14-Year-Old Boy Placed On Police Register After Sending Naked Picture To Classmate

Ewan Palmer reports: A teenage boy in the UK has had a crime of making and distributing indecent images recorded against him after he sent a naked picture of himself to one of his female classmates. The 14-year-old was not formally arrested after he sent the explicit image to a girl of the same age via Snapchat. The police file against the boy will now remain active for 10 years, meaning any future employer conducting an advanced Criminal Records Bureau check will be aware of the incident. However, it is not clear whether a police file was recorded for the girl who saved and shared the image. Under new legislation, if she had been over 18, the girl could have been convicted under the so called 'revenge porn' law in the UK.

Comments

Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[gurps_npc]

Please? I mean here are two perfectly innocent young children just BEGGING to be thrown to the judicial wolves, torn apart, consumed, and eaten by ridiculous laws that pretend to protect them.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[nightcats]

it is far easier to classify someone than to understand him; or even to make the effort.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother? Power is power. Destroy one to educate one hundred.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Obfuscant]

Please? I mean here are two perfectly innocent young children

Huh? One of them is sending unsolicited porn to a girl he knows, the other is spreading that porn to all her friends. Neither is "perfectly innocent."

just BEGGING to be thrown to the judicial wolves, torn apart, consumed, and eaten

One of them is reported to have been put on the list of people who have been accused of crimes. The other we don't know what happened to. Neither one is being charged with anything, neither one is being "thrown to the judicial wolves" or "eaten."

I'm pretty sure that a fourteen year old boy should know it isn't appropriate to send naked pictures of himself to others. That's what makes it a thrill to do, and that's why he used a system deliberately designed to delete images after a short period of time. If it was "perfectly normal" and "perfectly innocent" to send such pictures, why use a system that deletes them automatically?

The girl knew that it was revenge to distribute that picture once she had it. She even had to bypass the normal snapchat limits to save the image, so it's not like her having the image to distribute was some innocent mistake. She had to go out of her way to do it.

Sorry, but actions have consequences, even stupid actions.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I'm pretty sure that a fourteen year old boy should know it isn't appropriate to send naked pictures of himself to others.

Are you taking the piss?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I would have thought it was common sense for how appropriate it is to be sending naked pictures of oneself, even at the age of 14.

A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word. We don't allow them to vote, drink alcohol, or drive. So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles at a time when they're just entering puberty, usually under the tutelage of adults too terrified of their own sexuality to give them useful advice?

And sign in if you want a response next time, Obfuscant.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[adolf]

Huh?

1. We don't know that it was unsolicited.

2. We don't know that he's not innocent or normal. I remember when I was a normal-ish 14-year-old boy. I can't honestly say that my mentality at that time would have precluded me sending such pictures in such a way because the technology didn't exist, but I can say that as an adult I've never felt compelled to photograph my bits for sharing with others. But again, at 14: Maybe, if I had the tools.

3. We don't know her intent in distribution. I think that a teenaged girl would likely be all giggles about the thing, without malicious intent. (Have you met a teenaged girl? My own is 14.)

4. We don't know why he chose Snapchat. Perhaps simply because it was convenient, and he was simply familiar with the interface -- we cannot assume, based on what we know, that it was a deliberate decision driven by Snapchat's default nature of deleting things after a short time.

5. We don't know that she's some crypto-savvy script kiddie who went through extensive measures to bypass Snapchat's security. For all we know she did the obvious and simplest thing: She used one handheld device to take a photograph of an image on another handheld device. (The analog hole does not exclude Snapchat.)

That normal, innocent kids might be smart and clever does not mean that their every motivation is evil. Furthermore, normal, innocent kids making unwise decisions is a hallmark of normal, innocent kids: They're kids, FFS.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Obfuscant]

So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles

In the same universe where we don't just pat them on the head and say "isn't that sweet" when they do other illegal things that they should know are wrong. I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition, they are old enough to know that some things are not appropriate. And this one demonstrated that he knew it was wrong because he used a service that was designed to delete the image. If it wasn't wrong, why shouldn't she be allowed to keep that image of him?

And sign in if you want a response next time, Obfuscant.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You didn't respond to me, you responded to someone else. If you wanted to respond to me, you could have. There's a "reply" option on every message I post.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[tompaulco]

A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word. We don't allow them to vote, drink alcohol, or drive. So tell me, in what benighted universe are we to hold them responsible for their sexual foibles at a time when they're just entering puberty, usually under the tutelage of adults too terrified of their own sexuality to give them useful advice?

I don't know about these days, but when I was fourteen, we were supposed to be adults. No we couldn't vote, drink alcohol or drive, but we were expected to act like young men and women, be respectful, study hard, hold down a job and if we would have been caught sending a naked photo to a girl, if the police had decided to drop the charges our PARENTS would have insisted that they press charges, just to show that life has consequences.
Call me grandpa if you want, but this was the 80s. It was not so very long ago.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother? Power is power. Destroy one to scare and control one hundred

FTFY

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[mwehle]

I'm pretty sure that a fourteen year old boy should know it isn't appropriate to send naked pictures of himself to others.

Well then whoever should we be sending naked pictures of ourselves to, if not others?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I don't know about these days, but when I was fourteen, we were supposed to be adults.

Really, you grew up in the 19th century?

our PARENTS would have insisted that they press charges, just to show that life has consequences.

Oh I see, you grew up in a Stazi gulag, that explains a lot.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

In many parts of the world, it's actually illegal for a 14-year-old to have a paid position.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition

Oh yes they fucking are. I seriously don't know what's wrong with you perp-walk-lovin' murcans but I sincerely hope you get to enjoty a taste of your own medicine when those skeletons start peeking out of the closet.

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Yeah pull the other one, it has bells on.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[quenda]

A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word.

No, you are thinking of "minor", and confusing legal technicality with reality, or euphamisitic uses of the word "adult".

child
noun a young human being below the age of puberty

Most 14 year old boys are past puberty, and so biological adults. Mental maturity takes another 20 years or so.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, more bleeding hearts expecting other people to be responsible for their actions. The law is the law and ignorance is no excuse.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I didn't know you could invent definitions of words just by posting them on Slashdot!

