ACLU Wins, No Sexting Charges For NJ Teens

Following up on the "sexting" case we've discussed in recent days, oliphaunt sends word from the Times-Tribune that a New Jersey federal judge has ordered the prosecutor not to file charges in the cases of three teenage girls whose cell phones were confiscated. "Wyoming [NJ] County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. cannot charge three teenage girls who appeared in photographs seminude traded by classmates last year, a judge ruled Monday. US District Judge James M. Munley granted a request by the American Civil Liberties Union to temporarily stop Mr. Skumanick from filing felony charges against the Tunkhannock Area School District students."

Comments

It's a battle and not the war..

[SirFozzie]

TFS states that it's only a TEMPORARY halt to filing any charges on the teens

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, and based on the article I read earlier (my excuse for not RingTFA now) the basis for the judgement was that the pictures of the girls were not sexually explicit, not that charging the subject as in supposed victim of child pornography with life-devastating charges is an affront against the spirit of anti-child-porn laws and of justice itself.

I suppose given the former there's no reason to rule on the latter, but still I really wanted this to be thrown out because the very concept of charging the girls whose photos were taken is insanely Kafkaesque.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[oliphaunt]

Well, sure, the ACLU only filed its complaint like, what, three or four days ago? It's ridonkulous to think a court would issue a final ruling in five days. But it's not unusual to get a temporary order this fast, that will hold while the court takes its time to figure out whether to make the order permanent or give this nutjob prosecutor a chance to back down.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[davidphogan74]

The ACLU lawsuit argues the photographs in which the girls appear are not pornographic and should be protected under the First Amendment.

It's exactly that. Thank you First Amendment, once again.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Asic Eng]

It's a rather curious way to proceed - the ACLU has sued the DA in a federal court in order to prevent him from filing charges. I didn't realize something like that would even be possible. Clearly the kids need protection from this DA though. From another article: Parents were told their teens could avoid prosecution if they agreed to participate in a five-week program Skumanick developed with the county probation office and county's Victims Resource Center. Frankly - sounds to me like this pervert is looking for an excuse to humiliating some pretty young girls. "Give me your kids to torment or I'll add them to the sex offender registry".

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Hatta]

the basis for the judgement was that the pictures of the girls were not sexually explicit

Now that these pictures have been ruled not sexually explicit, where can I get a copy?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[GooberToo]

Pretty scary stuff as the pictures described contain more clothing (a braw, which typically covers more than a bikini, and long pant pajama bottoms) as would otherwise be present at a lake or beach outing. If allowed to stand, anyone who has ever taken a picture while at the beach or lake is likely a child pornographer in the eyes of this idiot prosecutor. According to this idiot, the majority of the world is a child pornographer.

It would be nice if this guy were to be beat over the head with wrongful and malicious prosecutions.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[skroops]

This actually happened to me when I was a high-school student... Back before the internet crash, when you could get domain names for free, a friend of mine wanted to put a website up of his balls, just his balls, at jasonsballs.com (made-up first name). He was 16 and I was 17. I registered the site and drew up the html, with jasonsballs.com in big red letter, a single gif of his ballsack, and an angelfire counter. A few days later and a coupl e thousand hits later, I'm in the administrative office at my highschool with the police. They asked me about it and I explained what we had done (mistake of course). After a bit of time both of us were charged with "Pandering Obscenity of a Minor" or some such charge, a 5th degree felony. After months of lawyers talking, we finally had a court date. 5 minutes in, when an actual judge saw the case, he dismissed it immediately. Nevermind the thousands of dollars in attorney's fees that we had to pay.

I had an idea to call the ACLU at that time but thought that media exposure might hurt me in the long run, now I regret not calling them.

Anyway, this seems like a similar situation and hopefully competent decisions like this will continue to be made.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Jane Q. Public]

IANAL, and I don't know the legal basis for this, but ethically should we not be allowed to sue, or bring charges, against prosecutors who do patently ridiculous and abusive things?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[C_L_Lk]

Now if only the article was correct - this didn't take place in New Jersey, but Pennsylvania. FYI I went to this high school in the 90s. The girls were nothing to write home about. I still don't think they are - not much changes in farm country.

I know the families of several of the involved in this case -- it just was yet another case of a DA trying to make a big name for himself with a "prize case" that would make nation attention and move him up the ladder in his career. He's a real ass clown.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

2 of the girls were wearing underwear, so it's no different than watching girls in bikinis, and I think it's ridiculous they were charged for child porn when they weren't even naked!!! Stupid Puritan bastard D.A.

The one girl who was topless is not sharing her photo. However you can find similar photos by going here (simple nudity): http://www.purenudism.com/free/nude-women-playing.html

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[basementman]

"media exposure" heh

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Anonymous Coward]

Who modded this guy up?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>The girls were nothing to write home about. I still don't think they are - not much changes in farm country.

Except the size of their butts.

Most of the girls in my class (~40) now weigh the equivalent of two of their high school selves (i.e. 200 instead of 100 pounds). Sad. One of our mates already had his first heart attack. Gee, I wonder why?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Jophiel04]

Karma bonus modifier did it...

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>sounds to me like this pervert is looking for an excuse to humiliating some pretty young girls.

Sounds to me like he's a religious type, and he sees an opportunity to impose his Judeo-christian values onto the citizens. He likely thinks nudity is a horrible, horrible sin deserving of punishment and hopes to scare other people from being nude. Or having sex. Or fun. There's no tyrant worse than a tyrant trying to "do good". I hate morality dictators.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you find out how in the hell can a random picture of someone's balls be determined to be minor? How did they know?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Mix Master Nixon]

It would be nice if this guy were to be beat over the head with wrongful and malicious prosecutions.

Or a bat.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[skroops]

Well we weren't quiet about the site, as it was funny. And I told the truth about it when they asked.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Shakrai]

Nevermind the thousands of dollars in attorney's fees that we had to pay

How did you rack up thousands of dollars in fees for something that got kicked the first time the judge saw it? I wound up charged with a Class E felony in NYS that went to grand jury and five different court appearances and "only" wound up paying ~$4,500.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Ripit]

Your inability to properly spell "bra" should be exhibit #1 when you try to renew your geek card.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Shakrai]

but ethically should we not be allowed to sue, or bring charges, against prosecutors who do patently ridiculous and abusive things?

Perhaps, but the DA makes a good point (probably his only one ever) when he says that it's a dangerous precedent to set when a Federal court prevents a State prosecutor from bringing charges. I'm no fan of what he's trying to do but I probably would have called his bluff before I would have run off to the Federal court house. His 'evidence' seems pretty thin and it's doubtful that it would even make it to a jury, let alone a conviction.....

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[mdowd]

$4500 is thousands of dollars.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Shakrai]

Thanks for the math contribution. Where would we be without your mad skills?

You'll surely note that I said my case had five different court appearances and the GP's had one. Hence I think my question was valid. Now bugger off unless you have something meaningful to say.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Shakrai]

Sounds to me like he's a religious type, and he sees an opportunity to impose his Judeo-christian values onto the citizens. He likely thinks nudity is a horrible, horrible sin deserving of punishment and hopes to scare other people from being nude. Or having sex. Or fun. There's no tyrant worse than a tyrant trying to "do good". I hate morality dictators.

Oh, please. Do you have anything at all to base that on other than your assumptions about "religious types"? He sounds to me like the typical politician looking to score some free publicity and gain some name recognition.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Genda]

Building a web site ------------- $ 50
Dealing with the police ------ $ 280
Courts and Lawyers --------- $9845
Discussing your ball sack in a courtroom... Priceless!!!

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[IndustrialComplex]

Thanks for the math contribution. Where would we be without your mad skills?

You'll surely note that I said my case had five different court appearances and the GP's had one. Hence I think my question was valid. Now bugger off unless you have something meaningful to say.

Depends on your case. I spent thousands on lawyer fees before and never saw the inside of the courtroom or was subject to charges. Of course, that was the point. I know that if there was anything that might land me on the sex offender registry, I'd lawyer up like you wouldn't believe.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[LowSeven]

I'd mod this funny if I could.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[hedwards]

Actually a ruling may take a few hours or many hours, it depends upon how much case law is involved and how complicated the issues are.

In this case, I'm surprised it took that long to rule. Much of this was already tried previously in other contexts, had this been a ruling on something that's new, that might have taken a while.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[einhverfr]

This REALLY needs to be decided on Constitutional grounds. A little research will show that these sorts of threats and even charges are becoming commonplace against teens. This is one reason this needs to go to trial. Let's send a CLEAR message to prosecutors that this is fundamentally a violation of teens' protected speech and outside the (narrow) child pornography exception.

Note that in other cases obscenity charges are used. However, this poses extremely problematic issues as well. Normal obscenity law depends on a jury to decide a relevant contemporary community standard. Since there are no jury trials in juvenile court, the judge gets to decide what is obscene and what is not and thus IMO this makes the law as applied to juveniles unconstitutionally vague (because a judge alone decides matters in what would fundamentally be an arbitrary way).

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Chris Burke]

How much time did your attorney actually spend on your case? He says they had months of lawyers talking, and when your lawyer talks to the prosecutor, that's $$$. Having a brief stint in court means he would have low court fees but that's not the same thing.

Frankly I don't know of any situation where you actually need an attorney's services and don't pay thousands of dollars in attorney's fees when they don't take the case on contingency.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[steelfood]

After seeing the pictures, I'm sure some head of his was getting beat.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[cayenne8]

So, can they FINALLY now publish the pictures in question, so we can all judge how 'obscene' they were not??

:P

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Anonymous Coward]

How did you rack up thousands of dollars in fees for something that got kicked the first time the judge saw it?

He said 'after lawyers talked' - Lawyers yacking costs. I know one lawyer that charges north of $300 to write a letter; another whose hourly billing is $150 if she likes you.

I'd said it doesn't take long at those prices to hit a grand or few.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[rockfistus]

Completely agree with you. There are a lot of those types around here where I live. Most of them are my family.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[terrymr]

Dangerous ? His actions are unconstitutional - federal court is the right forum for that.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Ripit]

Hey, that was a compliment!

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Maxo-Texas]

Probably based on a lifetime of experience with religious types.

I've found they try to impose their values and judge me for having sex with dead bodies... and their mom.

http://www.explosm.net/comics/891/

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[CodeBuster]

As I recall a similar issue came up in the Duke Lacross false accusation of rape case where it was pointed out that unless a prosecutor is convicted of misconduct (as Mike Nifong was in that case) he or she enjoys broad legal immunity from civil lawsuits arising out of their official actions as prosecutor.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[el americano]

It's odd that the prosecutor thinks he's doing nothing wrong. The judge clearly has problems with it:

According to the Times, Judge Munley told Skumanick's lawyer, A. James Hailstone: "It seems like the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here. How does that make sense?" State law "doesn't distinguish between who took the picture and who was in it," Hailstone was quoted by the newspaper as saying.

He's actually trying to charge them as accomplices to "open lewdness", which is a misdemeanor. I had never heard of such a thing. The possible child pornography charge was just prosecutorial blackmail - standard operating procedure for almost any DA. I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that these laws would be found unconstitutional. The legislature needs to amend them from being applied in this way - although they typically only take action after a well publicized travesty of justice.

In any case, I think you'd need this to be much more explicit to set the kind of precedent you want. A not-guilty will be good enough for me, and the children involved too, I'm sure.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[oliphaunt]

sorry. I submitted a lousy summary because I rushed the read on my RSS feed- and it got posted. Such is life. I'd edit the summary if I could.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[rts008]

The 'Barbara Streisand's Balls Effect'???

I always thought she looked a little funny...

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[rts008]

He's running for re-election next month, you stupid git. Religion has nothing to do with it...go back to your 'the world is about to end' street corner, fool.

What a maroon!

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[shutdown -p now]

Your inability to properly spell "bra" should be exhibit #1 when you try to renew your geek card.

Your desire to maintain the correct spelling of "bra" - as if it would matter any in the cases you hint at - should be handled in a similar fashion

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Anonymous Coward]

No, pornography should also be protected by the First Amendment. And it should be legal for anybody to make pornographic photos of themselves. They may be teenagers but they should still own their bodies.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Jane Q. Public]

I tend to agree with you that ostensibly this should be a state issue. On the other hand, you must admit that the Federal government (justified or not) has seen fit to intrude into just about anything that has to do with pornography.

A case in point is Title 18, Section 2257, which (contrary to popular belief) applies to individuals just as much as it does to commercial pornography. They justify this with an outrageous interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause, stating that if ANY of the materials you use (such as a videotape) for creating ANY pornographic material (pictures of your girlfriend) were purchased from out of state, the law applies to you.

Caution, eBayers: that videotape you bought from someone in Iowa, and the printer paper from Texas, make you a felon.

If you do not believe me, look it up.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Kierthos]

Er, so why can't we also send a message to teens that being dumbasses and taking naked pics of themselves is probably not the smartest fucking thing to do?

I mean, even ignoring the fact that it's pervert bait to any pedophile who gets his hands on it, once you send such a pic out, you're basically giving up any chance that it's not going to get spread around.

And who wants that kind of thing haunting them years later?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Jaysyn]

I vote bat.

SKUManick what an appropriate name.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Anonymous Coward]

friends, to the torches! I've found one!

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[attackc0de]

I bet this little girls won't be "sexting" any more! It's sad to see that these kids didn't get charged, but it's a good thing they've been (at least) taught a lesson. I wish it was their parents weren't the one teaching it to them in this case. I wonder why criminal charges were not brought up against the parents for this? The parents should be held responsible for failing to teach their kids morals, and what responsibility and accountability means. If this was my kid, he/she would never own a cell phone again, and wouldn't be able to sit for a week.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[adamchou]

I'm not ok with that link. There are pictures of girls who are clearly 13 or younger and they're walking around butt naked. I cannot rationalize putting little girls naked in public like that, let alone taking pictures of them. Putting them on the internet is even worse. Thats just fostering pedophilia and it should be removed.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[adamchou]

I think its a much more dangerous precedent to set when he can go off confiscating cell phones and giving felony charges to teenagers who took pictures of themselves.

These are kids being foolish. Giving them a felony charge will ruin their lives. Publicizing it like this and sending them to court will already traumatize them. This should have been something the school notified the parents about to let the parents resolve.

I think this is absolutely the right precedent to set to control these head hunting lawyers that take overly extend the definition of the law

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[adamchou]

The thought of a DA being appointed that is a religious zealot or just some nutjob almost makes me want to suggest that we should have the ability to elect DA's. These guys might not make the law but they have the ability to bend the interpretation of the law, which can be just as powerful.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[arekusu_ou]

I don't think its odd. I think he's an overzealot puritanical, who is pushing his restrictive opinions into his job and someday will be drummed out for harassing prosecution. Only thing that surprises me is this wasn't done in the bible belt.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[arekusu_ou]

Sending a message is fine. But the response needs to be proportional. You're going to label the poor misguided girl a sex offender for taking sexy pictures of herself? She can have sex like a grown woman but not give sexy pictures of herself to guys she like?

This is like charging a 10 year old for felony larceny for stealing a candy bar, and getting him thrown in pound my ass prison. That'd teach him a lesson, he'd never steal a candy bar again.

People do dumbass things, and its up to them to live with the normal consequences of their actions. Not make up random outrageous consequences to scare them.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes me wonder how much those "programs" cost... and how much of a cut he's getting from them.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Archades54]

Even the most moral upholding/value laden people could have a child do the same, blaming the parents for the kids action is just a cop-out. At most the kids need education and forced to take some lessons on not being silly with cameraphones.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Archades54]

Pedos will get their jollies from pics in target adverts of the underwear, theres nothign sexual about a pic of a butt nekkid kid running around. Use to be a time where you could do art of a young child naked and no one thought twice about it but these days everything has some evil pedophilic link.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>There are pictures of girls who are clearly 13 or younger and they're walking around butt naked

I know you won't listen to me, so I'll quote a slightly higher authority - "Because God created it, the human body can remain nude and uncovered and preserve intact its splendor and its beauty." - Pope John Paul II. In other words, being naked is not a sin because the human body is God's masterpiece.

And even if you don't believe in God, you have to acknowledge that a human body is not offensive. It's the natural state - just as natural as a naked bird, deer, pig, squirrel, or lizard. There is no shame in being naked, except in the mind of mentally unstable persons who have an unhealthy body phobia. They are as irrational as those who fear going outside.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

Also what's do horrible about acknowledging beauty? When I watch the Blue Lagoon, I think Brooke Shields looks gorgeous. Her male friend is rather beautiful too. Does the fact she's only 16 make me some kind of deviant? Is that child pornography?

Only in the minds of people who are, themselves, mentally ill.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[adamchou]

My issue isn't the girls are young and naked. My issue is that these pictures are up on the internet for the public to view.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>Do you have anything at all to base that on other than your assumptions about "religious types"?

20+ years of church.

They fear nudity.

Plus they claim the U.S. is a godless nation, and it's up to the Christians to take-over and demand a return to the morality of the Bible, including banning all forms of pornography or even just simple nudity (playboy, nudist beaches). You don't even need to attend church - just spend a few days listening to religious radio like WJTL.com or WDAC.com - research and learn how they truly think.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[geminidomino]

Then don't click on it. Your issue is just that: Yours.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>He's running for re-election next month, you stupid git. Religion has nothing to do with it...

Most of the people in his district attend church, and even those who don't consider themselves religious, and you believe religion has nothing to do with his re-election?!?!? Wow. You truly don't understand politics (i.e. you're the stupid git). His decision to punish some young jezebels that violated the Garden of Eden ban against nudity Scored this guy major points with his voters, and he's almost guaranteed to win in his religious district.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[adamchou]

well no shit sherlock. i didn't click on it again after the first time. i still have the right to express my opinions, which i did

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Shakrai]

They fear nudity.

Who is this 'they' you speak of?

You don't even need to attend church - just spend a few days listening to religious radio like WJTL.com or WDAC.com - research and learn how they truly think.

That's like saying Keith Olbermann is representative of all Liberals.....

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Anonymous Coward]

Furthermore, as 4000 dollars is 4 x 1000 ... or "more thousands than one" it also qualifies as "thousands".

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Maximum Prophet]

For a good lawyer, thousands is about right, especially if they get the charges thrown out in the 1st 5 minutes. Would you rather get a cut rate attorney that takes weeks for < 200 bucks?

Sometimes the presence of a good lawyer will convince the judge right off that the case is bogus. If the judge knows that your lawyer knows his stuff and doesn't waste the court's time, the judge is more likely to follow his lead.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[computational super]

But, if not for puritanical jerks like yourself, this sort of behavior wouldn't be a big deal, would it? You turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy - "if you do this, your life will be ruined, because a loudmouthed minority of religious bible-thumping zealots like myself will judge you as a nonperson because of it."

I did a lot of things as a teenager that I'm embarrassed about - in fact, there's photographic evidence that I had hair halfway down my back and walked around in sleeveless T-shirts. If some group of idiots started insisting that "nobody who ever wore their hair long can get a decent job" (or whatever the hell random consequence you arbitrarily decide to associate with naked pictures), I'd be screwed.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[computational super]

I love the irony in the implication that you consider it perfectly acceptable to physically abuse somebody to force upon them your own completely irrational interpretation of "morality".

See, my definition of "moral" behavior includes not beating on somebody smaller than you for no good reason. But that's just me.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[computational super]

Yeah, really! That's not OK at all! Because... because... ok, I've got nothing...

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[holmedog]

I have to agree. When I was facing INVESTIGATION, not even charges, for CP it cost me ~6k in lawyers fees. It never went to prosecution (it happened at my IP but not on my computer, never have a lan party!) and I still had to fork over ~6k to my lawyer. It was worth every single penny and I would do it again.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[computational super]

That's like saying Keith Olbermann is representative of all Liberals.....

Uh, no, it's a little differnt. In this case, they all actually do have a common book they all follow. Or, at least, they say they do - although in most cases they pretend it says things it doesn't say and then ignore the things it actually does say.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Shakrai]

Yeah, Christians all have a "common book". So what? Commodore is making sweeping generalizations about "religious types", claiming that "they" fear nudity and "they" claim the US is a godless nation. Then he claims that you can learn how "they" think by listening to the radio. Hmm......

