Slashdot Mirror
6 Pennsylvania Teens Face Child Porn Charges For Pics of Selves
mikesd81 writes "MSNBC reports six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones. Apparently, female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14 or 15 years old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession. Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation against school policy and the photos were discovered at that time. Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was 'a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude.' The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the investigation turned up 'no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds ... other than the violation of the electronic devices policy.'"
We need a world-wide ban on all phones with cameras!
/ The Arrow
"How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
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!
Most notably did the school have the right to search the student's phone/does a student have the expectation of privacy. There have been varying rulings over whether the police can search a cell phone or PDA of an individual placed under arrest. In the case of a school, they are not the police and do not have the authority of the police (despite some administrators thinking that they do).
I 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.
A classic case of child pwnography.. someone had to say it.
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...
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
Indeed. Thankfully because we caught them early on they now won't be able to become teachers or run for office. On every job application they ever fill out for the rest of their lives they'll have to put that they're a sexual offender.
When they move they'll have to notify the county where they live. They'll have to let their neighbors know (So they can keep their kids away from these nasty people). In certain states they'll have to turn over their e-mail addresses and passwords.
Hurray for the war on child porn, lets see if any of them have tried marijuana (as the last 2 and current president have admitted to doing) then we can sweep them under with the War On Drugs too.
Never mind you're more likely to be molested by your Uncle or your Mom's new boyfriend than some stranger in a van.
In all honesty, what harm was being done? Teens will do much more than acts of nudity with each other. This generation we have cell phones, digital cameras, internet, and web cams. So things have gone from adults "knowing" that this kind of stuff is going on to "proving" that it is true. With proof they decide to nail their asses to the wall? Thats ludicrous. Kids will be kids. If this kind of behaviour did not exist, we wouldn't be able to propogate the human race. Grow up and leave those kids alone. Those of you who actually had sex in highschool would understand my view point.
If i wanted to hear bullshit, i'd go to church.
after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation against school policy and the photos were discovered at that time.
So whomever confiscated the phone didn't just turn it off and give it back after class, but the sick voyeuristic fuck actually rummaged though the phone's pictures, ran into the bathroom and beat off to it, then felt dirty and decided to call the cops to report CP?
What is up with all of the voyeurism lately? Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?
Its now only a small step to being done for having photos of your own kids nude. Hell, ive event sent pics of my kids nude to my mum, so guessing i could also be done for distributing child porn.
Amazing.
And how is this different from girls flashing boys in the woods or stripping off at parties (yes, there were such parties when i was at school).
Its called life and growing up. Boys are interested in girls, girls are interested in boys, and sometimes even same gender likes same.
Mobile technologies just add an extra element to this and make it a bit easier to do for the kids. Also safer. Girl can take a pic in the privacy of her room and send it to boy who can whack one off in the privacy of his room. In my day there was always the risk of getting caught with the girl in the woods and getting an ear bashing from the local bobby or parents.
Psychologically, I say this is the extreme conversatives who would really like to outlaw nudity, masturbation and while we're at it, even thinking about sex. Since they can't, they are looking for alternatives.
Stripping away all the legality nonsense, what they've done is outlawing the naked human body, at least as long as it's young. That's a step in the "proper" (according to their belief) direction.
There is no thought about "harm" because it is replaced by a strong belief that there is "irrepairable moral harm". And by "strong belief" I mean "belief that is unimpressed by proof".
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
On a more serious note, when did mere nudity = porn? There are nude beaches, nudist colonies, clothing optional hotels, cruises, etc. I think someone may have crossed nudity with porn. Was there a sex act or adult involved?
The truth shall set you free!
"Troll"
WTF? Someone certainly must be on crack here. Children who did nothing, other than violate school rules, and experiment with their sexuality get to have their entire lives ruined... and nobody along the way says "hold on..." ... and I get marked "Troll". You guys have a twisted view of the world...
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.
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 ?
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.........
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
Not really, the law treats all child porn as ANYONE imaged in a sexual way under the age or 18...that is the 3yr just as it is the 16 yr old. There are no layers of child porn.
That being said...and of course I've not seen the pics, but, if it was a simple nude self portrait, no in the past, that was not considered porn. The test used to be if it was in an overt sexual nature...like getting fucked, or even maybe a masturbatory pose, but, a simple nude pic of even under age of 18 kids was not in the past considered child porn. Only in recent years has this started to change, and yes, the same law that can prosecute these kids can indeed prosecute parents of 3 yr olds. It IS the very same law...and it is being applied possibly to simple nudes. Hell, there are art magazines in your local library with nudes of people well under age of 18, that in the past have not been labeled as child porn. Heck, until recently, album covers by Blind Faith and the Scorpions were not considered child porn...until recently with this mindset that we have to 'think of the children'.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
If only there were some way to force all girls and women to wear some kind of head-to-toe covering that conceals any hint of shape or form. Even catching sight of a female face might induce men to think impure thoughts, so it's probably best if only the eyes are visible through some sort of slit in a veil.
Enforcement of this dress code might be a problem though ... so perhaps there is some way to make it a religious requirement that women be completely covered this way ... maybe by proclaiming that it is the will of God.
Naaaahhhh ... that would probably never work ...
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
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!
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.
I know I have far more fear that my child will be arrested and excommunicated (what else can we call it) from society for doing nothing wrong than I have of any 'terrorist' blowing him up. The US/state/local governments are definitely more of a threat to him than the 'terrorist' and the 'internet pedophiles' by a wide margin.
It's a tough problem,
No it isn't. It is a very simple one, charge based on harm. child porn=abuse, abuse=harm, harm=jail.
Yes it's bad to have those sorts of pictures made and distributed,
Again, no it isn't. That's your opinion. It isn't the job of the state to enforce your moral opinion. These were pictures made by individuals of their own volition. Prosecuting them in anyway is a gross violation of their most basic liberties.
I'm not really sure that this is the sort of crime that the lawmakers writing the legislation had in mind when they passed it
This is exactly the kind of prosecution they hoped for. The goal of laws like this is to control human behavior that certain groups dislike, namely pornography and sexuality. it has very little to actually do with CP. They just come through the back door riding the CP train and started bending the law as they always wanted to. They don't feel that people can make decisions for themselves.
You shouldn't look at the law as a means to enforce what is "right" and "wrong" from a moral stance, but as a means of protecting peoples rights. If you don't, more laws like this will come out of the woodwork.
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.
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.
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!