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Right, which is why we have an entire legal profession dedicated to knowing the laws of the land. And therefore ignorance is no excuse.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[zlives]

I wonder if all sexually active non adults are also on the said lists in the UK

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Working at a maximum security jail that housed young offenders, i can tell you that the youth of today mature much faster maybe due to faster access to information and all that hormone drug ridden food they eat. some of these 14 year olds had the bodies of men ! They were also facing serious charges like murder, assault, rape. Decisions they made were not the same as regular 14 year olds. One kid was in for his 2nd charge of murder. The first time he killed his sister. 2nd time he shot his grandfather. another kid was there because he raped a fellow cellmate...it was his third time. And these "kids" will have their records cleaned after they get out as "young offenders". The only thing that stops them is when they end up in the adult system. Age shouldnt be any reason to excuse criminal actions. Read about the murder of James Bulger and you will think differently about "kids". His murderers were only 10 years old.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't take offense, but your post is exactly what's wrong with the world today. Discipline is a far cry from being a nazi. I agree with the op. When I was 14 my parents expected me to be a responsible young adult. When I got arrested for vandalism, my parents told the police to keep me. They only came to get me because the police told them they had to. And you know what? I knew they were right. Teaching your kids about the consequences of their actions, and that some actions have big time, life-fucking, no second chance consequences is NOT nazi-ish, it's called being a good parent. Something that seems to have not survived the change of millennia. Idiocracy is looking more and more like a documentary every day.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[quenda]

LMGTFY. (Why do all the mouth-breathing morons post as AC? I'm not complaining - it makes them easier to avoid.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://www.google.com.au/webh...

( was responding to "A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word.")

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[HiThere]

I don't know what country you lived in. Perhaps Australia? That sounds like stories out of the Ozarks from the 1920's, or perhaps earlier.

I *do* know that in the 1950 many of those things were illegal for 14 year olds in the locales where I lived, except that if your family owned a farm they could use you as unpaid labor. And give you an "allowance" that was de facto payment. I also know that migrant laborers never had that kind of rule applied to them, being expected to work if they were going to be present. Usually piecework in a way that was later called illegal.

That said, they *would* often call us young men and women when they wanted something out of us.

As for what your parents would have insisted on... well, if they never did, all I have is your expectation. If they did I would call them abusive. Paying your debts is one thing, getting something on your record and being subject to the abuse of the "criminal justice" system is something totally else.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Intrepid imaginaut]

LMGTFY. (Why do all the mouth-breathing morons post as AC?

Hahaha, citations include "theFreeDictionary.com" and Google's wiki scrapings. And even those qualify the definition.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this crap get modded up?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

So the same logic goes for rape?

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Insane people like you who overreact with threats of permanent bodily harm over a simple disagreement on the internet should be castrated.
People like you are why kids think the deserve things without working for them.
Their parents never punish them. It's all just childish mistakes.
Well guess what. If there are no consequences, they will never learn not to do it.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[HiThere]

Those are legitimate ways to use the terms, but not the only legitimate ways. Minor does, indeed, have a precise definition that varies from place to place, and is based on the foolish notion that there is a sharp difference (other than legal consequences) between one tick of the clock and another. (Usually in application it isn't quite that absurd, but sometimes it is.) Child, on the other hand is a lot fuzzier.

Childe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Wikipedia
In the Middle Ages, a childe or child [Old English Cild > "Young Lord"] was the son of a nobleman who had not yet attained knighthood, or had not yet won his ...

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[jeek]

You can send them to me, as long as you're at least 18.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

I read TFA, no where does it say the picture was unsolicited. The fact that she was ready to take a screen capture make me think that nude pictures were anticipated

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[tompaulco]

I don't know what country you lived in. Perhaps Australia?

The U.S.A, a country that once existed on the North American continent.

As for what your parents would have insisted on... well, if they never did, all I have is your expectation. If they did I would call them abusive. Paying your debts is one thing, getting something on your record and being subject to the abuse of the "criminal justice" system is something totally else.

They never did, because I was raised right and didn't get into trouble. It is not abusive to allow someone to bear the consequences of their actions. It is abusive NOT to.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[tompaulco]

In many parts of the world, it's actually illegal for a 14-year-old to have a paid position.

It is now illegal in the United States as well, but when I grew up a lot of kids worked. I made good money and was able to afford to go on ski trips and purchase musical equipment, and later pay for car insurance and gas. Yes, most other parents just paid for stuff like that for their kids, but we didn't have much money. My mom was a single mom, and I actually worked at the same restaurant where she worked, so I made about the same per hour as she did. I just was only working about 25 to 30 hours a week, and she was working more like 50 to 60.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[epyT-R]

One of them is reported to have been put on the list of people who have been accused of crimes.

Societies with 'lists' like this hardly have good track records for justice of any sort. So much for responsibility, right? ..and it looks like the girl wasn't listed for spreading the pic. So much for consequences if you've got the right genitalia, right?

As far as I can see, the only serious consequences are those that people who think like you chose to impose. Perhaps you should consider the consequences of that.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Thrown to the wolves is an apt description of these teenagers being put through a media circus.

It's the responsibility of the parents and the education system to protect children from harming themselves in this way.

Technology has advanced communication and socialization in a time-frame never seen before in human history. Incredible changes within a single generation, and not just to the upper class - to all classes, all at once.

The existing social template for children is just not in place, nor does it seem practical legal protection for social self harm.

It's almost beyond believe that we could think that the kind of thing that we would do to pedophiles would be applied to a child still learning to understand their body and the changes going on, while wielding weapons of social destruction and absolute removal of any privacy.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL After 10 years I quit my job. I'm a better person for it. The average citizen has no clue about the predators that exist among us. Go tour a jail sometime. Male , Female and Young offenders. I've seen the worst of them, and even though the conditions in jail are shit, we cant stop them from coming in. Psych unit? Fuck that, I do yoga, meditation and turned vegetarian.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Screen capture on an iPhone is pressing the power and home buttons at the same time. No preparation required. My bet is heavy users of snapchat use the double button press by reflex.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[quenda]

And even those qualify the definition.

You might learn from that, as you claimed "by every definition of the word." Every one except the primary meaning?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[DutchUncle]

The problem is that a fourteen year old is NOT a child, yet still not at all mature intellectually or emotionally. A fourteen year old boy, namely me, was already taller than my mother, and big and strong enough to pick her up bodily after she tripped down our front steps. I was also being recruited by the high school football coach, but I wanted to take AP classes instead of getting concussed.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't think the students should be punished for sexually inappropriate behavior because it's too harsh but you think the parents should be lobotomised and castrated? Errr....

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Yeah, sorry, you lost this one. Plenty of those definitions include "before puberty", which excludes someone who is 14. But hey, in case you wanted another one: how about this? Note the first one, "an unborn or recently born person".

While I agree placing a 14 year old on this sort of list is stupid - teenagers aren't that responsible, and they shouldn't get hit with the horrors of the judicial system for sending nudes - they aren't children "by every definition". And you're being kind of an ass about it, which really doesn't help your cause.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Areyoukiddingme]

I'm sorry, but fourteen year olds are not "children" by every definition...

Oh yes they fucking are.

No they're not. By the biological definition, once a specimen has reached sexual maturity, it is an adult. Is a 14 year old human physically mature? No. Is a 14 year old human emotionally mature? No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes. Effectively every 14 year old girl and damn near all of the 14 year old boys are capable of doing their part of what the species does to make more of their species.