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[attackc0de]

I love the irony in the implication that you consider it perfectly acceptable to physically abuse somebody to force upon them your own completely irrational interpretation of "morality".

See, my definition of "moral" behavior includes not beating on somebody smaller than you for no good reason. But that's just me.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you then. There is nothing wrong with swift, corporal punishment. "Abuse" is hardly the word for it. But then again, I am not a social worker, or nanny shrink, and my conservative viewpoints don't follow slashdot's typically liberal stances. My apologies.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[computational super]

Religion has nothing to do with it

Well, since the religious types started the whole "nudity is bad" concept, I seriously doubt that "religion has nothing to do with it". I'd be shocked if this guy wasn't a zealous religious type.

And although this sort of thing always comes from superstitious religious nutbags, neither the old testament nor the new testament has much to say about nudity (not sure about the koran, never read it). It's easier to make up random stuff and say the bible says that than to actually read it and try to apply its lessons to your life.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Luke-Jr]

If it's being considered child porn, having sex would obviously be considered statutory rape...

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Hognoxious]

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you then. There is nothing wrong with swift, corporal punishment.

It wasn't clear what you meant. We all thought you were going to fuck her in the ass.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Hognoxious]

If they were on the walls or ceiling of a church they'd be OK then? How about in an art gallery?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[orclevegam]

Sure she will, she'll just be more careful about cleaning up the evidence. Plus in a few more years it'll be legal no matter how you look at it so she'll be free to do as she pleases and there's not a damn thing your uptight ass can do about it.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Hognoxious]

Which species?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[adamchou]

Whatever dude, you know that argument is lame and you're just saying that to be contradictory. You know damn well that a pedophile isn't looking at the sistine chapel wacking off but he sure as hell will go to websites like that and wack off to those pictures.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[JosKarith]

Uh - not if she's 16 or 17 in most states. Or here in the UK. My G/f was 17 when we got together - we could do whatever we liked, but it would have been illegal for me to take a photo of her topless... Nice consistency lawmakers.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[SatanicPuppy]

That was basically what the judge ruled, with the additional point that the statute of limitations on his charges was 12 years, so there was no benefit leaving him free to basically use the threat of prosecution as blackmail.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[virg_mattes]

If it's being considered child porn, having sex would obviously be considered statutory rape...

This isn't necessarily true. If the age of consent where that person lives is under 18, they could legally have sex and at the same time, sexual photographs of them would be considered child porn.

Virg

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[computational super]

Yes, Commodore64_love is correct - the religion dictates it, idiot. That's like saying saying registered democrats don't vote democrat because you know a registered democrat who didn't vote at all once. It's not a "sweeping generalization", it's a definition.

BTW, I'm pretty sure commodore64_love is a woman - she used to have a sig that referred to her clitoris. At least I hope that means she's a woman...

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[JosKarith]

If this was my kid, he/she would never own a cell phone again, and wouldn't be able to sit for a week.

And then come their 18th birthday you would have never seen them again as they got the hell away from somebody who thinks that physical assault is a reasonable response to what is actually a fairly minor lapse in judgement.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Hognoxious]

He's running for re-election next month, you stupid git. Religion has nothing to do with it...

And we all know that religion plays no part in American politics. Not even a little bit around the edges. And neither do race and the media and teh 3vi7 corpurashuns.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[cdrudge]

If it's being considered child porn, having sex would obviously be considered statutory rape...

not necessarily. It depends on the ages of the parties involved. Check local listings for your area. Most states have a law that forbids sex with anyone under a certain age (usually some where between 12-15 years old). Other states permit sex between two minors presuming both are older then the age previously mentioned. Still more states permit sex with someone under 18 with someone older then 18 if the age difference is within a limited range, 2-5 year age difference for instance.

In Indiana, where I'm at, having sex with someone under 14 is always statutory rape regardless of the age of the other party, and having sex with a 14-16 year old is considered so if the other party is over 18. However if one party is 17 and the other is 19, it's not statutory rape. HOWEVER, child pornography laws say that it's illegal to have pictures/videos/etc of anyone under 18. So a 19 year old can have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and see her naked, he just can't take a picture of her doing so.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Anonymous Coward]

The retainer fee for a good lawyer will often be greater than $2,000. That alone meets the criteria of "thousands of dollars".

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Bloodoflethe]

Why did you click on the link in the first place? I didn't. I looked at the name of the link, and the context of the link. It was pretty obvious where it would go. You have no right to be offended if you aren't paying attention to what you are doing.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[adamchou]

Let me repost for you what the link said... http://www.purenudism.com/free/nude-women-playing.html [purenudism.com] pure nudism... i wanted to see pictures of nude women. purenudism.com, not purenudekids.com. How was I supposed to know there was supposed to be pictures of nude kids? Psychic powers aren't part of my ability.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[einhverfr]

Er, so why can't we also send a message to teens that being dumbasses and taking naked pics of themselves is probably not the smartest fucking thing to do?

Sure. Send a message. Send the information to the parents and have them figure out what to do.

BTW, of this, only one of the photos even approached being a "naked pic" anyway. The others were underwear pics, from the waist up (no real nudity). Furthermore, merely having breasts exposed seems to push the limits of the child pornography 1A exception to new levels, and I don't think that would fly in court either.

The prosecutor even threatened to prosecute a kid over child pornography over having a picture taken of her in a bathing suit. Get that....

Under this standard, JC Penny's and Sears are distributing child pornography and need to be stopped!

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[sabt-pestnu]

First, can you suggest a better venue to censor a state prosecutor? Myself, I do not know of any method within a state law framework of affecting a state prosecutor's behavior. Complain, sure. I'd bet that the state bar association would be a good place to start. Compel? Not so much.

And second, "calling his bluff" is not such a good idea either. Stopping a prosecutor from filing charges is dangerous enough (as you say). What chance do you think they would have of vetoing them?

As previous posters have said, even the threat of charges is enough to require lawyering up. The cost of the defense goes up a lot just in responding to charges. And you do have to SHOW that the evidence is thin to the judge, which in most cases requires the assistance of a lawyer. If you fail at that, then you're in for a trial, and REAL lawyer time. ... or a nominal defense by an overworked public defender who won't have time (or, often, experience) to mount a robust defense. ... or a pro se defense, which is likely to be even worse than that of the public defender.

Even if they later drop the charges, you're in for a world of headaches.

You really do want to head things off as early as you possibly can. This is earlier than most, though...

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Hognoxious]

The only person who knows damn well what a pedophile will do is a pedophile.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[darkmeridian]

I doubt the final injunction will be issued by the federal courts. The law generally stops federal courts from messing with state court proceedings via injunctions. (See the Anti-Injunction Act.) An exception deals with violations of a person's constitutional rights. (Younger v. Harris.) This temporary injunction will probably not issue as a final injunction. It's very difficult to prove malicious prosecution or a violation of their constitutional rights to free speech. Note that having to endure a criminal prosecution is not considered undue hardship.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Thinboy00]

Define "morality". Now do so in a way equitable to everyone, including these folks. If you do that, maybe we'll listen to you. Until then, you're just saying "my definition of morality sounds good to me, so it must be right!" If you don't see why that's wrongheaded, I'd recommend a position in politics for you.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Thinboy00]

That more or less sums up Wikipedia's reasoning for not censoring anything: If you don't want to see it, don't view its article.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Thinboy00]

And I told the truth about it when they asked.

What about your Miranda rights ("you have the right to remain silent...")?

IANAL.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Bloodoflethe]

You don't need psychic powers to understand context clues. Let me show you what I mean by context:

2 of the girls were wearing underwear, so it's no different than watching girls in bikinis, and I think it's ridiculous they were charged for child porn when they weren't even naked!!! Stupid Puritan bastard D.A.

The one girl who was topless is not sharing her photo. However you can find similar photos by going here

emphasis added by me
"similar photos" + *purenude* = nude underage girls.
Easy enough.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[roguetrick]

So you propose instead criminal charges, so they can avoid the possibility of it might haunting them and instead guarantee it.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Jaysyn]

Louisville Slugger?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[FishAdmin]

They fear nudity.

Uh-oh. I'm an evangelical Christian, and I never knew that I was afraid of being naked. I've been brainwashed, and I never even knew it! Oh, no! "They" got me! Now I'm one of "THEM"!

If there's one thing I've learned since being born again, it's that you can go to 20 different churches and get 20 different views on the same book. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but I'm going to guess your experience had a lot more to do with "religion" than with anything actually in the Bible.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Sj0]

Great idea!

Instead of a vaguely embarassing photo being distributed, let's send these kids to jail and put them on a sex offender list!

Why let a fairly small mistake stay fairly small, when we can rape children so hard they'll walk bowlegged until they die of old age?

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Sj0]

If you think your kid should be put on the sex offender list and barred from many occupations for the rest of their lives because they took a naughty picture of themselves, you're just as bad as the paedophiles, in my opinion -- You're still fucking children.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Sj0]

You're no conservative.

Talk to someone from previous generations, and ask them about putting kids in jail for taking pictures of themselves, or for playing doctor, or for doing anything other than the worst crimes. We've NEVER treated kids this way before. This is a completely new ideology, a completely new attitude. You're a left-wing nutjob pretending to be upholding the values of the nation, while simultaneously latching onto the left-wing idea that the government has to protect you from cradle to grave from ever making a poor decision.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Sj0]

This is fairly common.

This site documents the horrific things done in the name of "protecting the children" against "children who molest".

After being caught playing doctor, a pre-teen boy will be sentenced to a nightmarish "treatment", where they're forced in one part to repeat things like "I'm nothing but a disgusting filthy paedophile, I can never be trusted, because I'm a liar and I'll lie again", an in another part forced to strap a mercury sensor to his penis and forced to watch deviant pornography. If he begins to get an erection, he'll recieve an electric shock, or be forced to sniff ammonia.

We hate our children. Raping is too good for our children, so we've got to come up with the most mind-numbingly Nazi-esque methods to hurt them we possibly can, and we've got to treat them as non-humans in the courts so these horrible things remain legal while they'd be illegal in the case of an adult sexual predator.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>My issue is that these pictures are up on the internet

I don't think you understood a word I said (or what the Pope said). Photos of naked girls, boys, or teens is no more offensive than a photo of a naked deer or cow or dog. ""Because God created it, the human body can remain nude." Stop being afraid of the human body. Stop being mentally ill.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>You know damn well that a pedophile isn't looking at the sistine chapel wacking off

I bet someone, somewhere has done exactly that. So what? That's between him and God, and NOT justification to paint clothes over the naked humans, or otherwise censor the painting.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>How was I supposed to know there was supposed to be pictures of nude kids?

The photo I linked is an image of a young woman with breasts. Not a child. Children don't have breasts (or have the ability to make babies), and therefore said person is a biological adult. Of course given your previous posts, you likely won't understand that simple logic.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>Who is this 'they' you speak of?

Good Lord man, don't you even know simply English??? Well I guess that's what happens when you let government own schools. "They" is a pronoun and the direct antecedent is the noun "church" in which I was referring to various Christian churches - Lutheran, Evangelical, Methodist, Assembly of God, et cetera.

As for WJTL or WDAC they may not represent the views of "all" religious types, but since they are listener-supported and consistently in the Top 5 of their region, clearly a huge majority of Christians agree with their broadcasts - which are antinudity, anti-porn, pro-God-in-government, et cetera.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

Correction:

Good Lord man, don't you even know [simple] English? "They" is a pronoun and the direct antecedent refers to Christian churches

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>I never knew that I was afraid of being naked.

So you have no objections to this site? www.domai.com (warning: nudity of underage teens). I suspect you do, or if you don't, I bet your Pastor does and would wax eloquently about how that's a sinful site that should be closed immediately. I know - every church I've ever visited was against such websites or magazines.

I should qualify that I'm discussing U.S. churches. Perhaps European churches are more liberal.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[commodore64_love]

>>>I'm pretty sure commodore64_love is a woman - she used to have a sig that referred to her clitoris.

Oh my.

Maybe I should change my name to "commodore_amiga" ;-)

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Shakrai]

*sigh*, I'm trying to make the point that you are painting with a broad brush and claiming that a handful of nutjobs speak for all (or at least most) Christians. Most of the Christians that I've come across in my lifetime aren't prudes who are afraid of nudity and want to censor porn.

As for WJTL or WDAC they may not represent the views of "all" religious types, but since they are listener-supported and consistently in the Top 5 of their region, clearly a huge majority of Christians agree with their broadcasts - which are antinudity, anti-porn, pro-God-in-government, et cetera.

Huh? Do a "huge majority" of Christians listen to these radio shows? Again, painting with the broad brush.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Hognoxious]

No, the lame argument is "OMG they're on teh intarwebz, that's different!". Yours, in other words.

Re:It's a battle and not the war..

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, but the DA makes a good point (probably his only one ever) when he says that it's a dangerous precedent to set when a Federal court prevents a State prosecutor from bringing charges.

Why not go tio the feds? This is a clear-cut case of an over-zealous prosecutor violating the kids' civil rights. His tactics reek of extortion. I say that, if a pattern of this kind of behavior can be established, the son of a bitch should be charged with running a corrupt organization under the RICO statute.

Better to smack his ass down before the families involved face financial ruin from his shenanigans. Especially since he could drop charges immediately before a trial and walk away at no expense. Then he'd have the satisfaction of dusting off his coat while saying, "I sure ruined them, didn't I?" Let the shit put some skin in the game (preferably his foreskin) and see how it looks to have something at risk.

Why is the header in red?

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes this thread so special that it's dedicated with a RED header?

Re:Why is the header in red?

[BlackSnake112]

This is about girls, 'sex', and on slashdot.

Think about it.

Re:Why is the header in red?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in red because it's a YRO article dumbass

NJ? Really?

[Red Flayer]

These teens are in PA, not NJ.

There is no Wyoming County in NJ.

The judge may be in NJ (since federal jurisdictions often overlap individual states).

Also note that there is no such thing as a "New Jersey federal judge". Submitter should be a little more careful... that judge has a specific title which wolud disambiguate which court we're talking about.

That summary was atrocious. Blech.

Hard to judge

[Anonymous Coward]

Hard to make a call on this one. I will need to see these photos before I can form my opinion.

Accuracy?

[alexo]

TFA:
Judge Munley ruled Mr. Walczak successfully met the standards necessary to issue a temporary order blocking Mr. Skumanick from filing charges against the three teens, including that they have demonstrated "a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims." He also believed "no harm would come to (Mr. Skumanick) by delaying prosecution on this matter."

Re:Accuracy?

[oliphaunt]

right. first you get a temporary order. Then the court looks at the briefs, and maybe even asks for oral arguments. Then the judge decides if he needs to make the order permanent.

That's how the process works.

Re:Accuracy?

[Obfuscant]

right. first you get a temporary order. Then the court looks at the briefs,

If the girls had been wearing briefs, I don't think this would be an issue now. Or maybe they needed boxers.

Re:Accuracy?

[Anonymous Cowpat]

Then the court looks at the briefs

The ones allegedly in the photos? or some other ones?

Re:Accuracy?

[einhverfr]

Ummmm..

IANAL, but I thought that a permanent order of this sort would have to be determined on the basis of a trial (in this case, presumably a bench trial). Or am I missing something?

Or are you characterizing a trial as "maybe a few hearings?"

Re:Accuracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't 'looking at their briefs' what started this nonsense in the first place . . .

Re:Accuracy?

[metaforest]

IANAL:

Skumanick... (unfortunate name) fuxed up by not filing charges when the evidence was provided to.... ummmm him....

IMO: he played a sick(?) game with the families involved and got caught out. By not filing charges out of the gate... the federal court could not overlook the issue, according to tradition.

My concern is that in the future, a prosecutor grokking this massive fail on Mr. Skumanick's part, will simply file charges and then open it to pleading after the fact... thus keeping the feds out of the state's business.

So why is this clown failing to prosecute the individuals in possession of said photos, and the alleged person(s) responsible for taking them with the girls' cell phones? It seems that from the descriptions of the picture's content it is unlikely to have been taken by the girls themselves.... Am I missing something here?

Re:Accuracy?

[BobGod8]

Not to mention the oral involved in the arguements...

pix plz

[Jabbrwokk]

Sorry, had a 4chan moment. I need to go atone for my sins now.

Re:pix plz

[PhxBlue]

Would you be referring to good old Rule 34? :)

Reasoning?

[nathan.fulton]

often, the reason for a decision is just as (if not more than) important than the decision itself. I'm skeptical of whether or not this is a good thing in this case. While the judge does mention the first amendment, this little gem is in TFA:
"Mr. Walczak has said it was clear the three girls were victims; they did not take or distribute the photos in question."

Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self. Which is kind of unfortunate.

Re:Reasoning?

[Locke2005]

Don't you just hate when you wake up in the morning after a night of heavy drinking and find out that you've taken advantage of yourself again? I know it always makes ME want to press charges for committing sex crimes against myself! If it is that obvious that the teens didn't take the pictures themselves (i.e. the pictures didn't show them holding a camera) then why were they threatened with prosecution in the first place? If a 2 year old hands you a photo of themselves posing naked on a bear skin rug, should said 2 year be arrested for distribution of child porn and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life?

Re:Reasoning?

[Slurgi]

Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self. Which is kind of unfortunate.

Not everybody considers this unfortunate. I doubt he "ignored" the issue; rather, he opted that the defense of a person willingly committing a sex crime against oneself is invalid. That decision makes a lot of sense in my book.

Re:Reasoning?

[BaronHethorSamedi]

Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self. Which is kind of unfortunate.

I don't think the decision does any such thing. (The full text of the judge's order may be found here.)

This is only a temporary restraining order. It doesn't really get into the underlying issues of the prosecution itself. It's just a preliminary finding that the girls do seem to have a good First Amendment case, and that allowing the prosecution to proceed without some more argument into the free speech question might cause irreparable harm. The judge expressly notes that even a temporary infringement of First Amendment rights is a legally cognizable harm. Good for him.

The judge also takes note of the argument that the girls here are victims, not perpetrators. That question isn't decided (though it certainly isn't ignored), because again, this is only a temporary restraining order that doesn't reach that far into the substance of the case.

Re:Reasoning?

[Grishnakh]

If a 2 year old hands you a photo of themselves posing naked on a bear skin rug, should said 2 year be arrested for distribution of child porn and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life?

In the USA, yes. In a country with a sane legal system, no.

Re:Reasoning?

[Anonymous Coward]

Statutory much? It may be consensual, but.../insert outrageous flame bait example of that philosophy here/

The laws on consensual sex between a young adult and almost-18 minor are different in different states of the USA. I think there will be some grappling with ethics/morals of this for some time to come...

Re:Reasoning?

[Asic Eng]

Of course - children are by themselves pornographic. Any picture of them is pornography, any development of their sexuality is a crime. After all it could titillate a prosecutor and make him feel uncomfortable about himself.

Re:Reasoning?

[Chris Burke]

Don't you just hate when you wake up in the morning after a night of heavy drinking and find out that you've taken advantage of yourself again?

Yes but I always find myself coming back for more so I must like it.

Re:Reasoning?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously confused the US with a society that is comfortable with human sexuality.

Re:Reasoning?

[basementman]

Common misconception, naked pictures do not constitute child porn. The images need to be sexual as well. This is why the nude pics of me in the bath when I was 3 are not illegal. And no I will not email you them.

Re:Reasoning?

[Shakrai]

You've obviously confused the US with a society that is comfortable with human sexuality.

You've obviously never been to any reasonably large American city or high school ;)

Re:Reasoning?

[Anonymous Coward]

But I've got a copy and will mail them to the GP. Just include your e-mail address in a reply post to this one.

Re:Reasoning?

[interkin3tic]

If a 2 year old hands you a photo of themselves posing naked on a bear skin rug, should said 2 year be arrested for distribution of child porn and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life?

2 years old? I know I wouldn't want to see that, would be pretty disturbing. And if if they're that perverted that early, better keep an eye on them. So yes, definitely.

