imprison you because they don't like what you're saying or doing.
  
  --
  If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
21. Re:Not good enough. by gregbot9000 · 2009-01-20 07:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
22. Re:Not good enough. by ultranova · 2009-01-20 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  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.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
23. Re:Not good enough. by kohaku · 2009-01-20 09:49 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  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!
24. Re:Not good enough. by tompaulco · 2009-01-20 10:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
replacement repression by Tom · 2009-01-20 04:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Psychologically, I say this is the extreme conversatives who would really like to outlaw nudity, masturbation and while we're at it, even thinking about sex. Since they can't, they are looking for alternatives.
Stripping away all the legality nonsense, what they've done is outlawing the naked human body, at least as long as it's young. That's a step in the "proper" (according to their belief) direction.
There is no thought about "harm" because it is replaced by a strong belief that there is "irrepairable moral harm". And by "strong belief" I mean "belief that is unimpressed by proof".

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Klump vs. Nazareth High by mtg169 · 2009-01-20 04:55 · Score: 5, Informative

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
Laws != prevent harm by corsec67 · 2009-01-20 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.)

--
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
Re:Nude != Porn by Skinkie · 2009-01-20 04:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

--
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn by erroneus · 2009-01-20 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by TheMeuge · 2009-01-20 05:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by betterunixthanunix · 2009-01-20 05:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is definitely something that needs to be curtailed -- these are not adults making a rational decision about these pictures, these are teenagers who think it is exciting. Arresting them will not stop the behavior, it will just drive it underground. What is needed is better parenting and education.

Of course, that is always the case...

--
Palm trees and 8
Seriously...WTF?! by thesolo · 2009-01-20 05:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
1. Re:Seriously...WTF?! by snowgirl · 2009-01-20 05:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  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!
  
  --
  WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
Also in Utah by ink · 2009-01-20 05:12 · Score: 5, Informative

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.

--
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
We've been heading this way for a long time now by Baldur_of_Asgard · 2009-01-20 05:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

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 by erroneus · 2009-01-20 05:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

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 by Blimey85 · 2009-01-20 05:22 · Score: 4, Funny

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

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn by Anonymous Coward · 2009-01-20 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by meist3r · 2009-01-20 05:29 · Score: 5, Funny

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 by TheMeuge · 2009-01-20 05:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

"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...
20% of all tenagers in jail? by GbrDead · 2009-01-20 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Here have some Godwin by TurinPT · 2009-01-20 06:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

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 by JimBobJoe · 2009-01-20 06:19 · Score: 5, Informative

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 by Technician · 2009-01-20 06:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
The truth shall set you free!
Re:Child Molestors by Belial6 · 2009-01-20 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Teenage carelessness... by ChilyWily · 2009-01-20 07:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

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. by scarboni888 · 2009-01-20 07:08 · Score: 4, Informative

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.
Re:Refrence to example by ultranova · 2009-01-20 09:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.