So no, 14 year olds are not children by every definition. We would be better off if we acknowledged that and made allowances for it.

The creation of the category "teenager" should have filled that bill, but too many societies on Earth are positively schizophrenic about acknowledging the sexual realities of being a teenager. On the one hand, they're wishing with all their might that teenagers are still children—asexual, trusting, obedient, happy almost by default—and on the other, commercial advertising and entertainment sexually flaunts teenage bodies as the very peak of desirability and perfection, and it's all downhill after that. The reality is complicated, but it does include sex and sexual things.

So here we have a government getting all up in arms about a naked 14 year old boy. Do they think this is the first time in history a teenage girl saw a naked teenage boy unsolicited? Are they stupid? Teenage boys have been flashing teenage girls and vice versa since the dawn of time, when some near-monkey first said, "Shit, it's cold out here. I'ma wrap this bear skin around my naked ass." A week later, a near-monkey girl flipped up her skirt and mooned a boy, and a near-monkey boy dropped his drawers and waggled his penis at a girl, and it's been happening ever since. The use of the precious cell phone is fucking irrelevant, and the police register is fucking moronic. He didn't do a damn thing that hadn't been done before, and civilization didn't fall because of it, then or now.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Destroy one to educate one hundred.

Or, as they say in China: Kill chicken. Scare monkey.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[ag0ny]

In the same universe where we don't just pat them on the head and say "isn't that sweet" when they do other illegal things that they should know are wrong.

You're an idiot, there's no other way to explain your way of thinking.

A 14-year boy is still a boy. He's still learning how to behave, making mistakes and learning from them. He sent a naked photo of himself to a girl. SO FUCKING WHAT? Talk to the parents and let them explain to him why that's not acceptable. It's their responsibility to raise the child and educate him to be able to function in society.

You're arguing that it's acceptable to have laws that give children who make mistakes a criminal record. No, these laws are not acceptable, and they're a sign of how idiotic and shortsighted our society is becoming. People like you are the problem.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Do us all a favor - go jump off the nearest tall building. Sociopaths like you do not belong in a decent society.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

*EVERYBODY* is on a list in the UK.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so sorry you believe that anonymous people are cowards. I actually believe that all pseudonymous people on the Internet are vain. When messages are anonymous, you have to judge a message based upon the quality of the message, thus each message is judged on its own merit and not upon how popular the celebrity is. Using a unique pseudonym isn't like this at all. A pseudonymous person builds a reputation to one's name and therefore such a person can build dispositions which can have an affect upon how a message is judged. An anonymous person is selfless and people do not automatically judge an anonymous message with valor. Instead, the message is judged on a case by case basis so good anonymous messages are truly good as there is no celebrity power behind such a message.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[SuricouRaven]

From the age of 16-18, it is legal to have sex in the UK, but not to look at it. Presumably they are supposed to keep their eyes closed.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[SuricouRaven]

It's abusive when the consequences are highly disproportionate to the actions.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

If you ask every 14 year old about how good is it to send their naked pictures to their school principal, I'd guess 60% of them would say it's not a good idea. The 40% of people who do say it's good would be exclusively boys who would regret his decision when he's getting punished.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[ncc74656]

Destroy one pour encourager les autres.

FTFY. :-|

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Authorities seem to agree with me. Too bad for you. :)

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[KGIII]

Agues against draconian laws and promotes draconian laws. Argues against arbitrary laws and promotes arbitrary laws. Umm... So, I don't say this often but I'm pretty sure you're an idiot.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[KGIII]

A philosophical question and rhetorical... Is this mythical boy regretting his decision or is he regretting the punishment?

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand: they're not turning this teen into a non-person for all intents and purposes to simply punish him or to uphold the law. It's to send a message: we can destroy your lives forever if you don't step in line, and we will. Obey.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

"I do yoga, meditation and turned vegetarian."

Aah. That explains the fuckwit holier than thou those kids can burn for all I care attitude.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[thegarbz]

No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes.

Being able to generate a sperm and eggs does not make one sexually mature. It makes one sexually capable. There's a very big difference. You got that right in every other one of your examples but for some reason you missed the point in this one.

Although I do give you one very clear point: A child has a biological definition as someone who hasn't met puberty. So while they may be legally considered children, morally we can argue till the cows come up, and biologically they are most definitely no longer children at 14.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

... No we couldn't vote, drink alcohol or drive, but we were expected to act like young men and women, be respectful, study hard, hold down a job ...

So this being respectful didn't include contraception for the young women you met: Why is that? Was it because this 'adult' behaviour didn't include your penis, or because young women couldn't find anyone to fuck?

... our PARENTS would have insisted that they press charges, just to show that life has consequences.

In some countries, sex crimes are public knowledge, which means the record doesn't disappear when the teenager turns 18. The consequences will be living in mum's basement for the rest of life because he's not allowed a better job than mopping the floor.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[wonkey_monkey]

..and it looks like the girl wasn't listed for spreading the pic. So much for consequences if you've got the right genitalia, right?

Wrong.

[The boy's] details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep the lights off, like God intended.
You're not supposed to see anything, and certainly not enjoy it. YOUR VERY SOUL IS AT STAKE!

Also, keep your hands where we can see 'em boy!

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

The analog hole - the ruin of every man.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[serviscope_minor]

Wow you and the up-modders have managed to completely missed the point.

Yeah, so your parents told the police to keep you. A night in the cells would be sure to have a real effect, and you'd learn a good lesson from that and then move on. First, that's actually treating you kinda like a kid not an adult because it's designed to teach you consequences without screwing up your life, which is great. Kids need to learn that life has consequences.

TFA is about sticking something on his record for 10 years. That's a far cry from a night in the cells to teach a lesson.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[AmiMoJo]

None of the laws around porn make much sense.

A 16 year old can have sex, but no-one else (except their partner(s)) can watch or record it.

It is illegal to advertise sex for money (prostitution), unless someone intends to record it (porn).

It's illegal to record the female orgasm in the UK, although having one in private is fine.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[ACE209]

There certainly is a little bit of distinction left between sending naken pics and murdering someone.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

They are kids. Kids will do stupid things. In this case NOBODY, was actually harmed, so a talk with both of them should be enough "This is not ok, you'll get off with a warning, but if you would have been adults things would have been different". And that's it. Also, stop obsessing about nudity. We are all nude under our clothes. I know it's easy for me to say, having grown up in very-liberal-about-nudity nordic country, but please start allowing boobs and dicks on TV when shown in non-porn purposes. If you have to censor something censor violence, it's not a good thing people get used to seeing violence. Getting used to seeing nudity only has upsides. Nudity is not porn. I don't get excited when I see nude people, if the setting isn't right. Couple of young people sending nudes to eachother is to be expected! It's also damn fun. They explore with their sexuality, no harm, no foul. They'll do it live someday! And now THAT is/was seriously fun. Nowdays the "wow i'm actually touching a girls boobs"-feeling is kinda gone.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

" Teaching your kids about the consequences of their actions, and that some actions have big time, life-fucking, no second chance consequences is NOT nazi-ish"

I agree. The thing is, here they are getting the damn life-fucking, big time consequences for something they should only get a lesson for. Was someone actually hurt? No? Get on with your lives.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

You think there maybe is a difference between kiling two persons (and most likely being mentally very unstable, for whatever reason), and sending yourgirlfriend(in a very broad sense, these aren't very clear at the age of 14) a nude of yourself?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

When I was at school in the 1970's you could leave school at 15 in Britain. You would quite likely get a job. You were expected to be an adult.