(this post has been a joke)

Re:Reasoning?

[steelfood]

If a 2 year old hands you a photo of themselves posing naked on a bear skin rug, should said 2 year be arrested for distribution of child porn and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life?

Yeah, and then on top of that, you charge 'em with cruelty to animals, and hope their lawyer will settle for the lesser charge. Still gotta register as a sex offender though.

Re:Reasoning?

[Anonymous Coward]

If a 2 year old hands you a photo of themselves posing naked on a bear skin rug

Don't you think you should answer the knock on your door?

Re:Reasoning?

[CodeBuster]

The relative insanity of our legal system seems to be directly proportional to the stupidity of our average citizens. Unfortunately, both are growing every year so if we keep going on like this then Idiocracy cannot be too far off. Its too bad really, our Constitution and system of government really are fine ideas in principle, but as it turns out the perpetuation of an educated and informed citizenry is too difficult to sustain over the long run.

Re:Reasoning?

[fyoder]

should said 2 year be arrested for distribution of child porn and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life?

Damn right, the little perv. And round up all the people involved in taking ultrasound pictures of fetuses before they're even born. Before they're even born for god's sake!

Oh, it's the end times, it's the end times alright.

Re:Reasoning?

[scream at the sky]

Don't you just hate when you wake up in the morning after a night of heavy drinking and find out that you've taken advantage of yourself again? I know it always makes ME want to press charges for committing sex crimes against myself!

It's awful, my hand rapes me at least once a day

.

Re:Reasoning?

[cffrost]

[...] temporary restraining order [...]

Hmm... If the victims can get a regular 100-yard TRO against this animal, even if a trial occurs, the DA will be forced to leave the courtroom when the defense is presenting. When the prosecution presents, the girls will have to leave but their counsel will still hear (and be able to refute) his lunatic rants.

Failing that, the girls could plead "insanity of the prosecution..." If a doctor can find that the DA was insane at the time he filed charges, the case victims could be compensated and the DA remanded to the care of a maximum-security mental hospital.

Re:Reasoning?

[computational super]

Yeah, good luck in court. At least 50% of the jury pool would lock you up "just to be on the safe side."

Re:Reasoning?

[Grashnak]

Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self.

If I didn't commit sex crimes against myself, no one would, and then where would I be?

Re:Reasoning?

[Locke2005]

I've seen the pics, and all I can say is... passing gas in the tub does NOT make it a jacuzzi!

Re:Reasoning?

[FishAdmin]

That was hilarious. Wish had mod points today!

Re:Reasoning?

[Sj0]

Actually, people have gotten into a lot of trouble for pictures like you describe.

Sanity At least for now

[olddotter]

This could get very ugly in the future. Lets just hope people REALLY think of the children, instead of using that as a political sound bite.

Re:Sanity At least for now

[T Murphy]

Think of the children! Wait.. actually don't. But they most be protected, so please think of them... or maybe... er... You know what, just vote for me.

Yeah, Right...

[nathan.fulton]

TFA:
He also believed "no harm would come to (Mr. Skumanick) by delaying prosecution on this matter."

I have to say, I don't agree with the judge's assessment. With all the press coverage and a successful temporary injunction(?), I can't imagine this guy is looking forward to the campaign trail this year.

Re:Yeah, Right...

[interkin3tic]

I have to say, I don't agree with the judge's assessment. With all the press coverage and a successful temporary injunction(?), I can't imagine this guy is looking forward to the campaign trail this year.

Also he'll have more time with those pictures. Eew.

Re:NJ? Really?

[JCSoRocks]

Well that'd explain the other two comments pointing out that this isn't even permanent. It basically means nothing. It's all still temporary. I'm glad I took the time to read the comments before I got all excited about the possibility of sanity returning to American courts.

The real winner here

[Anonymous Coward]

is all of us. well all of us that also browse 4chan.

Children are the enemy.

[MrMista_B]

In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.

Why?

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Greyfox]

Because they can't vote.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Children are the future, unless we stop them now.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[nightfire-unique]

In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.

Why?

Easy target. Young people can't defend themselves.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[TheGratefulNet]

not sure if they're 'the enemy' or not; but I do agree they're highly annoying in airplanes, in restaurants and in theatres!

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Chris Burke]

In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.

Because it's the only way to protect them!

Imagine what harm could come to these poor girls if they weren't sent to prison for ten years and disallowed from coming anywhere near a school and having to notify all their neighbors of their crimes for the rest of their life?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they take up my valuable resources ($)(time) and don't give me any $ back. Not a wise investment.

Of course, you could move to Italy, Columbia, or Austria... sorry too tired to use html today, you will just have to figure out the reference.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[MozeeToby]

My theory: Having children leads to the end of all meaningful morality.

Morality is defined by what a reasonable person in society says it is. When people have children they are no longer reasonable, their genes don't let them be. It is paramount that a person's children be protected from any and all harm and given every advantage possible; because of this, parents can no longer judge what is in the best interest of society.

I wish I could say I was joking more than I am. Unfortunately, I've had this conversation with someone before. Them: "You don't want universal healthcare, the quality of your care will go down". Me: "What if I value everyone having care more important that some hypothetical reduction to my care?". Them: "You'll understand once you have children".

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Toonol]

Hmm... or what you think is meaningful morality when you're childless turns out to be meaningless, after your enlightenment comes when you finally reproduce.

Neither is true, of course, and those sorts of arguments are completely irrational in and of themselves; they're all variants of well-known logical fallacies. It can be pretty much cleanly disproven by the fact that there are childless individuals, and people with children, on both sides of the argument.

I love my children very much, and I am terrifically concerned about their future. Most of what I do is for the children. I do indeed 'think of the children.' That means that I would hate to see their human rights abrogated over a non-issue like a flirtatious picture. Concern for children isn't the problem; that's a good thing. Irrational and misplaced concern is the problem.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[interkin3tic]

In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.

Why?

It starts from a very early age, when they poop and pee and you have to clean it up, and only gets more complicated from there.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like rational self interest to me..

I imagine the people you talk to who say "You'll understand once you have children", are fairly well off. Since they have their own children's interests at heart, it makes perfect sense that they would rather have a system which enables them to exert greater control over their child's quality of healthcare.

You don't often find those who can afford 'good' healthcare clamoring for various socialist implementations which favor equal application of care regardless of ability to pay.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[magus_melchior]

Why worry about voting rights, since voting machines are easier to pwn than PCs?

No, the real reason is: They can't donate serious campaign money.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[jonberling]

> You'll understand once you have children

Translation: Your argument is better then mine, so I'll claim you're not capable of understanding.

  - Someone with kids, who still doesn't understand all the irrational arguments he heard while in his 20's.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Mr2001]

Exactly.

More specifically, it's because young people can't vote. For a politician, there's not much downside to piling on more and more oppressive regulations on young people, because you can't get their votes anyway.

On the other hand, overprotective and prudish parents do vote. So do elderly people who see every cultural change as a threat to their memories.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[honkycat]

Bull shit.

A) Are you seriously claiming that people without children put aside their own self-interest and decide morality in some self-sacrificing manner for the good of society? What world are you living in? It clearly isn't this one.

2) Because one parent made a statement you disagreed with about the complex and heavily debated topic of universal health care and (so you claim) they backed this up with a bogus reason pertaining to their children, you conclude that morality exists only due to childless people?

iv) Come back in a few years and re-read your comment after you've had children. Then you'll understand how ridiculous you sound.

Anyway, I can't tell to what degree you're joking, but I completely disagree with your comment. People are in general not very strongly motivated by the common good in their day-to-day decisions, regardless of what they may claim. If anything, I think having children makes you *more* aware of others because you suddenly have a vested interest in your society agreeing to obey morals that ensure your child will be protected even when he's out of your watchful eye.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes you have to burn the children to save the children.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[rts008]

Why?
I'm not sure, but it's not a new social/cultural phenomenon.

In the USA, it was not until 1836(in Mass.) that the first 'child labor law' was passed in the entire USA.[note:'law'-singular form]

Up until then, and even way past then, children were seen as a resource, and occasionally, an investment. This was the state of affairs/attitude from first landing on this continent, until (vague, grey, ambiguous line) somewhen shortly after the Korean War.

Okay...for the first ~250 years, it was so. The past 60(or so) years it has really flipped around.*(old habits/mentalities die hard)

From the wiki link above:

20th century

Before the 1930s children were routinely exploited in a variety of settings throughout American society. Frequently beginning their working lives before their tenth birthday, children worked in hazardous jobs at mines, mills, factories, sweatshops, and on farms, with little or no wages. Labor laws did not exist, and the common perception of the ease with which children were manipulated made them targets for a variety of rights violations.

In the 1980s the United States provided global leadership by acting as a lead among nations in crafting the Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC. After the United Nations adopted the CRC in 1989, the United States became a signatory nation in 1994. However, to date the country has refused to ratify the Convention, joining only one other nation in the world with that status. Among the reasons the United States has failed to ratify the Convention is the fact that the Convention clearly states that anyone under the age of 18 is a child. The U.S. government has reservations about how that would affect matters when a 16- or 17-year old commits a crime; currently, in certain instances that child can be tried as an adult in the U.S. courts. Several politicians have said that many of the declarations included in the document are not issues for which the federal government is in charge. There is currently no apparent effort within the federal government to adopt the CRC.[22]

Bill Cosby used this mindset for humor.[see: 4. Kill the Boy - 4:07]
[paraphrase-it's been a long time!]

Mother [speaking to child]: "You're going to drive me to my grave!"
Father [speaking to same child (cue: low, rumbling, deep, ominous voice)]: "I'm going to drive you to your grave! I brought you into this world, I can take you out... make another one just like you!"

That album[Bill Cosby:Himself] was one of tne of the most insightful[and funny] observations of human nature and USA culture I have heard.

I don't know for sure. Sadly, neither Psychology or Sociology were interesting enough to me when I went to school. I have self-educated myself on those subjects, but would not consider myself knowledgeable enough to definitely give you the answer...just sharing some of my observations aand speculations.

Back on topic:

IANAL, but I wonder if this court decision, or even more so,this one would apply here?

*More can be found here.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it is thinking of the children, they'll be adults by then and the state will only care about how they can possibly harm those future children!

Re:Children are the enemy.

[metaforest]

Skumanick gets his convictions to further his career..... and three girls get fuxed. Small price to pay for a great prosecutor, right?

Re:Children are the enemy.

[twostix]

Given that the vast majority of people in any society are "parents" and being that societies are by definition made up of parents and their children...I think your argument makes about as much sense as me saying that it's the selfish childless morally bankrupt individuals in society that are pushing these laws because they hate other peoples children.

Or that you can't have morality until you have a child and the childless are without morality living only for themselves and leeching off our childrens society when they become older.

Wow that's *really really* easy. You know we can all bandy about fuckin *stupid* arguments, but I gotta tell you yours is probably one of the most empty headed of any I've seen on this site.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were both dads, in fact most of the great thinkers, leaders and men of history were. How does that reconcile with your braindead "argument" that it's childless 20 year olds that are the arbiters of "reasonableness" and free thought?

I think you've got some *serious* growing up and thought to do on the general goings on in the world. The fact that it's modded insightful shows how many petty little maladjusted middle class 80's - 90's era latch-key kids there are around here. You hate your parents, WE GET IT, but you are *not* the norm.

When, oh when are people around here going to mature in their world views a little?

Re:Children are the enemy.

[VJ42]

iv) Come back in a few years and re-read your comment after you've had children.

I think you just proved his point. "I have children therefore I'm right" is not a valid argument.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[OzoneLad]

Hmmm... And I thought the Pak Protector stage hit a bit later in life...

Re:Children are the enemy.

[moeinvt]

I certainly would not make such sweeping generalizations as the OP. The point remains however that having children will almost surely alter some of your world views. I suspect that you could find vast disparities in opinion on any number of issues in a pool of randomly selected parents vs. randomly selected non-parents. e.g.

"Do you think that people with no children should be forced to pay income and property taxes for public education?"

Tell me that you'll get the same % of Yes/No answers from parents and non-parents. I think it's bullshit that people get an income tax deduction for having kids, then get their kids' education subsidized by people with no children. Then we have a number of social programs available specifically for children, and families with children.

". . . the vast majority of people in any society are "parents" . . ."

Yes, and the remaining minority are forced at gun-point to help pay the costs of raising and educating their kids. You're never going to get a majority of that majority to weigh that issue with any objectivity.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[honkycat]

*whoosh*

*crickets chirping*

(it's ok, we all miss one now and then)

Re:Children are the enemy.

[VJ42]

It was the fact that you wrote a whole paragraph justifying yourself (and why having children is a valid argument) after the bit I quoted that made me think you were serious; sometimes you can be too subtle. ;p

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would only sound ridiculous if his opinion didn't greatly change. Even after he had children. Otherwise he would be thinking, "how right I was."
Narrow-mindedness may be increased by children, or it may not, depending on the person. And children aren't a requirement for it, either.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[honkycat]

True, true. Sorry about that. I think this whole subthread has suffered from it a bit.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[honkycat]

Narrow-mindedness may be increased by children, or it may not, depending on the person. And children aren't a requirement for it, either.

I agree with this, and I think it contradicts what the OP said-- children are not a unique cause or trigger of irrational moral decisions.

(by the way, my point iv was intended as a joke, but apparently it didn't come across that way....)

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Morality is defined by what a reasonable person in society says it is. When people have children they are no longer reasonable, their genes don't let them be. It is paramount that a person's children be protected from any and all harm and given every advantage possible; because of this, parents can no longer judge what is in the best interest of society.

I guess some people think that way, but it is a stupid view to take (and I say this as a parent ;), because, if you over-protect a child they won't be well prepared for the real world, and consequently you are not giving them every advantage possible. People need to accept life is all about taking risks and you have to let children take reasonable ones.

Perhaps the problem is there are too many people who seem to be incapable of thinking rationally and they can't judge what is in the best interest of society after having children because they were never capable of it in the first place.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could say I was joking more than I am. Unfortunately, I've had this conversation with someone before. Them: "You don't want universal healthcare, the quality of your care will go down". Me: "What if I value everyone having care more important that some hypothetical reduction to my care?". Them: "You'll understand once you have children".

You are a total screaming genius. I've never seen this position put so well or so succinctly before.

I had heard that people get more conservative as they get older. Not I, however -- I'm still an unrepentant leftie.

However, what you say is absolutely correct, in my experience. I know people who can't even listen to any discussion that suggests that children are over-protected. Al they can say is "OMG -- what if ...." and the debate is supposed to be terminated immediately in their favor.

Any time you hear someone start with, "But if it saves just one (child's) life, it's worth it, stand up and call bullshit on them. You know damned well there's a limit to what society is willing to pay to save a life If it were not true, someone would have assassinated the sos of bitches at Enron -- look at the children's lives that were destroyed by the financial ruin and suicides those bastards caused to be rained down on the families of their employees. Did the government spend a nickel to stop all that from happening.

QED.

BY the way, read "Freakonomics." One chapter goes into an analysis of the effectiveness of child seats mandated until the age of something like seven for kids riding in cars. Apparently no one can come up with statistics that prove any more children's lives are saved by these $175 contraptions than by simply using seat belts properly. But it's a hell of a thriving industry.

Re:Children are the enemy.

[Anonymous Coward]

temporary infringement of First Amendment rights

Because the most misguided comment by a child to a teacher or other (and numerically increasing) "mandatory reporters" can invoke the intervention of CPS -- one of the biggest examples of "government authority, backed up by guns", the worst kind of all.

indeed

[Reality Master 201]

The link in the summary is to the Scranton (PA) Times, and the judge is in the US District Court of Middle Pennsylvania.

I found this out by 1) clicking on the story link, and 2) Googling for judge's name and clicking on THE VERY FIRST LINK.

Seriously, can't the alleged editors of this site pretend to give a fuck about the accuracy of what they post?

Re:indeed

[oliphaunt]

You're right, my fault, I'm an idiot. I posted this in 30 seconds this morning based on a link in my RSS feed, and I got some details wrong. I'd edit the story if I could.

But the upshot of the post is still correct- the ACLU won a court order against the prosecutor, preventing him from filing charges. This is still a win.

Re:indeed

[Phroggy]

Seriously, can't the alleged editors of this site pretend to give a fuck about the accuracy of what they post?

Why should they bother? Somebody will post any corrections in the comments.

Re:indeed

[oliphaunt]

OK, maybe I'm not an idiot, but my post was certainly careless. And I really do wish i could edit it now.

Re:indeed

[Reality Master 201]

Now that's fair. Bad Slashdot poster! No donut. At least, not until everyone else has gotten one and you have to pick from the rejects.

Re:NJ? Really?

[oliphaunt]

hey, this is slashdot. you're not supposed to read the article.

If Fox News reported this

[Profane MuthaFucka]

"Atheists and liberal judges make child porn legal." Brit Hume reporting.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[rolfwind]

We need to fire the retards in our government. Bush was a first good step. This prosecutor would be a good second.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[Archangel Michael]

Retards in Government = Redundant

Because most Americans are Retards who vote for the retarded (D) and (R)s ruining our country.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately we didn't really fire Bush until he had to quit anyway, after passing up the chance in 2004.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[morgan_greywolf]

And, from your sig, apparently your girlfriend would agree with that statement. I read a few of her columns, and apparently she's still promulgating some idea that the stock market crash was all a conspiracy by the radical left to seize control of the White House.

No matter how you look at it, there was no child porn involved.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[Pichu0102]

You can't spell retard without r and d!

*ducks*

Re:If Fox News reported this

[nightfire-unique]

We need to fire the retards in our government. Bush was a first good step. This prosecutor would be a good second.

We don't need to fire people like the prosecutor. We need to throw them in a mental ward.

Honestly. Prosecuting a young person for exploring their sexuality? Someone's got some screws loose.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[Profane MuthaFucka]

And people need to be far more careful about electing prosecuters. They have a LOT of power for a local position. For an average person, a prosecuter might even be more important than the President, which would imply a thinking period of several months should be completed before a vote is cast.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[Anonymous Coward]

Retards require R&D? I think that retards are quite well developed as is, thank you very much.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[Shakrai]

And people need to be far more careful about electing prosecuters. They have a LOT of power for a local position. For an average person, a prosecuter might even be more important than the President, which would imply a thinking period of several months should be completed before a vote is cast.

Nah, I'll just vote for the one whose name I remember from that big trial a few months back. Ya know, the one where he cracked down on all that kiddie porn? I don't recall the specifics but the newspaper headline said "DA brings charges against kiddie porn ring", so I assume he's doing a good job. Failing that I'll just vote for the one who is in the same political party as I am.

And people wonder why the Founding Fathers were worried about the mob.....

Re:If Fox News reported this

[Anonymous Coward]

woo! go libertarians!

Re:If Fox News reported this

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush wasn't fired.. he served two full consecutive terms for 8 years without any danger to his presidency. He stepped down when his time was up, when chances are he probably could have voted himself in for a 3rd term, against the law, and the masses would have shrug it off as nothing worth storming the White House over.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[jbrad1]

Stop bashing retards. We still need a government to protect us from growing up.

Re:If Fox News reported this

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush wasn't fired. His contract term was up.

Old fashioned

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in my day, I'd be more scared of my parents than from other sources, let alone the trouble from my parents compared to others.

Now, GET OFF MY LAWN.

Re:NJ? Really?

[fm6]

"New Jersey Federal Judge" means a Federal Judge whose district or circuit is in New Jersey. A little Googling will confirm that "{state} Federal Judge" is a pretty common idiom. Nobody who's not a lawyer (and thinking you know all about the law doesn't count) really cares about which specific district.

Which is not to defend sloppy summaries. Though I must point out that as Slashdot summaries go, this one is not all that bad, even with getting the state wrong.

And there's no point in complaining about submitters. Of course most submission are going to have errors of fact. That's the nature of crowdsourcing. What we need to ask is why the editors never edit really sloppy submissions.

OK, bad spelling and grammar, that's traditional, I can live with it. But Slashdot has come to reflect the Telephone Game aspects of the blogosphere to a painful degree.

Power trippers must be stopped.

[huiwe]

The next step is to take action against those who deemed it protective of his charges to:

1. access an electronic device without permission
2. view personal images whose intended audience was limited to a chosen few (maybe one, not staff in general)
3. fail to limit the negative impact on the life of his charges

First step would be to seize the personal/work computers of the people involved to ensure copies of said photos has not been taken.

At a minimum a transfer to a job where the people he responsibility for are only one pay grade below him, power trippers must be stopped and they hate that.

Goddamn DA

[GF678]

No, strike that - fucking overzealous DA.

He was willing to ruin the lives of these kids, and for what?

It's shit like this that makes the rest of the world shake their heads with pity at the US.

Re:Goddamn DA

[MichaelSmith]

It's shit like this that makes the rest of the world shake their heads with pity at the US and Saudi Arabia

Different outcomes but similar problems. Unable to distinguish between victim and perpetrator.

Re:Goddamn DA

[Anonymous Coward]

The kids already took a big first step into ruining their own lives.

This guy is trying to get the point across to all of the other immature idiots out there that sharing naked pictures of yourself is really only a good idea if you plan on going into porn.

Nothing goes away on the internet. These girls will regret those photos someday when they're finally old enough to care.

Re:Goddamn DA

[Anonymous Coward]

Rest of the world here, its disgust, not pity. Pity is for countries that don't know any better.

Re:Goddamn DA

[SatanicPuppy]

There is no evidence that he really wants to prosecute on those charges. IIRC he was using the threat of those charges to try and force the kids to enroll in a 6-week course that would "teach" them why their behaviour was self-destructive and wrong.

The defendants and their parents are fighting it because they object to the course, and believe that the behaviour is largely innocent (the course requires a paper to be written by the kids about why what they did was morally wrong, and that paper was mentioned about a zillion times). The objection is framed in terms of the 1st and 14th amendments (not sure if I'm right on the 14th, isn't that civil rights?).

I actually read the pdf of the judges decision, so I'm pretty sure about the prosecution bit. The judge even referenced it in his argument: he said something like, "If the DA hasn't felt the need to file yet, then there is clearly no problem so pressing that he can't wait until we've had an actual hearing."

Re:Goddamn DA

[Sj0]

When I was like 5, I stole a little tree kit from the store. I thought it was free because it said "FREE" on the display, but I guess it was "FREE (with purchase). So I walked out of the store.

I should have been drawn and quartered, literally. The screams of pain and horror in the town square as the executioner slowly cooked my intestines inch by inch with a blowtorch, before dragging my body behind a horse until I died would let the entire town know: Don't steal, kids. We'll fuck you up completely disproportionately do your crime.

pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[circletimessquare]

(btw, it happened in PENNSYLVANIA, not new jersey):

http://prisonpost.com/blog/2009/02/20/pennsylvania-judges-plead-guilty-in-juvenile-center-kickback-scheme_227.html

At worst, Hillary Transue thought she might get a stern lecture when she appeared before a judge for building a spoof MySpace page mocking the assistant principal at her high school in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. She was a stellar student who had never been in trouble, and the page stated clearly at the bottom that it was just a joke.

Instead, the judge sentenced her to three months at a juvenile detention center on a charge of harassment.

She was handcuffed and taken away as her stunned parents stood by.

"I felt like I had been thrown into some surreal sort of nightmare," said Hillary, 17, who was sentenced in 2007. "All I wanted to know was how this could be fair and why the judge would do such a thing."

why was the judge so harsh?

because he was getting kickbacks from the privately run prison

let me repeat that: in the usa, children, who did not deserve to be sent to prison, were being sent to prison for minor offenses. why? because the prisons were being run PRIVATELY, there was a PROFIT MOTIVE. enter: one crooked judge eager to line his pockets, and you have a cash machine

how evil is that? i mean really, how utterly shameful on us as americans that this took place? how shameful on us that we allowed the fiscal and legal environment in which PRIVATE PRISONS even fucking exist!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/us/14judge.html?fta=y

Several hundred families filed a class-action suit Friday against two Pennsylvania judges who pleaded guilty on Thursday to accepting $2.6 million in kickbacks for sending juveniles to private detention facilities.

"At the hands of two grossly corrupt judges and several conspirators, hundreds of Pennsylvania children, their families and loved ones, were victimized and their civil rights were violated," said Michael J. Cefalo, one of the lawyers representing the families. "It's our intent to make sure that the system rights this terrible injustice and holds those responsible accountable."

Pennsylvania lawmakers called on Friday for hearings into the state's juvenile justice system. And the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia, which blew the whistle on the judges, said it had sworn affidavits from families who said they had sought court-appointed counsel but were told that their children would have to wait weeks, sometimes months, for a lawyer. During that time, the children would have to remain in detention, the families said.

ok, so we have enron, we have this gem, we have the recent stock market crash

dear fiscal conservatives and republitards: why exactly do you want to privatize and deregulate everything?

i await your stunning insight as to how its all the democrats fault, when this private prison debacle and something like enron and the recent stock market meltdown are clear and obvious indications as to why, no, some things in this world you actually do not want to privatize and deregulate, that you actually want to keep utlities and prisons in the hands of the government, and you want to regulate the markets, for their own good. i now await your usual regurgitated kneejerk drivel about tax and spend democrats and socialism. well yes, actually, democrats are tax and spend. as opposed to republicans, who are just spend (all deficits climb sky high under republicans and are reduced under democrats: study past administrations). and as for socialism: yes, democrats actually do care enough to say gee, maybe its wrong middle class hardworking folks have to declare bankruptcy when they get a serious illness

"bloated government bureaucracy... blah blah blah... welfar

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[whoop]

Taking bribes, cooking the books, etc are all illegal. People caught doing it get sent to prison. What, do you want to make it illegaler?

Go ahead, nationalize banks, prisons, whatever. Some one will figure out the system and find a way to skim some money for them self. Instead of a prison company doing the bribing, it'll be the toilet paper supplier. More people in prison, more pooping that goes on, profit! Government does not save you from any similar corruption.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[iamhigh]

But in the example the OP posted, there is a HUGE difference between you thinking that suppliers to the prison will have enough influence (and profit gain) to greatly increase the prison population and the actual prison being able to gain from more prisoners (they probably get subsidies for each inmate - direct increase in income). Simply by being 1 step further away from being able to directly take away our rights (again please read the OP) you have greatly reduced the possible gain in taking those rights away.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Calithulu]

Or... and I posit this entirely theoretically, it might be best if we take the approach that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints have some merit and we should work to create reasonable compromises in politics, government, and all laws.

Of course, that's just me talking. But based on the rhetoric and vitriol we see regarding politics in the media, on the web, and in other venues I appear to be the last centrist.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[DeadCatX2]

I agree with you that some aspects of society are better off "socialist" or "public". The Achilles Heel of capitalism is that it underestimates the worst excesses of human greed that can be perpetrated by the powerful against the meek.

The corrupt PA judges you mention are a powerful example of how a private system motivated by profit will exploit all channels available - ethical or not - to maximize their profit.

Considering that this prosecutor was trying to get these children enrolled in some rehabilitation program, I think we should all try following the money...

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Chris Burke]

Taking bribes, cooking the books, etc are all illegal. People caught doing it get sent to prison. What, do you want to make it illegaler?

No he wants to eliminate the underlying cause of the corruption which is the profit motive. Yeah, yeah, there can still exist corruption, but the farther back you push it the more marginal the opportunity for profit and thus the more marginal the corruption itself. The TP supplier having a profit motive is infinitely better than having the prison have a direct profit motive itself, because the odds of a TP supplier coming out ahead bribing a judge to send a person to prison so they use some extra TP is slim.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[NeutronCowboy]

In the past 5000 odd years, we've learned one thing: making stuff illegal doesn't make it go away. Removing the reason to do stuff makes stuff go away. Why create a profit motive when the reason behind the operation is not profit?

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Attila Dimedici]

You blame this on Republicans, but both of the judges on this case were Democrats.
I was unable to find any information about who made the decision to contract out the detention centers to the company involved, but the references I found indicated that Luzerne County politics is dominated by Democrats, which suggests that it was Democrats who were responsible for this particular privatization.
So this case doesn't work out as such a good indictment of Republicans. When you are trying to support your opposition to policies you believe to be "republican", it would be a good idea not to base it on the actions of Democrats.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[guruevi]

In the US there are no such things as "Democrats" or "Republicans". You have the right (calling themselves Democrats) and the far right (calling themselves Republicans).

Right is the side that strives towards monarchies or keeping an elite group in power, usually trying to keep the state and church together for more influence to rule the populace. They also use nationalism as a state religion to feed their military.

Both parties are equally not interested in a democracy nor a republic.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[shermo]

Uninformed foreigner alert.

How can judges be Democrats? I thought there was a division between the judicial and executive branches of government in USA.

Is this perhaps referring to the judges' own personal voting habits? Is that relevant? Or is society so segregated into R and D supporters that it's a major factor in every case?

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a division between judicial and executive branches (and legislative). But the parties exist in all three branches. Pennsylvania judges are elected, so they'll show up on the ballot with their party. This is in contrast to federal judges, who are appointed by the president for life. In theory, since they do not need to worry about reelection, they can do their jobs without worrying about party goals. But they can still be categorized as liberal or conservative by looking at their decisions and which president appointed them.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Repossessed]

Or... and I posit this entirely theoretically, it might be best if we take the approach that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints are exactly the same.

Fixd that for you, both sides would sell you down the river for a suitcase full of cash.

In fact, both sides already did.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[mpe]

in the usa, children, who did not deserve to be sent to prison, were being sent to prison for minor offenses. why? because the prisons were being run PRIVATELY, there was a PROFIT MOTIVE. enter: one crooked judge eager to line his pockets, and you have a cash machine.

However this crooked judge (together with his co-conspirators) was able to do this for years before he got caught. Given that low level of risk it would be no suprise if he were the only one doing this sort of thing. There's also the issue of what restitution is due to the victims in such cases, includiing those who may actually have been guilty of whatever it was they were accused of...

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[shutdown -p now]

Or... and I posit this entirely theoretically, it might be best if we take the approach that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints have some merit and we should work to create reasonable compromises in politics, government, and all laws.

Thing is, if you look at the spectrum of these things outside of your country - say, let's limit the set to other true liberal representative democracies - your "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints are really "rather conservative" and "batshit fucking insane", respectively. Any "reasonable compromise" between them isn't going to be any more reasonable than either one of them, which really isn't a lot.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[daveime]

So next we'll eliminate all forms of "national lottery", because government NEVER made a cent of that right ?

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Chris Burke]

Make sense please. "Government" making money is different than a for-profit corporation making money because at the corp. the ones making business decisions get to put some of that profit into their pockets. That's kinda the point of it. What does the administrator running the lottery get if he through some method gets more people to participate in the lottery?

Your absolutism makes no sense either. Reducing the motivation for corruption reduces corruption. Corruption will still exist, but there will be less. Less corruption is good. Eliminating obvious and damaging examples of corruption is good, and "let's eliminate all lotteries!" is not in any remote way a counterargument to this.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[jwhitener]

While I might find a conservative with a good point every so often, I agree with Colbert: Reality has a well known liberal bias.

Frankly, after the last 8 years, I'm fed up with the Republicans as a whole. To hell with Bi-partisanship.

Compromising to the extent that Republicans want would mean legislation and government actions so dilute in meaning and power as to basically have no effect whatsoever.

I whole heartedly want a massive "left push" to get this country back to some sane semblance of center.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Sj0]

I'd have to disagree in one respect. Even though the Republicans have had plenty of power over the past 30 years, the federal government will spend over 25% of GDP in 2010. By contrast, the federal government of "Socialist" Canada will only spend 15% of GDP.

Americans are liberals who pretend to be conservatives; Socialists who pretend to be libertarians. 90% of their problem is with their unreal economy and unreal politics finally being usurped by reality.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[shutdown -p now]

I'd have to disagree in one respect. Even though the Republicans have had plenty of power over the past 30 years, the federal government will spend over 25% of GDP in 2010. By contrast, the federal government of "Socialist" Canada will only spend 15% of GDP.

The crucial omission here is what the GDP is spent on. How much is spent in general isn't really very interesting.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Sj0]

It's spent on government. At the end of the day, the number is a barometer for the size of government, and the US government is larger than the nearest contemporary.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[shutdown -p now]

Still no dice. Spending a lot "on the government" does not tell what the money are truly used for. It's one thing if it's social welfare projects; it's another if most of that goes to, say, military.

Of course, government size by itself isn't an indicator on the left/right scale, either. Russian government is extremely bloated (in terms of number of bureaucrats per citizen, twice as much as it was in the USSR), but left-leaning it is not.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Sj0]

I'm sorry, when you're taking massive amounts of money from productive industries and giving it to people who sit doing nothing in Germany or Japan -- 3 million troops around the world, most of whom are in non-warzones doing busy-work, I find it very difficult to discern between that and welfare, or some other useless bureaucracy.

It's one of the conceited little perversions of common sense you see a lot of in pop economics -- just like "The tech bubble will never burst" and "Housing prices will always go up".

Russia is extremely left-wing for Russia. Their capitalist economy is far different than anything the country has had before, and it's experiencing rather massive reforms at a fairly rapid pace.

Left/Right is about "new ideas vs. old ideas". Conservatives want to keep things the way they are, or go back to the way they once were (that's pretty much the definition of conservative, a synonym being traditionalist), while the lefties want to do something different (that's pretty much the definition of a liberal, a synonym being progressive).

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[shutdown -p now]

Russia is extremely left-wing for Russia. Their capitalist economy is far different than anything the country has had before, and it's experiencing rather massive reforms at a fairly rapid pace.

I would disagree here, because post-2000, a lot of reforms of the 90s were scaled back. In many ways, Russia now is on the road to what China is - an authoritarian, government-regulated-but-not-for-the-benefit-of-all capitalism society. It's almost there, too.

Left/Right is about "new ideas vs. old ideas". Conservatives want to keep things the way they are, or go back to the way they once were (that's pretty much the definition of conservative, a synonym being traditionalist), while the lefties want to do something different (that's pretty much the definition of a liberal, a synonym being progressive).

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I was using left/right in a more Americanized sense here because that was the intended target audience for my original post.

However, using this broadened definition makes it even more obvious, IMO. I mean, can you seriously say that either party in the U.S. is more lefty/progressive than, say, either party in Canada?

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[daveime]

Oh please ... lotteries mean lottery equipment, printing presses for scrathcards, digital terminals for outlets etc etc, with the winning operator awarded a contract by the government ... are you tryng to tell me they haven't received kickbacks for that choice ?

Stop being so naive please, the vast majority of government departments now utilize private contractors, one for the deniability aspect when they fuck up badly, and two for the whole bribing^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hbidding aspects which are wide open to abuse.

Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid

[Sj0]

Have you turned on the TV lately? Both political parties in the US are running on a platform of "ZOMG we have to be completely different than before because nothing has ever been like this in the history of the world ever!".

Contrast to someone like Ron Paul, who is saying "We used to be like this, and that worked well. We should go back to doing that."

The right thing

[shadowghost21]

It seems that a lot of people are suing/pressing charges for just about anything and everything these days. Its a shame when it comes to try and press charges on teenage girls for taking photographs of themselves. While I do not agree with what they were doing, it was in there power. They were not being forced against their will or doing anything sexually explicit. That is the definition of child pornography. Its good to see that the court has some sense.

Re:NJ? Really?

[Chris Burke]

These teens are in PA, not NJ.

And thus regardless of the actual ruling we can by deduction state that there are no "sexting" charges for nj teens, and the article title is correct!

Let's clarify something...

[damn_registrars]

... The ACLU just stepped in to help stop a meaningless prosecution of a victimless event that somehow has been pushed around as a "crime".

But for some reason we're still supposed to look at the ACLU as evil?

Re:Let's clarify something...

[night_flyer]

Just because Hitler helped develop the Volkswagion, that doesnt make him a great guy.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[amRadioHed]

Not by any thinking people.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[meringuoid]

But for some reason we're still supposed to look at the ACLU as evil?

As I understand the argument put forward by our more reactionary friends, they would like the ACLU more if they also duplicated the work of the NRA. Presumably that organisation doesn't fulfill its remit to their satisfaction, and they'd like the ACLU to lend a hand?

Re:Let's clarify something...

[againjj]

I call Godwin!

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Culture20]

I call Godwin!

*rolls d%*
Double Zero! A rift in space-time opens and Godwin steps out. "What do you want? I'm a busy man. This had better not be about Nazis."

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Shakrai]

they would like the ACLU more if they also duplicated the work of the NRA. Presumably that organisation doesn't fulfill its remit to their satisfaction, and they'd like the ACLU to lend a hand?

I don't want them to duplicate the work of the NRA, I just want them to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment protects a civil liberty that's every bit as important as the rest. Instead they claim that "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." One doubts they would make the same claim about the regulation of free speech, hence they are hypocrites. Because of that, most people who care about gun rights can not bring themselves to donate money/join the ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union, eh?

Re:Let's clarify something...

[R3d M3rcury]

Okay. "Just because Nixon went to China doesn't make him a great guy."

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Copid]

Instead they claim [aclu.org] that "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." One doubts they would make the same claim about the regulation of free speech, hence they are hypocrites.

So what you're saying is that because they believe X is true while you believe that X is false, they're hypocrites because they act as though X is true? I'm pretty sure that two distinct entities can hold contradictory beliefs without being hypocrites.

Hypocrisy would be, "We believe that gun rights are a major civil liberties issue, but we work against them because we're evil liberals!"

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Shakrai]

So what you're saying is that because they believe X is true while you believe that X is false, they're hypocrites because they act as though X is true?

I'm saying they are hypocrites because they claim a mandate to protect civil liberties while choosing which rights they deem important enough to consider civil liberties. The definition of civil liberties that I've seen is "Fundamental individual rights, such as freedom of speech and religion, protected by law against unwarranted governmental or other interference." It's hard to see how the 2nd amendment isn't a fundamental individual right.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Arker]

No. They're hypocrites because they call themselves the American Civil Liberties Union but then turn around and work AGAINST the foundational civil liberty itself.

Dont get me wrong, for the most part, I like what they do. I've marched with them, helped with fund-raising, signature drives, etc. I had the pleasure of a few long discussions with the state director where I lived before, and he was a really good guy, as well as a really sharp lawyer. That combination is sadly very rare, and I was really glad to have him as an ally in the fight for reproductive freedom at the time. They do a lot of good work.

But they're still absolutely hypocrites because they dont just refuse to help in the very most critical class of civil liberties violation, they *actually* go so far as to take the totally insane position the GP quoted. It's not only a position fundmentally baneful to everything they do try to achieve, it's also one that's legally and historically indefensible (as several ACLU lawyers have admitted to me, in private) and so it really does reflect the essential hypocrisy of the leftist millieu so many ACLU supporters come from, and reflects I think a deeper line of hypocrisy in society in general, because it (hypocrisy in general that is) is certainly NOT limited to left or right but a commmon element across both.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[dschmit1]

The second ammendment is interesting, focus on the subject of the sentence and some people might be "blown away" by who it really pertains to. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Re:Let's clarify something...

[cortesoft]

Hmmm.. I can understand an argument as to why the right to bear arms is a fundamental civil right, but there are many very good arguments as to why it isn't. I can see how you might not be swayed by them; but to deny that they exist is a bit intellectually dishonest.

Do you think it is a fundamental right that I can possess, for example, a bomb large enough to destroy the city I live in? I can't imagine you think that... if you can accept that it is not a fundamental right to own that sort of weapon, it is only a matter of degree to argue that a fully automatic weapon, say, can be banned without violating civil rights.

You might disagree with the argument, but you have to at least see how someone could disagree with your assessment.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Shakrai]

Bolding the part you like doesn't make the part that says "the right of the people" go away.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Anonymous Coward]

A rational person would see how someone could disagree with his assessment. Gun fanatics, on the other hand...