 

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[periodic]

Can't we stop the hysteria around nudity? I would not consider just a nude picture to be porn.

And can't we stop the hysteria around sex while we are at it? People like sex, teenagers will start experimenting when they get sexually mature. I can not see any safer form of sex then sending pictures. No risk for STD, no risk for pregnancies, no need to leave your home even.

The hysteria should be about adults that use their position of power to fool/force inexperienced and naive kids and young teens to have sex with them.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Merk42]

No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes.

Being able to generate a sperm and eggs does not make one sexually mature. It makes one sexually capable. There's a very big difference. You got that right in every other one of your examples but for some reason you missed the point in this one.

Although I do give you one very clear point: A child has a biological definition as someone who hasn't met puberty. So while they may be legally considered children, morally we can argue till the cows come up, and biologically they are most definitely no longer children at 14.

What does?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[morgauxo]

I RTFS and RTFA. I see no mention of the images being unsolicited. What is your connection to the case?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same universe where we don't just pat them on the head and say "isn't that sweet" when they do other illegal things that they should know are wrong.

You're an idiot, there's no other way to explain your way of thinking.

A 14-year boy is still a boy. He's still learning how to behave, making mistakes and learning from them.

Yes, we shouldn't legally punish 14 year olds for anything, ever. That'll turn out great.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[tehcyder]

A fourteen year old is a child by every definition of the word.

The age of criminal responsibility is ten in England.

I'm not saying that this is a crime, only that a fourteen year old can be treated similarly to an adult in some circumstances.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[tehcyder]

Check yourself into the nearest psych unit.

I think you just lost that argument.

You are obviously lucky enough not to have had to deal with criminal tweenagers.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[tehcyder]

No. Is a 14 year old human sexually mature? Hell yes.

Being able to generate a sperm and eggs does not make one sexually mature. It makes one sexually capable. There's a very big difference. You got that right in every other one of your examples but for some reason you missed the point in this one.

Although I do give you one very clear point: A child has a biological definition as someone who hasn't met puberty. So while they may be legally considered children, morally we can argue till the cows come up, and biologically they are most definitely no longer children at 14.

What does?

"Mature" is a silly word to use in this context. An animal is sexually mature if it can reproduce, it's got nothing to do with emotional, psychological or intellectual maturity.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[tehcyder]

The creation of the category "teenager" should have filled that bill

"Teenagers" were invented basically as a marketing tool, much like the "Young Adult" category was recently in fiction.

Seventy years ago you were either a child or an adult. Twenty years ago you either read children's or adult literature.

In both cases there is not some magic difference between 12 and 13 or 19 and 20.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[tehcyder]

It's illegal to record the female orgasm in the UK

Are you sure? I've never come across that before (pun intended).

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[tehcyder]

A 14-year boy is still a boy. He's still learning how to behave, making mistakes and learning from them. He sent a naked photo of himself to a girl. SO FUCKING WHAT? Talk to the parents and let them explain to him why that's not acceptable. It's their responsibility to raise the child and educate him to be able to function in society.

If you're 14 and you break the law, you have to face the consequences. If you get caught shoplifting, your mistake will potentially attract a criminal record.

The issue of whether this should count as a crime is a separate question. There is a lot of panic about underage sex, but on the other hand there is also undeniably a level of exploitation of under 16s too. It's not all purely imaginary "think of the children" made up hysteria, but it sounds like the law is being interpreted too literally here: two fourteen year olds engaging in sexual activity has never been the problem.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't know her intent in distribution. I think that a teenaged girl would likely be all giggles about the thing, without malicious intent. (Have you met a teenaged girl? My own is 14.)

Judging by my oldest teenage daughter the likely motive would be blackmail. No, I'm not kidding.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

No, a fourteen year old boy who has passed puberty is an adult by every definition of the word.

If they were 11 and had passed puberty, they are an adult by every definition of the word.

That's what puberty is: the onset of adulthood. When you're post pubescent, you are sexually mature. And that is the definition of adult.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[AmiMoJo]

http://www.dailydot.com/politi...

Those sick, sexist fucks banned images of women reaching orgasm. Men spewing cum everywhere are fine though, carry on.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still legal in some places in the USA. There are restrictions on working hours for kids 14-17 that include not working during school hours when school is in session, maximum number of working hours per week, and a curfew after which they cannot work. I don't know the specifics here in SC.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same universe where we don't just pat them on the head and say "isn't that sweet" when they do other illegal things that they should know are wrong.

You're an idiot, there's no other way to explain your way of thinking.

A 14-year boy is still a boy. He's still learning how to behave, making mistakes and learning from them. He sent a naked photo of himself to a girl. SO FUCKING WHAT? Talk to the parents and let them explain to him why that's not acceptable. It's their responsibility to raise the child and educate him to be able to function in society.

You're arguing that it's acceptable to have laws that give children who make mistakes a criminal record. No, these laws are not acceptable, and they're a sign of how idiotic and shortsighted our society is becoming. People like you are the problem.

A fourteen year old is not a child. However, he's not old enough to always make the right decisions. Sex is very compelling and we, in our advertising and media, make it very accessible and send mixed messages about what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Take something as simple as a romantic movie. The boy decides he will make the girl love him because she's "the one." Do that in real life and you're more likely to end up in jail or, at the very least, end up with a restraining order.

The problem with us is that children have become an after thought in everything we do. IN an effort to sell more of everything, we've sexualized our children at young ages (Forver21, Target, Abercrombie and Fitch, I'm looking at you) and then we tell them to ignore their urges.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Obfuscant]

You're arguing that it's acceptable to have laws that give children who make mistakes a criminal record.

No, I'm arguing that at 14 he should already know that what he did is wrong, and that he demonstrated his knowledge when he picked the tool he used to send the picture.

There's no criminal record involved because he wasn't charged with or convicted of a crime. You might as well claim that I'm arguing the death penalty should apply even though nobody was charged with a crime so no criminal penalty is even being considered.

Yes, a 14 year old is still "a boy". The problem is the people who think that being "a boy" is an excuse to do things you know are wrong and avoid all consequences of that action.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[phorm]

I'd guess: in the dark? Heck, when it comes to some people (such as the royal family), that's probably the ONLY way they can reproduce.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[phorm]

We didn't have snapchat (or much in the way of internet) at that age. We did have adult magazines "borrowed" from our parents drawers, which we shared with others of our age. I'm pretty sure these days they could hit you with some charge of corrupting a minor for sharing said material.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

US/UK porn/sex laws for teens seem very strange to scandinavian people.

In Finland and Sweden there seems to be common sense and kids can have fun/sex with each other as kids if they want.

And yes, most 14 year olds are not adults and should be treated as children but many mature quite fast soon after that.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely right, but perhaps we need to go the other way.
Why should it be ok for a 16 year old to have sex? They are in almost every circumstance neither economically nor emotionally capable of the consequences of having sex, even if contraception is used and actually works.
Should it be legal to create porn? Why should I be able to pay two other people to do something that it would be illegal for me to pay for.
I'll give you the last one.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Anonymous Coward]

These mythical boys would probably be regretting the punishment more than the decision to send the pics.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Applehu Akbar]

And a sexting 14-year-old compares to these offenders exactly how?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[Applehu Akbar]

"Being able to generate a sperm and eggs does not make one sexually mature."

Biologically, it does. But because of the complex nature of modern civilization, another five year or so of acculturation is needed before that adolescent becomes socially mature. Hence that period of development when a young person has physical powers that we can't let him/her use until they can be used wisely.

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[thegarbz]

Who's talking about animals? We're talking about children making silly decisions. If this hasn't got anything to do with emotional, psychological or intellectual maturity then I don't know what does.

My original point was that just because the penis is fully functional does not mean that the owner knows when it is or is not appropriate to whip it out.

Animals have it easy in this regard. My penis works so I'm going to the head of the heard, will pick a fight with the alpha, and if I win I rape all the women. Huzzar!

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[thegarbz]

Many psychologists have spent years failing to adequately answer that question. But rest assured the biological trigger of "have penis, will sex" is not it.

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[perih60]

are you for real ? EDUCATE ! that missuse of power is ok ? as more and more laws are passed " for our protection " , life's are needlessly severely damaged . it seems to me that the lessons of history are put aside by some people because they seek the illusion of safety . " if you do a man's crime do the time " is one of the justifications used , and i have heard someone say " teach them a lesson , put them on death row " i am disgusted that things that happened in my great grandmothers time are being considered

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[perih60]

one problem is technology , a child is a child is a child ! in numerous countries if he had let her take a photo of him , it would have been developed , and nothing would be said . the fact that the picture would have been automatically deleted after a set TIME means little cos if everything is saved a lot more storage is needed , it went thru the system , this to me means the eather there is a flaw in the system , or it was acceptable . it should be obvious that no matter the age sometimes punishment is needed ! is this crime really so bad that his entire future is on the line ?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[perih60]

let me ask you this " what should be the punishment for the 2 year old murderer of his own mum in the states recently ? " ALL THAT HORMONE DRUG RIDDEN FOOD THAT THEY EAT ! i thought that GREEDY BLOODY ADULTS put those " hormone drugs " into the food ! but you obviously know more then most about this ! punishment is necessary , but must the punishment be draconien ? from the age of 3 till i was 7 my granny would spank me on my bare backside with a carpetbeater made out of cane , she would tell me why , i deserved it , never stopped loving her . the court returned me to my mother at 7 , my siblings and i ended up scared all the time cos we never knew how or why we were beaten by her , and we now have no contact with her ! i have another question " why is .7% of the adult Americans in jail , when the average western countries it is .1% ? tragically master Bulger's murder , and others will be committed , regardless of punishment ! the reason for this is that criminals think they will get away with it . one of his killers ( not long ago ) broke the child porn laws . i disagree with the death-penalty because of the number of innocent's in jails everywhere .

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[perih60]

" know is wrong " and mixed messages , adam and eve did not wear anything in paradise remember . advertisers know that sex sells ! the constant bombardment of some types of music , even in shopping centers , the strange disparity in the rating laws re movies , the different upbringing due to the mores of the parents , the tv used as a nanny , in the US and OZ the tv is on on average 6 times as long as in austria the list is endless , all of this make it difficult as to what kids KNOW

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[perih60]

i assume by this that in the time you mention no child of 14 ever played house , nurses , milkmaids ? i think that a photo is safer than the above . because it's non-contact

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[perih60]

a vandal ( i can not understand as to why anyone does this , pure senseless destruction ) and i question the parenting skill of anyone who raises one i see a difference in vandalizing and showing a girl what a boy has . what was it that made you so angry that made you do what you did ? maybe like the poster above working full-time and going to school made you so stressed you lost it for a bit

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[perih60]

only if it done to females as well

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[perih60]

at an adult's pay-rate ?

Re:Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[perih60]

i add my name because given the chance to make a comment or reply i hold myself accountable for what i say

Re: Won't someone think of hurting the children??

[RockDoctor]

Destroy one pour encourager les autres.

FTFY. :-|

Errr, that admiral had actually done something wrong. Well, arguably wrong.

Just more censorship

[fustakrakich]

Hey, Teacher! Leave the kids alone!

Re:Just more censorship

[Lisias]

Hey, Teacher! Leave the kids alone!

Give them a Condom first.

Re:Just more censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, Teacher! Leave the kids alone!

No.. It is, "Hey Parents! Teach your kids to be better humans!"

Re:Just more censorship

[fustakrakich]

Yeah, it can replace his allowance...

Re:Just more censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory.

Re:Just more censorship

[x0ra]

Define "better humans".

Re:Just more censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that was The Beatles.

Re:Just more censorship

[zlives]

humans with appropriate governmental thought control in place.

Re:Just more censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's parents are you referring to? The parents of the teachers in this story? Parents of the cops who DIDN'T say "this shit doesn't concern us, sort it out yourselves", the parents of the principal?

Anyone who runs a minor issue like this up to the legal system is a fascist prick.

Re:Just more censorship

[mooterSkooter]

No, that was the Rolling Stones.

Leave the Beatles out of this!

The Power of the State.

[roman_mir]

The Power of the State is absolute. What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?

A right is protection against government oppression, this is a case of government oppressing a 14 year old child all while using 'think of the children' rhetoric for its own political purposes.

Re:The Power of the State.

[Archangel Michael]

A right is something each individual has against the mob. Government is classified as a Mob.

This kind of thing is what happens when you don't understand what is, and what isn't a right. Rights exist and require nothing. You don't have a "right" to healthcare, because to give you "healthcare" denies the rights of someone else (Dr, Nurses ....) But hey, I'm a big fat mean libertarian who sees the tyranny as it encroaches.

Re:The Power of the State.

[Obfuscant]

What else is there to talk about here except for the complete lack of individual human rights?

I'm confused. Are you claiming that it is your "individual human right" to send naked pictures of yourself to any girl you might happen to know? How about her "individual human right" not to have pictures of your junk show up on her phone?