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Shakrai]

Do you think it is a fundamental right that I can possess, for example, a bomb large enough to destroy the city I live in?

Historically the right to keep and bear arms originated in the Common Law concept of self-defense. It has also been required at varying points throughout history so that the people could serve the state in times of need. I don't think even the hardest core 2nd amendment supporter could make the case that you need a nuclear weapon for self-defense or service of your state in times of need.

it is only a matter of degree to argue that a fully automatic weapon, say, can be banned without violating civil rights.

If it was only automatic weapons they wanted to ban you wouldn't have as many people complaining about it. Instead they want to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles" (which are no more powerful than the typical semi-automatic hunting rifle and whose main difference seems to be that they look scary), handguns, high capacity magazines, etc, etc. Every single one of those items has a legitimate purpose for self-defense, service to the state and other (hunting/target shooting/etc) purposes. Hell, one could make the argument that fully automatic weapons have legitimate purposes too and it's a bit of a stretch between a fully automatic MP-5 and your nuclear weapon example.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Copid]

No. They're hypocrites because they call themselves the American Civil Liberties Union but then turn around and work AGAINST the foundational civil liberty itself.

Correction: They work against what you believe is the foundational civil liberty. They don't agree with you. The fact that your opinion and their opinion differ is not hypocrisy. It's a reflection of the fact that you and the ACLU are not the same being. If I hate peanut butter and my sister eats a peanut butter sandwich, she is not a hypocrite. She just likes peanut butter.

As much as I tend to side closer to you than the ACLU on the gun rights issue, I hardly see the fact that the ACLU disagrees as hypocrisy. You can argue that they're wrong and that it would be a good thing for them to duplicate the NRA's work, but that's about as far as I'd take it.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Copid]

I'm saying they are hypocrites because they claim a mandate to protect civil liberties while choosing which rights they deem important enough to consider civil liberties.

Are all rights really important enough to call civil liberties? Is there nothing that an individual can physically do that the government has no right to curtail?

It's hard to see how the 2nd amendment isn't a fundamental individual right.

I believe that their argument is something along the lines of the right to bear arms being within the context of a militia. I can certainly see the argument as a reasonable one, if not necessarily correct.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Shakrai]

Correction: They work against what you believe is the foundational civil liberty. They don't agree with you. The fact that your opinion and their opinion differ is not hypocrisy

You don't see the hypocrisy in fighting for as broad of a reading of the Constitution as possible except for one part? They fight for rights that aren't even mentioned in the document (the right to privacy) under this theory but the one part of the document that they don't like doesn't get the same treatment? That doesn't seem just a little bit hypocritical to you?

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Shakrai]

Are all rights really important enough to call civil liberties?

Yes, they are.

Is there nothing that an individual can physically do that the government has no right to curtail?

No, the government has no right to curtail my actions until they endanger someone else. The government can stop me from swinging my fist into your face but it can't stop me from swinging my fist.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Falconhell]

I just dont understand this paticularly American love of gun ownership. In my country, all the auto and semi auto guns were removed from society years ago.

I have not see any downside to this. Why are you so devoted to having weapons when it is obvious that you would never really use them to overthrow your government?

I have never seen a gun in the possesion of anyone other than the police, or at a shooting range. I have never needed a gun for self defence either.

Since the guns were removed there has not been one mass shooting here.

One line seems to be that if guns are banned only criminals would have guns, but it simply does not make sense, lees guns in general means less guns available to criminals, our experience is certainly that is the case.

Can anyone explain this strange (To me) love of weapons?

Surely it is not really just overcompensation?

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Arker]

It has nothing to do with belief, if I managed to practice enough ignorance and double-think to actually *believe* their position it would still be false. And as I mentioned, I know for a fact that many of these guys are very sharp and well read and know how hypocritical the organisational position is.

Liking peanut butter or not isnt even vaguely comparable - you're talking about personal taste on the one hand, and fundamental civil rights on the other, as if they were somehow comparable. They are not. Liking peanut butter is a personal preference, there is no one right answer there.

Whether looked at philosophically or legally and historically the same cannot be true for the second amendment. Philosophically speaking, if you are to have any true rights at all, you MUST have the right to defend yourself from aggressors. Without that, any purported right is, at best, converted into a privilege instead. If you are forcibly prevented from acquiring, possessing, using the tools necessary to defend yourself in a meaningful way from aggressors, your "rights" are nothing more than ink on paper. You have been effectively converted from a citizen to a subject, from a free man in a free society to a subject in a prison camp.

And historically/legally speaking, again, it's clear and irrefutable that the second amendment was intended and understood in just that fashion, and furthermore even without touching on "original intent" the words themselves clearly and plainly say this. The arguments used to try and twist the second amendment into something else are very often the same arguments that ACLU lawyers (rightly) demolish over and over again in the context of the other amendments. So there just is no word that fits this other than hypocrisy. Their mission is to defend the bill of rights and civil liberties, across the board. When they start picking and choosing which of our rights are worthy of defence and which are not, that is simply and plainly hypocritical.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[misanthrope101]

The ACLU has joined the NRA on gun rights cases before. However, part of the reason they routinely ignore 2nd amendment cases is because the NRA already has it covered. I have always found it odd that conservatives revile the organization that supports 90% of the bill of rights while championing the one that supports only %10 instead. Oddly, they say they do it because the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd amendment, ignoring the fact that the NRA ignores 90% of the bill of rights altogether.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Copid]

You don't see the hypocrisy in fighting for as broad of a reading of the Constitution as possible except for one part? They fight for rights that aren't even mentioned in the document (the right to privacy) under this theory but the one part of the document that they don't like doesn't get the same treatment? That doesn't seem just a little bit hypocritical to you?

No, it really doesn't. If you read the words and decide, based on a reasonable interpretation (which the militia clause certainly gives you), that the Constitution explicitly allows the government some regulation over guns, it seems perfectly reasonable to say so, even if you believe that it doesn't explicitly allow regulation of some other things. They're different clauses with different wording and different meaning.

I'm not suggesting that I agree with the interpretation, but I'm having a very hard time with accusations of hypocrisy being thrown around simply because they're confusing their perfectly legitimate political views with objective realities.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the right mot to be killed by a moron with an automatic weapon is more important than your need to compensate>

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Copid]

No, the government has no right to curtail my actions until they endanger someone else.

What constitutes endangerment? Are stop signs are violation of civil liberties, or is there a reasonable expectation of danger? Can I have one gun? One cruise missile? Anthrax? A hydrogen bomb? I think that reasonable people may disagree about what constitutes a "right" if you define a "right" as something that the government has absolutely no business regulating.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Arker]

No, it really doesn't. If you read the words and decide, based on a reasonable interpretation (which the militia clause certainly gives you), that the Constitution explicitly allows the government some regulation over guns, it seems perfectly reasonable to say so, even if you believe that it doesn't explicitly allow regulation of some other things.

First no one said the Constitution prohibits all "regulation" of firearms. That's not true. It simply sets a very high bar for this, just as it sets a very high bar for "regulating" speech. (I keep putting quotes around "regulate" because the word has come to be used today in a way it was certainly not used in the 18th century - the word just meant "to make regular." A common procedure for a gunsmith in those days was to "regulate" a bore that had deteriorated, for instance, which just meant eliminating the irregularities in it. When the federal government was supposed to "regulate" interstate commerce this meant to eliminate irregularities such as one state charging protectionist tarrifs on the produce of another state. It's been twisted and expanded beyond all recognition to where today anytime congress sticks its nose into something it is said to be "regulating" it even when there is no other connection at all with the root meaning of the word, but I digress.)

Now that said, the militia clause absolutely does NOT in ANY way make it "reasonable" to interpret the amendment away. This is one of the most frustrating myths to deal with because it's so easily and thoroughly debunked by a simple grammatical analysis a normal 6th grader should have no trouble with, and keeps getting spread by people who clearly should know better - more evidence of that general hypocrisy I mentioned earlier. It really holds no water at all. A subordinate clause just doesnt function that way in English, and certainly didnt function that way in 18th century English. See here if you really dont understand what I'm talking about.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Copid]

It really holds no water at all. A subordinate clause just doesnt function that way in English, and certainly didnt function that way in 18th century English. See here [constitution.org] if you really dont understand what I'm talking about.

I don't think that the issue is with the word regulated. I think that the issue is with with the fact that the wording basically means, "Because a ready militia is important, citizens may keep weapons." It opens up the reasonable line of argument that restrictions on weapons not used in militia service does not interfere with the reason for the right to bear arms.

It's similar to, "Because people sometimes experience pain, possession of morphine shall be legal." It's not unreasonable to suggest that possession of morphine for purposes other than pain relief may be restricted without interfering with the original objective of the rule. The book analogy in your link is hopelessly broken. A more accurate question would be, although we must allow books because education is necessary, are we allowed to restrict the use of books to educational purposes?

I don't necessarily agree with the analysis, and I certainly believe that many gun control measures are impractical security theater. I just don't happen to think that disagreeing with me on a sticky policy issue like this one constitutes stupidity, dishonesty, hypocrisy, possession by demons, or anything else like that. Sometimes a disagreement is just a disagreement.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Copid]

And as I mentioned, I know for a fact that many of these guys are very sharp and well read and know how hypocritical the organisational position is.

And how many of them believe otherwise? The ACLU is an organization. Not every member has to believe everything in its platform. If one member believes something contrary to what other members believe, that also doesn't constitute hypocrisy.

Liking peanut butter or not isnt even vaguely comparable - you're talking about personal taste on the one hand, and fundamental civil rights on the other, as if they were somehow comparable.

I don't know what I was thinking. One is a matter of taste and one is Absolute Truth that a lot of people are just too stupid to see. My bad.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[tftp]

I just dont understand this paticularly American love of gun ownership. In my country, all the auto and semi auto guns were removed from society years ago.

And here is why you don't understand - in your society you probably never had a chance to shoot at targets or hunt. Hard to miss something that you never experienced...

Why are you so devoted to having weapons when it is obvious that you would never really use them to overthrow your government?

First, weapons are owned and used because they represent power over others (animals and people.) In the USA such power is often needed against burglars who don't mind killing you and your family so that they can clean your house. In rural areas a gun is a necessary tool (!) to protect your cattle or your crops from predators and many ranchers have guns with them all the time - you don't drive a few miles away from your house, unarmed, to face a pack of wolves, or a overprotective wild pig, or a rabid mountain lion, or a rattlesnake. In the wild these should be let alone, but on your property they are a serious danger to you and your family.

Secondly, ownership of weapons has historical roots. The USA is a young country, relatively, and much of its independence came out of bloody wars waged by armed people.

Third, an unarmed person is a subject; an armed person is a citizen. There is a difference. It is true that a healthy modern government can't be overthrown by a bunch of rebels with muzzleloaders. However if the government becomes sick, the army will not fight [much] and the citizens will be first of all free, and also they will have to protect themselves. You don't want to defend yourself with a pillow if, during street riots, a gang of thugs breaks into your house. And those riots are not a fiction - they happen here on a regular basis.

Fourth, shooting a weapon accurately is not easy, so it is a sport and a skill that can be learned. If you are ever in a survival situation then your ability to shoot food (or defend yourself) may be essential. The USA is very vulnerable, actually - high gas prices can destroy the economy in no time because there are almost no railways, so if trucks stop bringing goods into cities the cities will become, let's say, a bad place to be at. If the dollar falls the same will happen as well, since so few goods are now made within the USA. I can't say what are the chances of some calamity, but they are not zero.

I have never seen a gun in the possesion of anyone other than the police, or at a shooting range. I have never needed a gun for self defence either.

It's understandable that you never saw a gun in someone's home if it is nearly illegal. I haven't yet needed a gun for self-defense either, but the trick is that you'd better have it when you do need it.

Since the guns were removed there has not been one mass shooting here.

I bet if the government chops hands of all citizens off then there will be no stabbings either. Seriously, this is a political issue because many US citizens do not see the government as being above them - and armed police is clearly in the commanding position over unarmed populace. By the way, a crossbow is a weapon worse than many guns, and a typical longbow can be made by anyone, anywhere, out of many materials, and it's silent too. UK can give you many examples on knife crimes, now that the guns are out of the picture - and the bad part is that knife is seen as an a casual weapon, with lesser "use threshold" than a gun. Anyway, if there is a criminal mind there will be a crime.

One line seems to be that if guns are banned only criminals would have guns, but it simply does not make sense, lees guns in general means less guns available to criminals, our experience is certainly that is the case.

The case of Mexico is a shining counter-example - ownership of most guns is prohibited but the drug cartels have and use military weapons. The reason is that criminals are not concerned about those l

Re:Let's clarify something...

[shutdown -p now]

The difference between NRA and ACLU is really very simple.

The first one is National Rifle Association.

The second one is American Civil Liberties Union.

It should be fairly obvious why it is okay for the first one to care about one particular amendment that is directly relevant to gun use and ownership, while it is not okay for the second to cherry pick the civil liberties they wish to defend out of the document that explicitly enumerates them.

I'm not an American, and I'm not even pro-gun ownership; but it still looks obvious to me.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[SpecBear]

It's hard to see how the 2nd amendment isn't a fundamental individual right.

I went to the link you posted previously. I think the ACLU explains pretty clearly:

Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

So they don't see the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. And up until last year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with them.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Arker]

I don't think that the issue is with the word regulated

And we're agreed on that.

I think that the issue is with with the fact that the wording basically means, "Because a ready militia is important, citizens may keep weapons." It opens up the reasonable line of argument that restrictions on weapons not used in militia service does not interfere with the reason for the right to bear arms.

Sure, that's a reasonable argument in form, though your paraphrase is significantly and critically off so far as the amendment itself goes. But keep in mind that even if granted it's an implication as to the reasoning and not actually part of the operative section of the Constitution. Courts can and have taken cognizance of it in exactly that sense, in fact - it cannot change the operative clause but it can inform interpretations as long as those interpretations steer clear of actually contradicting the operative clause of the amendment. This was, in fact, precisely the reasoning when the Supreme Court upheld the ban on short-barreled shotguns, holding that they were not suitable for military use and hence their prohibition did not infringe the right to bear arms.

But the consequences of that line of thought is diametrically opposed to the prevailing current of firearm legislation in the US - it means that, for instance, a law banning (or at least heavily "regulate") bolt action hunting rifles might stand a chance of passing constitutional muster but a similar law regarding fully automatic assault rifles is clearly unconstitutional.

It's similar to, "Because people sometimes experience pain, possession of morphine shall be legal." It's not unreasonable to suggest that possession of morphine for purposes other than pain relief may be restricted without interfering with the original objective of the rule.

It is very similar. And what you wrote very narrowly construed is true. This is in fact just what we do with freedom of speech for instance - there are narrowly defined cases where the state can regulate speech without infringing on freedom of speech, but only in very limited ways. The state can prevent you from holding a political rally at a particular time and place, for instance. In and of itself this does not infringe on your freedom of speech, assuming it passes a number of tests with a fairly high bar on them - they cant be acting partially, letting your opponent give his speeches but prohibiting yours, for instance. Show that the effect of their edict is to prevent your speech entirely, rather than simply to insist that you follow reasonable rules in regards to scheduling that everyone else is also held to, and you've made your case that they are infringing on your rights.

So with your morphine example, you might come up with some odd corner cases out of it, but they would also have to pass rather strict tests - you couldnt actually make morphine illegal (that would violate the operative clause full stop) and you couldnt do anything that would reasonably be expected to interfere with the ability of a citizen experiencing pain to get their morphine. And if better pain relievers became available the next day, that wouldnt invalidate the law - it would only give you a good argument in favour of changing it.

The book analogy in your link is hopelessly broken.

An unsupported assertion with zero argument presented for it. The books analogy in the link is *precisely isomorphic* to the second amendment.

A more accurate question would be, although we must allow books because education is necessary, are we allowed to restrict the use of books to educational purposes?

More accurate than what? I think you lost the thread for a moment there. But the question you ask is clearly and unambiguously answered - if that language was in one of our constitutional amendments then the answer would be no,

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Arker]

Absolute relativism is not just a contradiction in terms, but also a contagious neuro-semantic disorder.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[rts008]

...ignoring the fact that the NRA ignores 90% of the bill of rights altogether.

Time you get educated.
NRA==National Rifle Association.

ACLU==American Civil Liberties Union.

Rifles comprise a subset of Civil Liberties, Civil Liberties are not a subset of Rifles.

So it makes perfect sense that an organization existing solely to champion Second Amendment rights(ie:Rifles) should only support that mission.

As for the ACLU, they exist to support the whole of Civil Rights, which include Second Amendment rights, along with the rest of the Civil Rights.

And 'Shakrai (717556)' is 100% correct, the ACLU runs away from all 2nd Amendment cases it can. They are quick and slippery, so they are phenomenally successful at sidestepping them.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[bratwiz]

Actually combining the ACLU and the NRA would make a whole lot of sense.

If people don't go along with the ACLU's assertions they'll just go NRA on their asses!

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Shakrai]

It opens up the reasonable line of argument that restrictions on weapons not used in militia service does not interfere with the reason for the right to bear arms.

Handguns and so-called "assault rifles" aren't useful for militia service? You are making some interesting arguments but they aren't grounded in what the gun control lobby is trying to do.

It's similar to, "Because people sometimes experience pain, possession of morphine shall be legal." It's not unreasonable to suggest that possession of morphine for purposes other than pain relief may be restricted without interfering with the original objective of the rule

If my taking of morphine isn't going to place my neighbors in harms way or somehow decrease the utility of the drug (i.e: antibiotics that are misused lead to the development of drug resistant bacteria) then why exactly is it "reasonable" to regulate the possession of it? What part of the Constitution gives the Government a veto over the substances that I can put into my body?

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was with the ACLU (a rare occurrance to be sure) until I discovered that the judge didn't really want to charge these girls with child porn. What he wanted was for them to attend an after school program that spells out the dangers of exposing yourself in this way. THEIR PARENTS REFUSED!!!! So, the judge was essentially giving them an ultimatum. The ACLU is almost always about defending the indefensible to the detriment of society. Just look at the arguments they've made in the past. I'm all for civil liberties, but when we can't search a terrorists bag because it's an invasion of privacy, that's just poor self preservation as far as I'm concerned. That (and many other brain dead decisions like that) is why the ACLU is evil.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[dschmit1]

Bolding the part that pertains to the subject that was meant for the ammendment to pertain to is what was important. "The People" is a collection of individuals that make up the citizens, and non-citizens, of a state. "The People" is not a reference to any individual right or liberty, but having the right to have a well regulated militia to protect the collective from tyrannical government IS protected. I still don't understand how me having a submachine gun protects the collective people from tyrannical government. What does protect us is our right to bear arms against an unlawful military presence.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuclear power and chemical plants have the potentially devastating effects you mention, but they are allowed, while regulated. Certainly individuals' rights are always limited, but the burden should always be on society to show that they must be. A law banning explosive ingredients is as unjustified as one banning automatic weapons.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[jwhitener]

Cortesoft, you have to admit though, Free Speech suffers some of the same grey boundary problems that the right to arms does.

All civil liberties are balanced by society's fear of their extreme use.

From bad to good in the categories of Free Speech and right to arms.

nuke>bomb>grenade>machine gun>handgun>rifle

hate speech>obscenity>shout-fire-theater>distasteful rhetoric>politics>arts

Re:Let's clarify something...

[sabt-pestnu]

"After all, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things -- terrible, yes, but great."

Re:Let's clarify something...

[shrubya]

The point that he's making (and you're agreeing with) is that if the right to bear "arms" is conditional (e.g. no mortars or machine guns), then deciding exactly which ones to allow is not necessarily a Constitutional crisis. Drawing the line anywhere north of flintlock muskets could plausibly be said to meet the framer's intent.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Falconhell]

Contrary to your assumption, I have fired a various guns gun at the range on many occasions-is it so hard for you to believe someone could have fired guns and not have the fascination you do with them?

Right from the first shots, I found shooting accurately very easy, I dont undersand how it could be otherwise, unless one is phisically defective. I found shooting boring very quickly.