Or is it her "individual human right" to distribute that naked picture of you that you sent with the explicit intent that it be deleted soon after being received?

Whose "individual human rights" are we talking about here? And when did distributing porn to unsuspecting recipients, and then distribution of that to others as a way of exacting revenge, become a "human right"?

A right is protection against government oppression, this is a case of government oppressing a 14 year old child...

And I thought the scene with the muck collectors from Monty Python was ridiculous. "Help help, I'm being oppressed because I can't send pictures of my willy to every girl I know..."

Re:The Power of the State.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the individual human right to do something harmless, even if somewhat offensive and to have it forgotten.

Re:The Power of the State.

[roman_mir]

If you think you are having an argument with me you should re-read my comment. A right is protection against government oppression.

Re:The Power of the State.

[epyT-R]

Why are you confused? The issue's simple once you toss aside the legal pedantry. Before we send 14 yos to the gulag (or add them to scarlet letter 'lists') over a picture, there should be responsibility for showing how harm was done. I know if I received a picture of a naked human, I'd laugh and delete. It might be unwanted, yes, but that's not the same thing as harm. I won't be scarred for life and neither will this girl. Now, if the kid didn't want the picture distributed by her, he should've known better.

Who cares what the lawyers/politicians think. They're only interested in looking like bastions of morality they can't possibly be living up to just to keep their jobs. You have a brain, use it. Justify why you think such a lasting mark like a predator list is warranted for 'a' picture sent probably to a crush. I think a talking to is all that's needed. His pic being spread around is a natural consequence of his choice, and is punishment enough. This seems like a case of 'stupid kid' not a case of a hardened pervert, and should be treated as such.

Re: The Power of the State.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then rights do not exist, because in order to have them enforced you need something more powerful than the government. No such thing can legally exist.

Re:The Power of the State.

[tehcyder]

It's the individual human right to do something harmless, even if somewhat offensive and to have it forgotten.

It is also up to society to decide what is harmless. There is no Platonic Ideal of harmlessness you can refer to.

Re:The Power of the State.

[tehcyder]

If you think you are having an argument with me you should re-read my comment. A right is protection against government oppression.

The right to life is the right to not be killed by anyone. If you think only governments kill people then you are wrong.

Re:The Power of the State.

[Archangel Michael]

A right isn't protection. I have the right to keep and bear arms. IT requires NOTHING from anyone to practice. It doesn't require government. It doesn't require anyone else to do anything. It exists on its own, apart from anyone or anything else. I have that right if I am alone on an island.

The point of government is supposed to be to secure(protect) the rights of individuals, NOT rule over men. The moment government compels someone to do something against his conscience, it is necessarily harming him.

Relating this back to the original topic, the "harm" caused by the boy sending dick pic to a girl was miniscule. It may have been unwanted and may have been a threat (implied or directed) or just clumsy flirting (bad taste), but that requires judgment, not rules of absolutes (zero tolerance). I oppose zero tolerance laws simply because the are an over reaction to bad judgements and end up worse position.

Re:The Power of the State.

[roman_mir]

Wrong, a right is a protection against government oppression. This protection requires a working Constitution. Government oppression happens when government is not bound by any rules, a Constitutional government is a government that is bound by rules. Unfortunately those rules can be bent and broken and then people lose their rights because government finds ways to get around those rules or just completely remove them.

The reason why rights are protections against government oppression is specifically because government cannot be punished for oppressing an individual. There is nobody to punish, no government official will be punished for the system oppressing the individual, which means that if you want rights to exist, you have to set up the government in such a way that it is given only very specific authorities under specific circumstances to limit individual freedoms but under all other circumstances such authorities cannot exist.

This is what the USA was premised upon, since it was created artificially as an attempt to provide individual rights, which did not exist prior to that time in any place on this planet, which is what made USA unique.

Unfortunately the rules were bent and broken and not because of a Monarch or a dictator, but because the mob destroyed individual rights in its desire to provide itself with entitlements at the expense of rights of others provided enough political capital for the politicians who were and are willing to use the mob to get into power and stay in power.

A right is a protection against government oppression guaranteed by the Constitution and the rules set up to limit government power. As to your right to keep arms and to protect your freedoms, that is only an extension of what I am talking about.

A right doesn't require anything from an INDIVIDUAL, but a right requires the COLLECTIVE to abide by the rules. Once the collective STOPS abiding by the rules you can attempt and use individual action to enforce your rights, but you will fail at that most likely since by that time the power of the collective grows much beyond your ability to defend your rights.

Re:The Power of the State.

[Obfuscant]

Why are you confused?

Because someone is claiming that basic "human rights" are being violated and the kid is being oppressed. I want to know what "human right" we're talking about. Can you tell me? Is there a basic "human right" to send pictures of your willy to any girl you know? What has the world come to when we make such nonsense a "human right"?

I won't be scarred for life and neither will this girl.

You don't know this, and it isn't your place to judge on her behalf. Nobody was thrown into a gulag over this.

You may personally not mind if someone breaks into your house and takes your television. You think you watch too much TV anyway, and that person obviously needs the money or TV more than you do. But that's not a valid argument for saying that burglary isn't wrong, just as you not minding if people send you naked pictures of themselves is an argument against it being wrong when others are the recipients.

Now, if the kid didn't want the picture distributed by her, he should've known better.

Wait a minute. He can't be expected to "know better" when it comes to whether it is appropriate to send the picture in the first place, but he is supposed to "know better" that the girl would know how to bypass the "delete automatically" feature of snapchat? "Should have known better" is a two-edged sword here.

You have a brain, use it. Justify why you think such a lasting mark like a predator list is warranted

It wasn't a lasting mark on a predator list.

for 'a' picture sent probably to a crush.

I have a "crush" on your teenage daughter. You won't mind if I send her naked pictures of myself, then? She can just delete them if she doesn't want to see them, and it won't cause her any harm, right? It's harmless fun.

This seems like a case of 'stupid kid' not a case of a hardened pervert, and should be treated as such.

That's why he got such a light slap on the wrist and isn't standing in a dock facing a judge. And nobody is saying he should be.

Re:The Power of the State.

[Archangel Michael]

I beg to differ. Rights as I see them are outlined in gross form here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ...

Rights exist apart from governance. Governance is supposed to "secure" (protect) these rights. The fact that you don't understand how any of this works makes me sad for our society in the future.

But I understand, you remove "creator" from this, and there is nothing to base "rights" upon, and that leads us to tyranny. If there is no higher power than government, and mobs (power by force) then we are doomed to tyranny and mob rule.

Re:The Power of the State.

[roman_mir]

There is no such thing as a 'creator', the only thing you can expect in a system that is set up by humans is to agree to a set of rules.

If these rules are followed by the institution that is the government, then individual rights are protected, since government does not take steps to oppress the individuals.

If these rules are not followed by the institution that is the government, then the individual rights are abused by the collective that set up that institution.

Rights do not exist between 2 individuals or between an individual and a business because there is no legal framework, within which one individual can legally abuse and oppress the rights of another individual. There is no legal framework that makes it possible for a company to oppress an individual.

All interactions between individuals and companies can be governed by a completely separate codex, we describe it as the criminal codex, where actions that are taken by an individual or a company against another individual or a company are considered criminal.

One individual murdering another individual does not fall under the purview of an 'oppressed right to life', that is nonsense, since legally both individual have the same rights and have no legal authority over each other. A case of murder falls under a section of the criminal law.

We do not need government at all and if we skip the entire step of having a government then the entire concept of rights stops being relevant, since there is no higher authority than an individual but we will have to set up some form of criminal law and criminal justice system but this has nothing to do with rights.

A right to own and operate private property is the lack of authority of a government to steal that property, which is why 'no action is required' to ensure that the right is not abused.

Ownership and operation of private property cannot be considered 'a right' where it comes to interaction between 2 individuals, since to 'provide' such a right somebody would have to enforce it. Instead we can agree on a set of criminal laws that punish theft and damage to private property, possibly some fines in case of property damage / theft and harsher punishment that will have to be doled out in case of murder and such.

In order to maintain a criminal justice system no government is required and it is a separate discussion, but I am going to say that for a person who is supposedly pro-individual freedom you are displaying a certain lack of understanding of the reality and of meanings of these concepts.

Re:The Power of the State.

[Archangel Michael]

Your view, there are no rights except by convention (legal or otherwise), which are thereby granted by government, which can then take those rights it grants away by any arbitrary reason it can come up with. Which is exactly what Tyranny looks like. You're nothing but a slave to the tyranny you believe in.

Re:The Power of the State.

[epyT-R]

Because someone is claiming that basic "human rights" are being violated and the kid is being oppressed. I want to know what "human right" we're talking about. Can you tell me? Is there a basic "human right" to send pictures of your willy to any girl you know? What has the world come to when we make such nonsense a "human right"?

He was put on a registry without trial. As an american looking at this, that is a violation of his liberty. It may not be a 'human right' to send a pic, but it's not an affront to anyone's rights to receive one either. What has the world come to when we insist on breeding oversensitivity into whole generations, then enact crazy punishments on those who 'trigger' them? I also find it interesting that she wasn't charged for 'distributing child pornography.' We've already had a few kids here in the states trampled by those laws..laws that were meant to protect them. I guess now we know the true intentions of the advocates who pushed for them.

You don't know this, and it isn't your place to judge on her behalf. Nobody was thrown into a gulag over this.

It isn't her 'human right' to expect everyone else to give a shit about her feelings over such trivial events either. Despite what happened here, there are plenty of men out there who were thrown into both figurative and literal gulags over shit far less. A registry listing is no minor matter.

But that's not a valid argument for saying that burglary isn't wrong, just as you not minding if people send you naked pictures of themselves is an argument against it being wrong when others are the recipients.

Stealing a tv != sending a picture. One is theft of property, the other is ???

Wait a minute. He can't be expected to "know better" when it comes to whether it is appropriate to send the picture in the first place, but he is supposed to "know better" that the girl would know how to bypass the "delete automatically" feature of snapchat? "Should have known better" is a two-edged sword here.

He should have known the natural consequences of distributing a nude picture of himself over to someone else, yes. Your 'appropriateness' is merely something imposed by people who obviously want others to conform to their moral expectations.

It wasn't a lasting mark on a predator list.

Yes it is. For 10 years. Did you read the article? It's a list that will inform any employer of this incident, so it's close enough.

I have a "crush" on your teenage daughter. You won't mind if I send her naked pictures of myself, then? She can just delete them if she doesn't want to see them, and it won't cause her any harm, right? It's harmless fun.

If that's all you're going to do, go ahead. If she doesn't like it, she'll delete it. If she doesn't know already, I'll explain to her how she shouldn't trust random strangers and how to put you on ignore. Since she's my daughter, she'd hopefully have had that sensibility since childhood. Anyway, this example is not valid either. This issue concerns two adolescents. There's no mention of persistent behavior, which is why I don't agree with him being treated as a predator into his 20s for some stupid impulsive thing he did over an adolescent crush.

That's why he got such a light slap on the wrist and isn't standing in a dock facing a judge. And nobody is saying he should be.

No, but being placed on that list is effectively treating him as someone who has, and was found guilty.

Re:The Power of the State.

[roman_mir]

Again, you are completely wrong. The rights only exist in a system where the government has authority defined by a very rigid fixed set of rules. The government is not granting anybody anything. The people that set up the government are granting it the authority to take individual rights away under a narrow set of circumstances. Rights do not exist in the vacuum at all because they have no reason to exist.

There is no concept of a right between two individuals of the same legal status. A 'right' as a concept only can exist in any way at all when there is a system that has authority over an individual under some circumstances and the authority is limited a very strict set of rules and if those rules are bent or broken then individual rights are oppressed.

To say that I 'believe in tyranny' is idiotic, I am an anarcho capitalist, I don't believe that we even should have a State with ANY authority over ANY individual rights in the first place. The reality is that you no concept of what a 'right' actually means.

Re:The Power of the State.

[Anonymous Coward]

You made a small typo:

I am an anarcho capitalist

See if you can spot the difference when I correct it for you

I am a fascist cult member

You're welcome

Its just playing doctor in the digital age

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like logic and sense has been replaced by fear and pedantry. Kind of like /. replies.

So does this mean if the teacher saw it ...

[UnknownSoldier]

... that they could be classified as a pedophile for viewing child pornography??

Wait till the kids learn how to abuse the law and fuck* every grownup!!

Where the hell is common sense?

* Not literally, but legally

Re:So does this mean if the teacher saw it ...

[tompaulco]

... that they could be classified as a pedophile for viewing child pornography??

Wait till the kids learn how to abuse the law and fuck* every grownup!!

Where the hell is common sense?

* Not literally, but legally

In the U.S., we would have charged both the boy and the girl with soliciting child pornography and cast them down with the sodomites.

Re:So does this mean if the teacher saw it ...

[tompaulco]

In the U.S., we would have charged both the boy and the girl with soliciting child pornography and cast them down with the sodomites.

Dang it. I meant distributing. What slashdot? Still no edit button? What is this, 1970? I know, I know, preview. But in preview the brain is still seeing what it thinks it told you to type.

Re:So does this mean if the teacher saw it ...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Dang it. I meant distributing. What slashdot? Still no edit button?

Nope. It fouls up the moderation system.

That's usually where the conversation ends, but we could actually consider that fact a moment. Ok, it fouls up the moderation system. Something that has been modded up could be edited after the fact into something totally different than what was originally modded. (And would be. Don't kid yourself.)