I did not mean I had never seen a gun in someones home-I have, just not in public. Guns are not totally banned here, they are just rarely if ever seen in public.

If Mexico enforced their laws they wouldnt have a problem, so I dont see your point there.

I would hate to live in a violent society like yours where you claim you need to own a gun to protect against burglars. I guess you dont understand the concept of an arms race.

Your claims about knife crime are just plain silly, the US has the highest murder rate in the world regardless of your the false "protection" you seems to feel guns give.

I dont see why you feel armed police are a problem requiring you to have a gun, unless you have an intent to commit a crime. You elect your Police bosses dont you?

Your claim that an unarmed person is a subject is laughable, I am a citizen regardless of whether I carry a gun. You should not expect everyone to share your paranoia.

You have my sympathy for the dangerous life you must lead over there if hte need to be armed is so great.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[tftp]

I respect your opinions and your culture. It may be that your country is indeed a far safer and more pleasant place to be. I do not know that firsthand, so I just listen to what you are telling me.

There is probably some misunderstanding in terms of marksmanship because it can't be "very easy [...] unless one is physically defective" - you can always move the target farther away until it ceases to be easy. And if you can hit a 1" tall chicken target from a mile away I suggest you sign up for your country's Olympic team :-)

My reference to Mexico only illustrates that criminals ignore laws, so every new anti-gun law that is adopted is only applicable to honest people, this way it punishes victims and has no effect on criminals. Indeed, if Mexico (or any country) could enforce the laws it would be a safer society. But it can't, and no country on this planet can't 100% enforce its laws. In Mexico's case one needs to understand that the government basically abdicated its responsibilities to keep people safe. It can't even keep its police safe! If you or me were in charge of Mexico and omnipotent to boot, we'd probably do something drastic, like what you propose - but the current government can't fight the criminals, it'd be a civil war and the government is very likely to lose it!

the US has the highest murder rate in the world regardless of your the false "protection"

It is important to note that the high[est] murder rate is the cause, and the need for protection is a reaction to that. The high murder rate is caused by high number of drug-crazed criminals, and that in turn is caused by rotting society where kids feel OK to dabble in drugs, run with gangs and such. If somehow all legal weapons would be removed from the US society this would do no help on crime rate. As I said, the only help here is to get rid of criminals. But yet another defect of the US society - its parole system - releases violent criminals just because the prisons are full. The ship of the USA is sinking because there are huge holes in the bottom, and tossing life preservers overboard to lighten the ship is a bad idea. In any case, you asked why US people are so enamored with guns, so I explained some of the reasons for that.

You elect your Police bosses dont you?

Not really. Police, as well as many other government agencies, are for all practical purposes outside of civilian control and oversight. This was not supposed to be this way, but it is. The police are heavily armed, and they are not there to protect you - they are there to document the crime and take your cold body away; they take care to arrive 20 minutes after the crime is reported. Many police officers are corrupt, and even more are power-trippers who enjoy the authority that they are given over the "civilians", as they call people. Some police groups are militarized and act as a group of commandos on enemy territory, shooting their way into a wrong house, killing dogs and holding innocent families beaten, handcuffed and under threat of death while they slowly figure out which house number they broke into. Then they leave without apology, and might even arrest you for something just to make you shut up about it. Or they will use a tazer on you until your heart stops. The very last thing you want to do is to trust US police.

You should not expect everyone to share your paranoia.

And I do not expect that - good for you that you live in a safer place. This place is anything but safe, and what foreigners see as paranoia is only an everyday reality in the USA. I don't particularly like many aspects of US life - crime rate first and foremost - but that's what it is. Again, you asked for reasons and I think you have plenty now :-)

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Falconhell]

Thanks for the explanantions.

Weirdly logical, except I wonder how all the people who do not have guns manage to survive
without them?

Surely, if criminals obtain their guns illegally, most of them would come from stealing legal guns from their owners, therefore less legal guns would eventually result in less guns for criminals.

I would have thought that one of the main advantages of not having guns in society in general is that the sight of a gun is unusual, and therefore promptly reported to police,
and rapidly removed.

By the way whilst shooting, I did something I believe was called an FBI course ( as in targets at varying distances some not meant to be shot) (It was along time ago) I found even distant targets very easy to hit, needing only a small allowance for drop/wind with greater distance. I suppose I could be naturally a good shot I guess.
I was mostly shooting a Ruger .357 magnum.

We even made our own bullets from lead cable sheath, we must have fired thousands of rounds. I was at a country posting where there was literally nothing else to do and my workmates were into shooting.

Maybe I should go for the Olympics.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[celle]

Except that many town/city addressed companies(not just one per town/city either), as a part of normal operations, have enough chemicals on-hand to vaporize/poison the same town/city and often do covertly(public learns in about 20 years, love canal). Those companies are potential bombs controlled by an individual or group of individuals. Every so often a near accident happens and no one thinks twice about the risk(happened recently). So I see no reason that an individual can't have a gun. Explain that one away.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[tftp]

Weirdly logical, except I wonder how all the people who do not have guns manage to survive without them?

Despite all the popular belief and all the Hollywood movies, crime rate in the USA is not *that* high so that you have to carry a weapon with you all the time :-) There are maybe 50 cases per year when an armed homeowner confronts an intruder, and out of these even fewer result in shooting. Most of guns that are owned for personal defense are purchased "just in case" and most likely will never be used for the stated purpose - they are like a fire extinguisher, you don't want to need it, you don't expect to need it, but you own one anyway, just to be prepared. If you shoot an intruder there will be an investigation, and you may be charged with a crime if you exceeded certain limits of self-defense. For example, it is OK to shoot within your house, but majorly not OK to shoot a burglar outside. These decisions are not taken lightly. But there are cases every year when a burglar breaks into a house and is promptly shot by an old lady. I can't think of any alternative to that, except that the old lady may beg the burglar to spare her.

Surely, if criminals obtain their guns illegally, most of them would come from stealing legal guns from their owners, therefore less legal guns would eventually result in less guns for criminals.

This assumption is most definitely not true. Many simpler guns (single shot) are homemade; they are massively illegal, but as I mentioned that doesn't bother criminals. On the other end of the scale, military style weapons are also effectively banned for decades, but recently a gangbanger in Oakland managed to get an AK-47 and shoot two police officers with it. You and me, if living in CA, can't go to a store and buy AK-47, they are not available at all. Nevertheless he got one. How? Illegal import. International weapon trade is a very active market, and you get to pay no taxes, and you have no serial numbers, and no registration, and so on. Very few legal weapons are stolen and used in crime - in part because that's dangerous, they are registered since the moment of manufacturing, many have been test-shot and bullets saved, so if such a well-known gun shows up at a crime scene it instantly gets traced and a whole new set of clues may lead to the criminal. Criminals hate that, they want "clean" guns. This is exactly why removal of legal guns will have no effect on reduction of crime - just as removal of birdshot shells from stores in Texas will not stop Mexican drug cartels from owning anti-tank rockets (and they do have those.)

I would have thought that one of the main advantages of not having guns in society in general is that the sight of a gun is unusual, and therefore promptly reported to police, and rapidly removed.

And that raises many rights questions in the USA. Why would an honest, law-abiding citizen be not trusted with a gun when pretty much anyone is trusted with a car? It's a matter of respect. If, say, my neighbor walks his property with a revolver in a holster this will not cause any alarm in me; I trust him with a gun just as I trust him with his truck and with his chainsaw and with every other tool that is potentially dangerous. Lawful, trained firearm owners are least likely to shoot you; where I live, the highest level of danger comes from a random rattlesnake that might find its way onto my land. I have deer too, but they are harmless and do good job on cutting the grass, so I do not interfere with their work. [Also a deer tag is a hassle to get, and you can't hunt them whenever you want.]

Complementary to that train of thought, yes - a society where guns are banned will definitely identify an open-carry gun quickly, and if you trust your police that may be a good thing. However only long guns will be visible like that, and there are very few crimes committed with long guns. Most sho

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Sj0]

Nowhere in the constitution does the word "gun" show up. The word used in the second amendment is "arms", which is a synonym for "weapons", not a particular kind of weapon. It could just as easily mean a pole-arm(a spear or halberd) or a nuclear arm(the bomb).

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Sj0]

So at what point did it become the state's business? Why are they allowed to force the children to either go to a course (and before we forget, Some of these "programs" are naziesque and inhuman travesties of basic human decency), or have their lives destroyed by being placed on a sexual offender registry FOR TAKING PICTURES OF THEMSELVES?

The ALCU isn't evil, it's nanny state loving retards like you, who see no problem with giving someone the choice of "death or unconstitutional 'settlement' punishment", who are evil. People like you allow for the horrible programs referenced in my link, where an underage boy is sent to such a program, and is forced to wear a small mercury sensor on his penis, is forced to watch deviant pornography, and is electrocuted when he begins to get an erection.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Sj0]

The historical context really puts contemporary weapons at the time at odds with the meaning today.

Pikemen were the premier military unit in England for quite a long time, and weren't replaced by musketeer units until around 1660. This means that pole-arms were 90 years out of date at the time the constitution was created. Grenades wouldn't be a practical weapon until the 1800s(They were used extensively during the American civil war, but not in the revolutionary war).

It seems to me that limiting arms to the arms available in 1776, during a time of transition slightly after manual arms were eliminated as practical weapons, but slightly before most modern arms were invented, seems like using a historical accident to support limiting rights.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like guns, nor bombs. I'm happy I don't see people walking down the street with swords. I've never held any of the aforementioned weapons, and I have no desire to do so. I don't think weapons are the cure-all people make them out to be.

Regardless, rights are rights. All branches of government should religiously follow the constitution, and if the constitution says certain rights are not to be infringed, then it is their job to follow those rules without exception. If it is found that there is a practical need to have exceptions to the rules, then the constitution should be amended, rather than made insanely and stupidly convoluted by exceptions the Supreme court had no business creating.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[AK Marc]

They're hypocrites because they call themselves the American Civil Liberties Union but then turn around and work AGAINST the foundational civil liberty itself.

They actively work against it? Or they don't work for it? I haven't see the ACLU take action to work to eliminate the right to bear arms. Also, what is a civil liberty? One that is defined to protect the people from the government. And I claim it is a valid (even if not correct) argument to say that bearing arms isn't a civil liberty, but something protected so that the people have a recourse when their civil liberties are infringed. You are expected to use your "right" of freedom of speech against the goverment in regular practice, but one wouldn't use firearms in a regular case, the regular cases must all be broken before firearms would be used, so they wouldn't fall under that definiton.

And not being a civil liberty doesn't make it not a right.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Falconhell]

I dont feel any restriction to my liberties in not owning a gun. Neither do I know anyone who feels that way.

Your argument that a gun is simply a tool is totally fallacious. The other items mentioned have other purposes than kill or injure, and that is the major difference.

You say you trust your neighbour with a gun, fine. But what about when he is drunk, or angry from fighting with his wife, lost his job or has been bullied at school and snaps? He then has the abitlity to kill many people that would not be the case if there were no gun available.

As I understand it most of the weapons problem in Mexico is a result of arms being legally purchased in the US and smuggled into Mexico. Yo are simply exporting your own gun problems.

The above is why I am dubious to say the least of the claim that assault weapons are unobtainable. The mass killers always seem to be well armed.

From my reading so far all of the major mass murders in the US involve the use of legal guns.

As your society is swimming in guns, it is probably too late to have a sensible gun control policy. You have my sympathies. I consider myself very fortunate to live in a society that is largely free of guns.

The fact is that in a lot of countries we get along just fine without guns in the general populace, and so could you.

Re:Let's clarify something...

[tftp]

The other items mentioned have other purposes than kill or injure, and that is the major difference.

Sometimes the task of killing an animal (a.k.a. hunting) is valid on its own. In fact, hunting of some pests is an important task because pests spread diseases and damage land. Some species were imported from Europe and thus have no natural predators here to keep them in check (sparrow, starling, pig for example). Other species are local but they are not sufficiently controlled by predators (ground squirrels of several kinds; some rabbits; some deer even.) Some states have now problems with wild horses; these are not hunted at all (illegal) and so their population grows and grows. Horses have no predators here either, they were imported by Columbus.

Another valid use of a gun is for sport, we discussed that already.

But what about when he is drunk, or angry from fighting with his wife, lost his job or has been bullied at school and snaps?

He can just as well stick a garden fork into me, or run me over with a truck, or hit me with a lead pipe if he is that interested in killing someone. Life is dangerous, and most of that danger comes from people. A couple of months ago some nationalist stole a car and run 16 people over because they were foreigners (students). He had no gun, since it happened in Russia, but he killed just as many (if not more) as if he had a firearm. Arsons are also popular, I recall a few in Germany, where Turks were on the receiving end. And of course an all-time favorite of domestic disputes, a kitchen knife, it kills more people every year than all rifles, legal or not, combined.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, indeed if you make it physically impossible for anyone to hurt anyone then indeed nobody will be hurt. But you will be denying people the freedom of doing things that not necessarily lead to harm. If you want to take that road, ban cars first - they kill 5x more people every year. Yes, cars are useful - but they are way too dangerous. Should we ban things based on their actual, measured danger level, or ban things based on how they look? Or even worse, on how many people find them useful?

As I understand it most of the weapons problem in Mexico is a result of arms being legally purchased in the US and smuggled into Mexico.

It is not so; you can not buy most of the weapons in the USA that are in posession of Mexican crime syndicates. You can only buy basically hunting weapons (at most semi-auto, but majority being manual action.) These are not very interesting to criminals because the rate of fire is low (and that's exactly how hunters want them to be.) It is *very* hard to buy full-auto weapons, in some states simply impossible. You will be fingerprinted and photographed, and you will have to prepare a ton of paperwork. Read about it here. It is so difficult that most people in the USA believe that it is just impossible to own a full-auto weapon. They are not too far from truth. With regard to handguns, there is a limit on how many you can buy per month (one) and that makes it very inconvenient to buy large quantities of handguns in the USA (especially if you can buy them on international market cheaper, faster and no questions asked.) Remember that only US citizens and GC holders are allowed to buy weapons, so one can't just come from Mexico on a tourist visa and buy the whole gun store - you must use intermediaries, and those will come up in any BATF database as a huge red flag if they buy often.

But to comment on the rest of your message ... yes, maybe the USA would be better off with forbidding gun ownership by default, and only permitting certain classes of weapons to qualified persons who have a good reason to have access to a gun. I can not argue against such a hypothetical scenario, and if I were to rebuild the USA from scratch that

Re:Let's clarify something...

[Falconhell]

Farmers (ranchers) are allowed to have guns here, as is anyone who has a reasonable need for one, such as security guards, vets etc. There is no need to remove the sort of basic working weapons at all. We have a limit of I believe 5 shot mags for semi auto guns even for those exceptions though.

Sport shooting still continues here too, in fact we have won a few olympic golds in recent years.

I am in Australia, so we have plenty of wild country here too, and some of our farms are incredibly large, even by your standards.

We do not have many large predators here, so protection is not an issue. The ppint you made about this makes a lot more sense than any other point that has been put forward to me.

I wonder though which animals are the problem, Bears perhaps?

Thanks for your reasoned responses, you have made the situation clearer. Mostly the responses I get are irrational when I discuss this issue with Americans.

I will try and not be so abusive of the gun fanatics in future!

Re:Let's clarify something...

[tftp]

I didn't know for sure, but my guess was that you are in Europe. But at least I don't need to tell you about introduced species, since your country is full of rabbits by now :-) And indeed you have lots of land.

Good that your government is reasonable at least in this respect. As I mentioned, I personally could live with laws like that, where you can get a permit as long as you can show a good reason. This implies that you trust your government to hold its end of the bargain; that's a tough sell in the USA.

I thought you still have some alligators there, but shooting those is a very risky proposition in itself (unless you have a BFG-9000 :-) Here you can have bears of several kinds, mountain lions, wild pigs, wolves (very few, they are protected) and coyotes - these can attack you personally, and such attacks are not uncommon. If you worry about plants then you have to deal with birds and squirrels of many types. If you need to protect livestock then you have squirrels again (cows step into their burrows and break legs) then coyotes and panthers; black vultures are known to attack newborn cattle but not much can be done about that because they are protected species. North America has several kinds of poisonous snakes, and if it becomes necessary to kill a snake (near or inside a house) it practically requires a firearm because you don't want to come close (unless you are a trained snake handler.) Rattlesnakes in CA are plentiful and require no protection. For a quick summary, bears and snakes are the most dangerous animals in the USA. Other animals, encountered in the wild, will prefer to run away from you if they can (and will attack you otherwise.) Unfortunately if those animals wander into a city their habits change, and then even a cowardly coyote can attack a child (that happens regularly in CA, one fatality so far, see the coyote link above.)

So everybody is happy now?

[Seth Kriticos]

Just asking. I mean, the girls were dragged though court for a year now, publicly embarrassed and probably get a psychic damage for lifetime just because they dared to send some pictures of themselves. And now the court says: "OK, so you were right, sorry for the bother, have a good life."? So everything is fine now as justice is served? Am I the only one who finds this picture a bit awkward?

Re:So everybody is happy now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who finds this picture a bit awkward?

Yes, because sadly I haven't found them yet.

Re:So everybody is happy now?

[Shakrai]

I mean, the girls were dragged though court for a year now

Umm, have you read ANY of the stories about this case? The DA has threatened to charge them. They haven't been "dragged" anywhere more menacing than a conference room as yet.

and probably get a psychic damage for lifetime

Oh please. This whole thing smells like bullshit but I'm growing weary of hearing people play the "damaged for a lifetime" card. If they are like the teenagers I know their reaction is probably somewhere between smugness and indifference. Either way, it takes more than a few meetings with an asshole DA to damage most people for "a lifetime"

Re:So everybody is happy now?

[interkin3tic]

And now the court says: "OK, so you were right, sorry for the bother, have a good life."? So everything is fine now as justice is served?

They're probably less damaged than they would be if we said "We're never going to have a perfect legal system that only prosecutes criminals and never is distorted by idiot prosecutors, so lets throw the justice system out entirely." Anyway, it's not over, this is just part of the process for the legal system to stop this from happening. No one is saying "everything is awesome now."

Re:So everybody is happy now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having had to deal with this sort of thing myself (not pornography, but the possibility of being charged with trumped up irrational felonies), the most absurd part is the cost to defend yourself. You're not guaranteed access to a public defendant until you're charged with a crime. That means, if you want any hope of dealing with the situation, you have to pony up many thousands of dollars to hire your own counsel.

If that's not bad enough, a friend of mine was charged ~$1000 in court fees to be CHARGED with a crime! What the hell? She was shown readily to be innocent, and the charges mostly invented for public relations issues by the DA, but does she get reimbursed for those "processing fees"?

And god forbid it be a drug charge (luckily, no one I know has dealt with that). If there were drugs involved, you'd have your property confiscated, and if you're innocent, good luck and thousands of dollars later perhaps you'll receive your property back!

I had three computers (all that I own) confiscated as evidence for 9 months while no charges were filed and the police readily admitted that they didn't suspect me of a crime (merely that evidence about a crime might be on my computers). My lawyer advised me that it would be cheaper to buy a new one than to have him go through the process of forcing the government to simply make copies of the drives and return my equipment.

The law right now is heavily biased in favor of the government, and that's not how it was meant to be, especially not when DA's are more concerned with their "win record" than justice.

Re:So everybody is happy now?

[Anonymous Coward]

There really should be severe penalties for false prosecution or even false investigation. DAs tend to throw every charge at suspects to see what sticks even though they know the accused didn't commit the crime. In almost every instance of self-defense where the attacker is injured charges of assault or attempted murder are brought against the victim even when the DA admits the violence was started by the other party. A DA who looks at naked pictures of girls and tries to destroy their lives should be put in jail. He is attempting a worse type of exploitation than many actual child pornographers (i.e. adults--not children--who produce pornography).

Re:So everybody is happy now?

[cffrost]

So everybody is happy now?

Hell, no! IMO, the victims should be paid massive restitution out of this sick-fuck prosecutor's pocket, plus disbarment, child abuse charges, maybe deportation to Iran. As for the rest of the children locked up in PA by corrupt judges, those private child-prisons needs to be shuttered or taken over by the state DOC, the kids released & compensated, and those judges locked up for child abuse and corruption.

Re:So everybody is happy now?

[bratwiz]

Well that's not quite so bad as one of three boys dragged through the courts and public opinion for more than a year over a false rape charge-- and one in which the prosecutor was found to be complicit I might add.

Re:NJ? Really?

[oliphaunt]

I'm intrigued by your logic and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter :-P

Re:NJ? Really?

[interval1066]

I know, I was reading this thinking "New Jersey?? Wyoming...??? Huh???

Anyway, looks like a crack of sanity is shining in on this badly written law. Hopefully it'll schlep through the system finally ending up in a new, better-worded version. This nonsense of waving a banner of "Save the children!" and pushing crappy legislation through congress needs to be stopped. Ha ha ha, who am I kidding?!

Tempered a bit, at least.

Re:NJ? Really?

[TubeSteak]

Well that'd explain the other two comments pointing out that this isn't even permanent. It basically means nothing.

Read the wired.com article about the injuction
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/judge-bars-da-f.html

Walczack [legal director for the ACLU of PA] told Threat Level that during the hearing the judge had looked at the two photos in question and asked the lawyers representing the defendant, "I just want to be clear that these are the two photos that are illegal?"

"He had sort of this incredulous tone in his voice," Walczack said. ...
...
[District Attorney] Skumanick was not available for comment. The district attorney is up for re-election in May.

selfishness

[circletimessquare]

witness the term "crotchfruit" and the way people who have kids are looked down upon

and the general trend among all developed nations, not just the west, to stop having children

they are just too messy, too much to bother

of course, they are also your replacement after you are dead, but i guess that's a minor detail, somehow

Re:selfishness

[tftp]

and the general trend among all developed nations, not just the west, to stop having children

This is because those "developed nations" developed themselves past any common sense in marriage, family and law. This whole thread is one proof of it. Take the movie "Fanfan la Tulipe" set in 1700 or something. Fanfan successfully negotiates a difficult agreement, but some other peasant notices and runs to the father of the girl, screaming "Hey, your daughter has fallen on her back already!" and the father immediately runs to punish the offender. The offender escapes, naturally, but that's the rest of the movie. The point is that affairs of this sort were back then handled locally and within common sense; nobody would appeal to the Royal Court for a judgement over such a minor, usual incident. Contemporary literature is full of such stories.

But today, were that to happen, both perpetrators would be first arrested for public obscenity, then probably the family would pressure the girl to claim rape, and then the man would be toast. And that is assuming that they are both old enough (which one can't safely say in the movie, back in 1700's people lived fast and died young.)

Modern societies of those "developed nations" - or at least the USA - are set, legally and practically, against families. In old times a divorce could consist of one family member booting the other one out of the door, that simple. Today it is a lifetime affair, and be prepared to lose everything that you own. I know someone who lost her home in a divorce recently, owes tons of money to lawyers and has to live at a friend's place in a corner, literally. Who in his/her right mind would take such a risk, and why? Then the subject of children - most families want them (or at least women want them) but in case of divorce the woman gets the children and the man gets to pay for them. Great, sign me up - right?

On top of that, the value of a child used to be positive (a helper when young, an earner when adult, a life saver when you get old.) A peasant family could work land and manage some cattle and be reasonably OK, with all children typically contributing to the family and marrying nearby. But today a child has negative value - it costs probably hundreds of thousands of dollars up front, counting the birth, food, doctors, schools, wages/opportunities lost, etc. Once s/he is an adult the child takes off and lives independently, and you as a parent have to depend primarily on your retirement funds to finance your last years on this Earth. Not that all children are evil, they are too poor to feed you if they start their own family, and by the time they are kind of OK you are long dead, and so the cycle continues.

This way a developed society kills itself, and "less developed" but far more vital societies move in. This is what is happening in Europe right now - immigrants from Africa and Asia are taking over, and I say that's a natural process. The Roman Empire fell, in part, due to decay of the society.

The Myth of Ruined Lives

[DeadCatX2]

I'm so sick of this myth that naked pictures cause problems. The shame associated with nudity (and even sex) says more about those viewing the picture than those who are in it.

Seriously, has anyone ever known someone whose life was ruined because of a naked picture?

Anyone?

The shame that our society attaches to nudity and sex is an attempt at prohibition. By making it taboo, it becomes enticing. Just like with alcohol, drugs, and prostitution, this forces it underground. Poor debaters will also use the taboo nature of the subject to stifle honest discussion by suggesting that supporters engage in the prohibited acts (i.e. those who defend these children are pedophiles who want easy access to CP, those who defend drug users are junkies, etc).

If it weren't for that prosecutor, none of you would have ever known anything about this. Isn't it ironic that the response taken to teach these kids about "potentially permanent burdens" has done more to create those exact burdens than the act itself would have?

When will we learn that over-protecting our children is hurting them by stunting their social growth? When they turn 18 and go off to college, an over-protected teenager will not be equipped with the proper skills necessary to navigate a world full of people who want to take advantage of them.

As for the fear that there will be an explosion of new child porn if it's legal for minors to take pictures of themselves...further application of this logic leads to support for banning bullets because their existence leads to an "explosion" of homicides involving guns.

Also, consider that teenagers are already doing this, and in a quantity deserving of its own slang description.

Re:The Myth of Ruined Lives

[blackest_k]

Libby Hoeler maybe, as far as I know the video's have been floating round the net for 6-9 years now and chances are will always be around.

Re:The Myth of Ruined Lives

[PhxBlue]

Seriously, has anyone ever known someone whose life was ruined because of a naked picture?

Does goatse count?

Re:The Myth of Ruined Lives

[DeadCatX2]

Good show! I should say that I've posted a similar comment to my original on Wired, Techdirt, and Slashdot, multiple times each, and you're the first person to ever reply with an honest-to-God answer! But...

1) I wonder how many people reading your comment had to google Libby Hoeler.

2) After doing some googling of my own, I fail to see how this girl's life was ruined. To my knowledge, she: didn't lose any scholarships; wasn't kicked out of school; didn't destroy her career. Most people don't even think she's a slut because the video was for her boyfriend only.

3) Libby's videos are a bit more than a "naked picture". From the textual descriptions I've read, it might actually qualify as pornographic due to the provocative dancing.

Social embarrassment, even on the massive scale only capable over the Internet, does not ruin one's life. The Star Wars Kid probably had it worse than Ms Hoeler.

Okay, so, one case nearly a decade old involving someone who was only embarrassed. I dare say that this offers support for my statement.

Re:The Myth of Ruined Lives

[Opyros]

Try googling "Jessica Logan" instead — she hanged herself as a result of a similar incident.

Re:The Myth of Ruined Lives

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a friend that is currently addicted to pr0n. has no meaningful life outside of work. All pr0n all the time. No time for family, ex-friends etc. True, not one pic, but...

Empirical I know, but that's what you asked for. Each individual life is just an anecdote anyway.

I have 3rd person stories of pr0n wrecking otherwise good relationships.

Modern society places a high value on protecting minors/children from even themselves. I see this as that ideal stretched to the limit.

Proper protection of youth would include education of the way the world really is. Do you think a parent is overprotective if he/she bans sexting in the house?

Re:The Myth of Ruined Lives

[Anonymous Coward]

A fuckshitload?

Re:The Myth of Ruined Lives

[Anonymous Coward]

"When will we learn that over-protecting our children is hurting them by stunting their social growth? When they turn 18 and go off to college, an over-protected teenager will not be equipped with the proper skills necessary to navigate a world full of people who want to take advantage of them."

Exactly. Ripe for the picking. Apathetic, overly trusting of what "important" figures have to say, etc. They're naive and can be molded like soft clay. Big Business and the government win over another generation. Why do you think the government is making it harder to be a teenager, and harder to be a parent (spank your kids, don't protect them from every single thing? Child abuse! Here comes Social Services to take your child away from you, and put them in a government run foster system that makes money off how many kids they keep!)? Control. Children are our future, our financial and political future for us to cash in on.

Keeping kids ignorant in a deteriorating public school system that lowers the bar and makes simple subjects seem impossibly hard to learn by playing mindgames instead of actually teaching, punishing those who see through the crap and try to get ahead (lesson that will be remembered when they get jobs and try to get ahead in their job) helps push this further.
It isn't a grand conspiracy, but the government isn't doing much to stop these problems either, as they benefit it and their lobbyists, it just all tilts in its favor.

Re:The Myth of Ruined Lives

[Sj0]

Your stories suggest that healthy sexual relationships are to be advocated and pursued, because they'd help prevent addiction to pornography.

we had to destroy the children...

[Xtifr]

It follows logically from "won't somebody think of the children", and "we had to destroy the village to save it".

that seems to belie a lack of safeguards

[Trepidity]

Although obviously corrupt judges are a problem, the part I find more disturbing in this case is that a single judge, corrupt or otherwise, even had the power to send a person to prison. Apparently minors don't enjoy the right to jury trial according to various bits of precedent (wtf?), but the very minimum acceptable safeguard should be some sort of multi-person committee, before which the defendant would enjoy legal representation, that would be required to find an actual crime committed.

Re:NJ? Really?

[Chris Burke]

Learn the true logic!

"...temporarily stop..."

[actionbastard]

Does not mean that it is over by any means. An appeal will probably be filed, the injunction will run out, and then the D.A. will get all 'prosecutorial' on their asses. So it will end badly for everyone...

Re:"...temporarily stop..."

[geminidomino]

So it will end badly for everyone...

Except the jagoff DA who will probably ride the case straight into re-election.

exactly

[circletimessquare]

it will JUST be the toilet paper supplier that is corrupt

rather than the fucking judge, sending kids to prison who shouldn't be there

in EVERY legal and fiscal environment there are certain incentives to do certain rotten things. its just that when you privatize and deregulate, you essentially add a myriad more avenues for such graft, and you also increase the scope and potential massive harm and criminality of such graft

fiscal and social conservatives operate under the rubrick of personal accountability and self-regulation. and this is an absolutely valid concept. except when you put a few people in charge of facets of society- prisons, utilities, the stock market- that can have wide ranging and hardcore adverse affects, beyond the individual who makes the mistake/ commits the crime

in other words, personal accountability and self-regulation are completely valid concepts when it comes to putting things on the line that only you can take damage from. for example: you crash your car, you have no insurance. tough luck. the one who takes most of the damage is you. conservative principles in full effect

but when those individuals do things like pad the books of privatized utilities, get kickbacks to send kids to private prisons (the very existence of pirvate prisons is a horrible shame on american society), give $1,000,000 housing loans to waitresses, etc., then you are abrogating your responsibilities in such a way that way more than just yourself is adversely affected when the shit hits the fan

in other words, personal responsiblity and self regulation are ideologically and philosophically unsound concepts when it comes to running aspects of society that have wideranging and dangerous affects

here's an allegory: should we privatize the nuclear icbm silos? obviously not. too much is at stake to let someone other than those with the ultimate reponsibility, the government, the representatives of the people, to take full charge. if you understand that, why don't you understand that the same concept applies to prisons, utilities, and the stock market

but conservatives have this completely airhead notion, and i don't know where it comes from, perhaps out of an overriding fear of bureaucracy, red tape, taxes, etc., that you can just privatize everything, and nothing bad will come of that

conservatives: it is more expensive to privatize some things, in terms of the shit hitting the fan, then the expense of the red tape, the bureaucracy, the extra taxes, that you loathe

absolutely 100% true

learn that from recent history

evolve your boneheaded ideology

Re:exactly

[tnk1]

it will JUST be the toilet paper supplier that is corrupt

I don't think that this would be the reality of the situation. It would probably take a few years for the organized crime to shift gears, but they'll be back in business.

After Prohibition was repealed, the organized crime families didn't evaporate, even if they had to diversify a little bit more. Instead, they just found something else to move to.

Let's look at this another way. What made Prohibition profitable for criminals? What made it possible for corrupt judges give out those sentences to those kids?

The Law is what provided the profits for both the gangsters and the bad judges.

Those private jails had no right to jail anyone, even if they ran the jails. A judge needed to make the decision to send convicts to those jails. You could have us believe that since the government has no "profit motive" that it couldn't possibly be the root of the problem. Clearly, this is false, because there were two parties to the bribery, and one of those parties was the fully empowered representative of the government who was implementing a perfectly legal, if extreme, criminal sentence.

You can blame the profit motive all you want, but what put those kids in jail, and what is putting these kids in the way of prosecution are the laws and regulations.

Those judges may have had bad intentions, and their decision making process was certainly corrupted by bribery, but before the scandal came out, did anyone actually think that the judges did not have every legal right to apply the maximum sentence that they gave?

You're arguing a contradictory line. You argue that the government should be able to regulate certain businesses that you consider high risk, but they should otherwise stay out of your life. Essentially, you want the government to do one thing and not the other.

Fair enough, but who gets to decide what "staying out of your life is?" Certainly, I didn't vote for child porn laws that would convict children, and I assume you didn't either. Not even all of the legislators knew what they were voting for, most likely.

So you nationalize Wall Street and car companies and other key businesses. Then, for some reason, some financial idiot gets elected President and makes some bad choices. Does it make it any better that we elected the people who put us in the crapper or who used the laws to enforce their own morality on us?

Are we to believe that politicians and bureaucrats are actually more trustworthy than CEOs?

Are those same politicians, assuming that they do have good intentions, more capable of running a business than a similarly trustworthy CEO?

the truth is

[circletimessquare]

society swings, from left to right, left to right, back and forth, forever. right now, after the utter failures of conservative ideology under the bush administration under all fronts, domestic and foreign, now, under obama, we are having a huge swing left. and, frankly, the conservatives have no one to blame for this except themselves and the utter bankrupcty of their current ideology

conservatives will go into the wilderness for years or decades, retool, and come back with some ideology and some new hero just in time for when the democrats are the ones fucking things up for a change...

but right now, across the conservative landscape, there is nothing but smoking wreckage, all of their ideas bankrupt, and absolutely noone without egg on their face

Re:the truth is

[Sj0]

I've said this for the better part of a decade, there's nothing conservative about Bush.

Real conservatism hasn't existed for 30 years, at least. Ford and Reagan showed that fiscal irresponsibility and massive liberal governments were vote getters.

The only real conservative is considered a whack-job. Ron Paul went and said "We should go back to the way we used to do things", and the left-wing republicans and the left-wing democrats both said "No way! This is completely unprecedented! Nothing like this has happened in the history of the world ever! We have to do something that's never been done before in the history of the world to compensate!"

sex crimes against one's self? GUILTY!

[Rick Bentley]

If sex crimes against one's self are illegal then I'm in big trouble. I regularly beat my dick as if it owes me money. I guess it's a good thing that it can't file a complaint...

Wyoming?

[crispin_bollocks]

I grew up in NJ, where the hell is Wyoming County?

Re:Wyoming?

[Anonymous Coward]

West of Scranton. Maybe the submitter saw Jersey Shore, PA and got confused.

Re:Wyoming?

[rts008]

Take your pick:
        * Wyoming County, New York
        * Wyoming County, Pennsylvania
        * Wyoming County, West Virginia

However, I also failed to find this county in NJ.

KDawson strikes again!

it could have been dome by martians

[circletimessquare]

the point is, it was made possible by republican/conservative ideology: privatize and deregulate everything, even things that shouldn't be dergulated and privatized. like utilities, prisons, the stock market

Re:it could have been dome by martians

[dschmit1]

I, for one, welcome our new capitalist overlords.

Re:it could have been dome by martians

[computational super]

it was made possible by republican/conservative ideology

Er, perpetrated by government people with government power. And somehow you think giving government more power will reduce this sort of thing?

Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

It's butthurt parents campaigning law makers that gets us these over the top laws. Giving some parents a good reason to campaign against the over the top laws might be just the solution that's needed.

Federal Judge is Nuts

[MarkvW]

What about the Younger doctrine, huh?

mod parent -1, offtopic

[Shakrai]

dear fiscal conservatives and republitards: why exactly do you want to privatize and deregulate everything?

"bloated government bureaucracy... blah blah blah... welfare queens... blah blah blah"

i'll take being taxed a little more for adequate healthcare for middle class people

wake. the. fuck. up. conservatives.

your ideology is dead

I find it amazing/annoying that more than half of your post is an offtopic rant about political issues that have zero to do with the article yet you stand at +5 right now. One wonders if a Conservative ranting about political issues that have nothing to do with the article would be given the same treatment or if his post would be sitting at -1 right now?

20 years ago or 20 years in the future

[circletimessquare]

if a conservative ranted, they would be +5 and i would be -1 troll

the country swing left to right, right to left, back and forth, forever

currently, conservative ideology is at a nadir, and so my rant actually IS insightful

but don't worry, give liberals 10-20 years, then they will screw up as awful as convervatives just have

Re:NJ? Really?

[Reality Master 201]

A little Googling will confirm that "{state} Federal Judge" is a pretty common idiom

And a little googling will confirm that this particular Judge is in the federal district of Central PA.

What's your fucking point? That the term "${state}" federal judge is current, according to Google, ignoring the fact that if you Goolge the fucking judge's name you discover *gasp* that he's not in NJ?

Fuck your family in the mouth. I hope you and your whole family dies of cancer. (not really, I'm just drunk and ranty)

Re:NJ? Really?

[hedwards]

Sure there is, I'm guessing that it's a federal judge sitting on a bench in New Jersey. It's not any different than referring to somebody as a Tallahassee lawyer or an East Bristol painter.

Just because you can't separate the two bits doesn't mean that it's wrong.

It's called a tripod

[tepples]

If it is that obvious that the teens didn't take the pictures themselves (i.e. the pictures didn't show them holding a camera)

I've taken video of myself without showing anyone holding a camera. So what makes it obvious to you that the teens didn't use a tripod+selftimer or something?

Re:It's called a tripod

[rts008]

So what makes it obvious to you that the teens didn't use a tripod+selftimer or something?

Uhmm...'cause all of the pics were taken, stored, and distributed via cell phones?

Wait! Is this a trick question?!?!?!?

Re:It's called a tripod

[tepples]

So what makes it obvious to you that the teens didn't use a tripod+selftimer or something?

Uhmm...'cause all of the pics were taken, stored, and distributed via cell phones?

A half-closed flip phone placed on a table can still have a selftimer.

Re:NJ? Really?

[steelfood]

Neither is the submitter or the editors, apparently.

Re:NJ? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew about the Wyoming Valley in PA, really surprised me that there would be a Wyoming in NJ as well. When I saw the story linked to the Scranton newspaper, I was pretty sure the submitted was clueless (or the editor "editted" this stuff in)

But nothing ever leaves the net...

[gillbates]

The problem isn't the shame associated with nudity. It's the reputation that's going to follow these girls throughout high school and college. When I was in middle school, one of the students found an issue of a certain men's magazine in which our illustrious teacher was baring all. She had posed during college because she needed the money, and yet, here, 15 or 20 years later, the centerfold was displayed on the chalkboard when she walked into the classroom. After everyone had been seated and seen it. She left the room in a fit of tears.

While the article doesn't give any details, it's probably very likely that these pictures would have shown up on the internet had the authorities not intervened. Where they would like occupy someone's MySpace page or other social networking site. Once on the web, it's almost impossible to get something permanently removed.

And this could easily have followed them the rest of their lives:

• In high school, they'll probably have a reputation they never live down. I imagine they'll be called some rather nasty names, and the one who bared her chest will probably be asked to do it again... and again... and again...
• In college, a Google search would likely turn up the pictures. Believe it or not, the kind of guys that girls want - i.e., the kind who are looking for a wife rather than a lay - won't be too impressed by said pictures floating around the internet. Not every guy wants the whole world to know what his wife looks like naked.
• After college, it will be even worse. Perhaps she'll get hired as a teacher and experience an incident similar to the above; perhaps she'll land a job only to find a group of her male coworkers huddled around a monitor looking at pictures of her; perhaps she'll get fired when someone finds out.
• Or perhaps she won't be able to find a job after college. If a university is willing to withhold someone's degree because they were a "drunken pirate" at a party, what would it do if nude pictures of their teaching candidates showed up with a Google search?

The relative long memory of the internet gives what were once excusable mistakes long and far reaching effects. No, they should probably not have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, but they should at least have to be educated with respect to the gravity of what they've done.

Re:But nothing ever leaves the net...

[bratwiz]

Well, *NOW* its GUARANTEED to follow them around the Net.

Who cares about some chicks in bras? These days that's tame. You can get more exposure from the sears catalog-- wait, do they still put out a sears catalog???

But NOW that the prosecutor has made such a stupid mess out of the whole thing it will be certain to be there for life-- and beyond.

Re:But nothing ever leaves the net...

[ion.simon.c]

Believe it or not, the kind of guys that girls want - i.e., the kind who are looking for a wife rather than a lay - won't be too impressed by said pictures floating around the internet.

LOL Puritianfilter!

Re:But nothing ever leaves the net...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't the shame associated with nudity. It's the reputation that's going to follow these girls throughout high school and college.

What??? DOES NOT COMPUTE. Your entire post states what is exactly the problem with today's society in regards to its "moral" view on sexuality. It is ridiculous, it IS shaming people for something that is completely natural (obviously). "Reputation" "shaming" semantics. Even the ancient Greeks had more common sense with sexuality. Backwards ass society we have.

Just keep yer shirt on....

[Xylene2301]

Why can't people just keep their clothes on all the time? After all, that's why the good lord put us in clothes anyway. Froth, rant, etc.

Re:Just keep yer shirt on....

[bratwiz]

Damn straight. If the good lord meant for people to run around naked, they'd have been BORN that way!

the romans deserved to die, they were brutal

[circletimessquare]

as for handling affairs locally, what some local yokel calls justice might be a worse crime than the crime they are punishing, if it is even a crime they are punishing, and not hysteria or he said she said. if a more national system is more complicated, as long as it also more just, i can deal with that trade off. and please don't try to press the lie that local yokels doling out justice can be called more just, according to any fanciful stretch of creative reasoning

as for your other benefits and complaints of historical agrarian societies, i see a whole bunch of other downsides you don't mention. i think its better we have less kids. and yes, societies who have more children therefore inherit the earth, but if immigration is diffuse enough, european values are impressed on children of muslim immigrants just as much as if the euros had their own kids, so its not THAT awful

Re:the romans deserved to die, they were brutal

[shutdown -p now]

but if immigration is diffuse enough, european values are impressed on children of muslim immigrants just as much as if the euros had their own kids

For that, it has to be diffuse enough that the immigrants don't have an opportunity to form closed communities of significant size within the society they've immigrated too (and I say that as someone who's on that path himself). Which is not the case in Europe even today.

To put it bluntly, when someone of group X immigrates to country Y to settle down, but keeps identifying with X first, and Y second (and correspondingly with other people of X above people of Y, especially where those sets don't intersect), that's not integration. In Europe today, X is usually Islam, but of course there are plenty of possible combinations.

Re:the romans deserved to die, they were brutal

[tftp]

please don't try to press the lie that local yokels doling out justice can be called more just, according to any fanciful stretch of creative reasoning

Well, it was nice to have the "jury of your peers" until CTS cancelled it :-(

but if immigration is diffuse enough, european values are impressed on children of muslim immigrants just as much as if the euros had their own kids

Two problems with that:

1. "European values" are something that is thoroughly lost. I don't believe that any european knows what those values might be these days. I think these values drowned in the sea of political correctness, and without those values you have English clergymen surrendering to Sharia law, for example - which has already happened.
2. Children of Muslim immigrants have their own values that are very well defined, are very emotional and are woven into the structure of the Islamic society. It is naive to think that an immigrant child one day walks out of mosque and suddenly decides to abandon all that and switch to some of those secular "european values", whatever they might be [*]. Islamic values are more aggressive, have more life energy, and when applied to the diseased, ossified, impotent, half-dead body of Europe they take over like a virus.

[*] This is not unique to Europe. The USA called itself "the melting pot" but now less and less of that melting is occurring, and layering of social groups becomes visible. So far Europe's layers are more obvious, with all these riots and such, but it only means that Europe's problems started earlier and developed faster, and still there is nobody in Europe who'd propose any plan what to do about it. I guess the unspoken plan is to do nothing, let the nature take its course and bury the last european by the end of 21st century.

Re:NJ? Really?

[fm6]

I was fucking responding to the fucking statement

      Also note that there is no such thing as a "New Jersey federal judge"

Fucking apology accepted.

sexual experimentation among teenagers is fine

[circletimessquare]

the problem is sexual exploitation of teens and children by adults. the reason for this is that children and teenagers are still in the formative stages of their sexuality and their identity, and to be used sexually alters their self-perception negatively and interferes with their ability to develop a healthy happy adult sexuality. an adult and a child can not consent to sexual behavior in the same way. if you don't understand this, please stop commenting on a topic you haven't given enough thought to

your entire rant is blissfully perhaps willfully ignorant of people who use other people. who use them in ways that demean them and psychologically hurt them, intentionally or unintentionally. this includes picture taking. do you really want to be so facetious that you need the obvious reality of such scenarios explained to you?

of course the world is full of pinheaded prudes. of course you can be a hysterical overprotective twit with your children. you are right on both points. but to put forth the idea that only pinheaded prudes or hysterical twits are against child pornography is like saying that only osama bin laden is against imperialism: an incredibly blind one sided and flat out wrong statement

the topic is complex. don't think by ignoring 75% of the psychological and social issues involved and applying a simplistic band aid, a false sense of complacency on the topic of fucking child pornography for crying out loud, that you in any way get to the truth of the matter. no, all you do is prove to be just another clueless fool in the debate, along with your fellow fools the prudes and hysterics: you, the willful ignorant

Re:sexual experimentation among teenagers is fine

[ion.simon.c]

the reason for this is that children and teenagers are still in the formative stages of their sexuality and their identity...

So, the best way for teenagers to develop their sexual identity is to always refuse when their SO makes a sexual request? And this goes double when their SO makes a request that carries with it a permanent record?

You're harshing my mellow, man!

[rts008]

Hey! He was only one letter off!

That's closer to a bra than the average /.'er gets!!

Leave his geek card alone...it's wrapped in a braw, dammit!

Cold Ethyl never says no

[rts008]

Alice Cooper
Cold Ethyl
One thing I miss is Cold Ethyl and her skeleton kiss
We met last night making love by the refrigerator light
Ethyl Ethyl let me squeeze you in my arms
Ethyl Ethyl come and freeze me with your charms

One thing
No lie
Ethyl's frigid as an eskimo pie
She's cool in bed
Well she oughta be 'cuz Ethyl's dead

Ethyl Ethyl let me squeeze you in my arms
Ethyl Ethyl come and freeze me with your charms
Come on Cold Ethyl
Freeze me babe

One thing - it's true
Cold Ethyl I am stuck on you
And everything is my way
Ethyl don't have much to say

Ethyl Ethyl let me squeeze you in my arms
Ethyl Ethyl come and freeze me with your charms
Come here Cold Ethyl
What makes you so cold? Ooh so cold

Cold Ethyl
Cold Cold Ethyl
Cold Ethyl
Cold Cold Ethyl
Cold Ethyl
Cold Cold Ethyl
Cold Ethyl
Cold Cold Ethyl
If I live 'til ninety-seven
You'll still be waiting in refrigerator heaven
'cuz you're cool
You're on ice
Cold Ethyl
You're my paradise

From:here

ACTUAL CREDIT.....

[IHC Navistar]

Did the ACLU win because they spoke about it, or did the judge have his own common sense to throw the case out?

Re:ACTUAL CREDIT.....

[Asic Eng]

The ACLU is suing, the judge is issuing a temporary injunction. Credit for bringing the case and defending these children goes to the ACLU, credit for his ruling goes to the judge. Wouldn't have worked without either party. So far it's all just temporary - lets hope these children will actually have their rights protected in the end.

Re:NJ? Really?

[rts008]

Is this going to cost me as much as Scientology did? *trembles and wets pants*

Reasoning? We need no steeenking reasoning!

[Anonymous Coward]

If a 2 year old hands you a photo of themselves posing naked on a bear skin rug, should said 2 year be arrested for distribution of child porn and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life?

Yes. And the bear too. We have too many bare bears in NJ already.

signed,
Wyoming [NJ] County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr.

Wait, what kind of clown?

[jonaskoelker]

He's a real ass clown.

Is he a real-ass clown, or a real ass-clown?

Re:Wait, what kind of clown?

[raddan]

"Ass-clown" is a colloquial expression for "idiot [in the extreme]", but I think the genesis of the word was originally more along the lines of "queer" or "fag". Some of my friends use it here in New England. Let's just say it is not generally used in polite company.

People: this is a TEMPORARY ORDER!

[tkjtkj]

The above subject of this comment of mine says all i need to say.

Justice still not done

[Atrox666]

Justice won't have been done until the DA is in a jail cell for sexual interference with a minor.
Kids will always start sexual exploration earlier than when we'd like for them to start having sex.
The kids are likely to be shamed and sexually stunted..which is exactly what the major religions love to do to kids.
These kids have been victimized by the law due largely to entrenched and disgusting religious morals that have no place in a modern society.

Re:NJ? Really?

[Red Flayer]

Sure there is, I'm guessing that it's a federal judge sitting on a bench in New Jersey. It's not any different than referring to somebody as a Tallahassee lawyer or an East Bristol painter.

Just because you can't separate the two bits doesn't mean that it's wrong.

1. The judge sits in PA, not NJ.

2. Besides the factual error, specifying the actual Court makes more sense since it provides disambiguation.

This is not the same as a Tallahassee lawyer or an East Bristol painter, since strict jurisdiction does not apply to lawyers or painters.

Can american teens masturbate legally?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity, I must ask: Can american underage teens masturbate legally and admit to it in public? Shouldn't it amount to molesting an underage person and legal charges as well?

I thought it was PA

[xlandisx]

Please don't confuse the great commonwealth of PA with America's armpit. I do not drive an IROC nor celebrate Bon Jovi.

Wyoming county NJ??

[PeeShootr]

Umm, I didn't bother to RTFA, but there is no Wyoming county in NJ.

Wrong state in story

[Anonymous Coward]

The teens and DA in question are from Pennsylvania, not New Jersey.

This whole thing is happening in Pennsylvania and has nothing to do with New Jersey. http://twurl.nl/ij2cqn

civil disobedience

[kyoko21]

One way to make a point, why not just have all your friends sexting to each other, make a facebook page, make it a facebook group, twitter about it, chose a day, and everyone participate in an act of civil disobedience. What are they going to do? Prosecute every single teenager that has a cell phone? This forces the law to react because clearly the law has been applied incorrectly because someone decided that it was easier to punish the few but the will of the masses to demand common sense will prove just in the end.

So my question is, when is the National Sexting Day going to take place?

search Tunkhannock, NJ

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot. It's in PA. Wyoming County, PEEEEEEEEE EHHHHHHHHHH.

Hello? "Scranton Times" should have screamed louder than dwight!

Obligatory B5 quote...

[Captain Sarcastic]

Chief Zack Allen: Where are you going?
Captain Elizabeth Lochley: To pound someone, Mr. Allen. You win. I just decided if you can't join them, beat them.
-- from "Strange Relations" (season 5)

Wyoming county is in PA, not NJ

[MykePagan]

Pointless minor quibble: Wyoming county and Tunkhannock are in Pennsylvania, not NJ

Off-topic, but funny aside

[einhverfr]

As a funny aside, in Massacheussets, there is an attempt to amend child pornography laws to also include disabled persons and persons over 60 years old.

If that one gets passed, I really want to watch hearings on its Constitutionality, especially if it gets to the Supreme Court. I want to see how the justices will respond to being told that consent is irrelevent for folks over 60 years old, given that Roberts is 54, Alito is 58, and everyone else on the court is over 60.

Finally, a law SO blatantly Unconstitutional that the Supreme Court would have to declare themselves legally incompetent NOT to strike it down.....

Nonpartisan judges

[sabt-pestnu]

Judges are only nonpartisan on the ballot. And supposedly in court. The point being that political preferences are not supposed to color interpretations of the law.

They have the same rights to join political parties as everyone else.

As the link above mentions, requiring nonpartisanship among judges is not something that has been around forever, either. As it is a matter of state laws (for state judges), laws -and when they were made- vary.

I would click my tongue and say "Kids these days...", but that was generally before MY time too.

wrong

[circletimessquare]

i guess you consider the world outside the usa to be nothing more than northwestern euorope. compare the usa to a place like saudi arabia, and it is radically liberal. the truth is, the usa is at a truly moderate spot in the world

Re:wrong

[shutdown -p now]

Please take a closer look at my post. I quite deliberately wrote: "let's limit the set to other true liberal representative democracies".

You can always bring the most extreme dictatorships into the picture, but it is rather irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is the balance in a civilized, democratic society. When reflecting on your own action, it makes sense to at least look at those of your peers (in terms of morality and the whole outlook on life). But, obviously, Saudi Arabia or North Korea aren't such peers for the U.S.; while other countries belonging to the Western civilization most certainly are.

the usa is moderate

[circletimessquare]

compared to the netherlands, the usa is conservative, compared to saudi arabia, the usa is liberal. in fact, from a saudi perspective, republicans are left, and democrats are far left. so which is superior? the dutch viewpoint? or the saudi?

doesn't matter, its an ideological divide, and the only judgment you can make from a global perspective is that, in truth, on the global stage, the usa is pretty dead moderate. such that, yes, the republicans are to the true right (globally), and yes, the democrats are to the true left (globally). these are judgments from a truly global perspective. a perspective you do not represent. meaning your perspective is invalid in its judgments

so you have the netherlands, norway, denmark...

[circletimessquare]

what exactly does that amount to?

and no, i am not talking about "extreme dictatorships", i am talking about the bulk of world societies. indonesia, for example, is a democracy. its also pretty conservative. i'm glad in your mind they completely don't matter for that reason. which tells us more about your exclusive nature and your willful desire to not matter to the rest of the world. which is pretty odd, since you have your sites on comparing world countries

its an ideological divide, and the only judgment you can make from a global perspective is that, in truth, on the global stage, the usa is pretty dead moderate. such that, yes, the republicans are to the true right (globally), and yes, the democrats are to the true left (globally). these are judgments from a truly global perspective. a perspective you do not represent. meaning your perspective is invalid in its judgments

now you may ignore me, and continue involving yourself in comparing the usa with norway and denmark. wow, you're views are so incredibly useful

Re:so you have the netherlands, norway, denmark...

[shutdown -p now]

which tells us more about your exclusive nature and your willful desire to not matter to the rest of the world.

Why should I care of the opinion of "the rest of the world", if they don't have such basic things as freedom of thought?

such that, yes, the republicans are to the true right (globally), and yes, the democrats are to the true left (globally).

If you insist on bringing Saudi Arabia (or even Indonesia) to the picture, then Republicans and Democrats are both far lefties and extreme liberals.

source

[einhverfr]

http://volokh.com/posts/1238285248.shtml

do you wish to retain your liberties?

[circletimessquare]

then you need to fight for them

for in this world are forces very much interested that you not speak your mind

and they are hard at work trying to remove them

so you better start caring about those great masses of the unfree

you are a classic ivory tower case. everything matters only the echo chamber of your hermetically sealed climate controled little world. out in the real world is too much ugliness. better to just look down on it all and curl your lip in disgust. the french nobility before the french revolution knew exactly how you feel

xoxoxoxoxoxox

Re:do you wish to retain your liberties?

[shutdown -p now]

then you need to fight for them

for in this world are forces very much interested that you not speak your mind

and they are hard at work trying to remove them

so you better start caring about those great masses of the unfree

Absolutely. But note that "caring about" is not the same as "valuing uneducated opinion of". I wholeheartedly support the concept of progressoring - for both reasons of safety (more advanced societies tend to be less violent), and ethical ones (help those in peril if you can). But that doesn't mean that I have to pay much attention to their current opinion of the free, which is obviously colored by their "unfree" glasses - you know, that "rotten, decadent West".

Keep in mind that I'm speaking that from personal experience of such perception from the "other side", being a citizen of the country in which "rotten and immoral Western 'democracies'" is a figure of speech that is not infrequently used by mainstream media, and even government officials acting in their capacity as such. So I believe that I have sufficient factual information, as well as moral right, to say that no-one being criticized by my country in that manner should care about it in the slightest, or feel somehow morally inferior because of that.

you are a classic ivory tower case.

I would suggest sticking to the discussion, and not moving on to personalities. For one thing, you keep misinterpreting and outright ignoring what I write; for another, you simply do not have sufficient information to judge me thus on such matters, so far.

But, just to remind you, I am not a citizen of any of the countries that I myself consider "civilized". So, if there is an ivory tower, I'm outside of it - not inside.

actually yes i do

[circletimessquare]

because every single crime of government you can show me, i can agree with 100%, and still know less government, no government, is much worse

i don't know what illusions you operate under. all i know is that people will screw up and get away with noxious crimes without a government/ less government. certainly, within government crime and fuck ups also happen. at least under government there exists a platform for punishing the perpetrators and preventing the fuck ups/ crimes in the first place

you have half of an ideology. you haven't thought out the implications of your ideas

i was wrong

[circletimessquare]

you are not an ivory tower case. you are the very archetype of an ivory tower case

i'll tell you what: you don't matter. not because i said so, but because you clearly enunciate that you yourself have chosen not to matter. in which case, that's fine. good for you. you've chosen not to matter. i respect that choice of yours. i only ask you then, to follow through, to understand the logical consequences of your own attitude, and shut the fuck up

stop talking about that which someone as holy as yourself deign not to besmirch yourself to deal with. just stop talking about problems which you yourself have chosen to consider beneath you

somehow, on this tiny bit of dirt in the cosmos, you imagine you are somehow protected and detached from what goes on in other societies in the age of jet air travel and the internet. mevermind what colossal arrogance leads you to believe this state of affairs to be possible, all i ask is that you retain some logical coherence with your own self-indentified point of view: shut. the. fuck. up.

us down in the mud actually trying to make a difference, we have a message for you, you who somehow imagine yourself to be above it all. PROVE IT: STOP TALKING ABOUT THAT WHICH IS "BENEATH YOU"

go ahead and detach from the world. just bring your retarded attitude to its inevitable conclusion: silence. silence on all topics in ther world. do you care about any of them? oh you do? instant logical incoherence, douchebag

i have nothing for you except hatred and contempt. you are truly the definition of arrogant hubris. what a piece of shit. if i were in person with you right now all that would happen is my saliva would land on your face. lets see you contemplate how that happened to you when you are disconnected from all the dirty people

here's some intellectual charity for you, nevermind you aren't intelligent enough to understand it: attitudes just like yours ARE WHAT LEADS TO THE PROBLEMS YOU DESPISE. really. that's the honest 100% ironclad truth. not that you are intelligent enough to understand how or why

do us all a favor and fall down some stairs. or grow some fucking iq. right now, you have none

Re:i was wrong

[shutdown -p now]

I honestly don't see what in any of my posts could possibly provoke such a reaction. The only reasonable explanation, which seems to be supported by your replies getting less and less in touch with anything that I've said, is that you have already decided upon the pattern, and are now trying to fit myself into it. This last post of yours is really all about that - you don't even bother to cite a single piece of mine, or mention anything relevant; just raw emotions.

Well, enjoy it, anyway; as for me, I take it as a not-so-polite request to end this discussion - which was getting pointless anyway. I'm only surprised how, with such a hateful and non-constructive attitude, you've somehow still ended up on my /. friends list. A good reminder for me to be less emotional myself, and don't extend it based on a single post by someone which I happen to find interesting. All too often it just happens to be a coincidence - after all, what is /. but not a proverbial million of monkeys?

go to a slum

[circletimessquare]

find an illiterate man with no teeth

understand why he is your equal, or understand nothing