But this observation does uncover a perfectly reasonable modification. Allow editing until a post has been modded. That actually seems completely reasonable. And modding in this context should include the automatic +1 karma bonus, so if you want to edit your posts immediately after you post them, and you have good karma, then you'll have to disable your bonus. But once you get modded, up or down, it's committed and read-only.

Also if a post gets a reply, it is locked down. Otherwise the reply system gets fouled up. Replies can make reference to things in a parent post that no longer exist, and that's ridiculous and high maintenance. Now the replier has to go edit their post, etc. etc.

But no replies and no mods? Edits should be fair game.

Re:So does this mean if the teacher saw it ...

[Zontar The Mindless]

Or y'all could use that li'l ol' Preview button...

Re:So does this mean if the teacher saw it ...

[KGIII]

We'll start doing that when we start reading the article. I've read a couple of articles but I'm a heretic - you're not the boss of me! However, I do use preview and skim my replies. I even edit some replies before submitting them. Hell, I end up editing some of the novellas I write. Unfortunately, it often makes them even longer.

Re:So does this mean if the teacher saw it ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Next thing you know, children's genitalia will be classified as hazardous items. The child will be required to have a license permitting him or her to possess said genitalia. The government will have authority to regulate and monitor these restricted hazardous items.

> Penis Inspection Day becomes a real thing.

Re:So does this mean if the teacher saw it ...

[UnknownSoldier]

OT, but good ideas.

The only thing I miss from Reddit: The ability to touch up my posts to fix grammar, spelling, etc.

What if it were not digital?

[0x537461746943]

So what would happen if this happened without digital means? What would happen if a boy at age 14 for instance exposed himself to a girl that was 14. What would happen if a girl exposed herself to a boy that was 14. What would happen if the same sex exposed themself to the same sex? What would happen if they both did it at the same time (boy/girl boy/boy girl/girl)? Normally I would think this would be a family issue where the two families would deal with it privately. If there is some conflict and it can not get worked out then the law should be involved.

Whatever the answer is to that it should be the same thing regardless of the medium that it was done.

Re:What if it were not digital?

[Harlequin80]

This is what happens

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Re:What if it were not digital?

[tompaulco]

This is what happens

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Just goes to show that abstinence is still far superior birth control than even contraception. Abstinence isn't perfect either. If you are a rich and famous man you can still father children without ever having slept with a girl. However, those cases are as rare as being rich and famous.

Re:What if it were not digital?

[brantondaveperson]

I'm confused. Exposing yourself makes you pregnant?

Re:What if it were not digital?

[SuricouRaven]

Telling people to not have sex is like trying to address the obesity crisis by telling people to not eat unhealthy foods. It's good advice if they can follow it - but there is a billion years worth of heavily ingrained instinct pushing in the opposite direction, and few have the force of will to resist.

Re:What if it were not digital?

[wonkey_monkey]

No, but it's a start.

Re:What if it were not digital?

[tehcyder]

I'm confused. Exposing yourself makes you pregnant?

I believe OP's point was that being hysterical about nudity does not encourage sensible sexual behaviour in teenagers.

Re:What if it were not digital?

[Anonymous Coward]

those who insist in abstinence only are those whose entire system is based on that not working.

Virgin Mary.

Preggers.

Nuff said.

Trying to remember now. How old was Mary when she was "tupped by god"?

Makes sense

[theCzechGuy]

Boy sends a naked picture to a girl, gets a record. She then sends the picture to host of other people with the clear intent to hurt the boy, but that's fine. How was he distributing the picture and she wasn't? That's just... exactly how the world works. Carry on.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't that she didn't distribute the picture. She did, but women are not responsible for their actions. That's why they have a male guardian and can't vote.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 90s when I was in 5th grade, the girls knew this very well and used it to their advantage. On more than one occasion, I saw girls throw something at the teacher with her back turned, and the teacher turned around and blamed a male student and punished him by sending him out in the hall. But in fairness, the one she unfairly punished was a problem student and did that kind of thing.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy sends a naked picture to a girl, gets a record. She then sends the picture to host of other people with the clear intent to hurt the boy, but that's fine. How was he distributing the picture and she wasn't? That's just... exactly how the world works. Carry on.

Well to punish the girl might dissuade her from working in technology. We can't have that now can we?

Re:Makes sense

[Intrepid imaginaut]

It's not how the world works, it's how a justice system which has been completely warped by feminist legbeards works. Think I'm kidding? Think again. If the degree to which an out and out hate movement has co-opted legislation and law enforcement doesn't appall you, it should.

Re:Makes sense

[bondsbw]

But in fairness, the one she unfairly punished was a problem student and did that kind of thing.

No... in "fairness", the girls who threw the object were the problem students. Let the troublemaker boy get punished for his own crimes.

Re:Makes sense

[wonkey_monkey]

Perhaps you should read the article:

his mother was told her son's details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.

Re:Makes sense

[wonkey_monkey]

However, his mother was told her son's details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.

Re:Makes sense

[Obfuscant]

She then sends the picture to host of other people with the clear intent to hurt the boy, but that's fine.

Nobody said that was fine. They said that were she over 18 she could have been charged with "revenge porn" -- which is saying that it isn't fine, just that she's too young to be charged. And they didn't say she didn't end up on the same list, only that there was no information available to know she had.

How was he distributing the picture and she wasn't?

She was, and the article said she was.

Re:Makes sense

[PRMan]

He's male. She's female. Therefore he's a guilty perv and she's completely innocent.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is not charging them but adding them to a public list for 10+ years acceptable?
If you commit a crime as a juvenile and are convicted, your record is (used to be?) expunged once you turned 18.
Here we have 2 stupid kids who did something for which they can NOT be charged but it remains on their "record" years after they reach the age of majority?
That's a conviction & sentence without a trial.

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the "equality" that all the women keep screaming for? Oh wait...

Re:Makes sense

[rmdingler]

Good sir!

If everyone was incapable of ignoring facts, there would be fewer grand, heated arguments.

Re:Makes sense

[rmdingler]

I know you're sentiments are well founded, but in all likelihood, what we are typing right here, right now will be on our records forever.

Re:Makes sense

[tylikcat]

Or y'know, a girl can take pictures of herself, send them to her boyfriend, and be charged for sex crimes against herself. It's not just a gender thing - it's much broader stupidity.

http://www.fayobserver.com/new...

Re:Makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Here I was trying to make logical sense of your earlier comments but I see you hate women because you think they have a leg up in life. I can understand why you're jealous but it's actually just because you're not working hard enough. Maybe if you SJWs vote for more crybabies they'll make your (probably easy) life even easier for you. Good luck!

Re:Makes sense

[TheGratefulNet]

feminist legbeards

new band name. thanks!

(seriously, I never heard that phrase before.)

Re:Makes sense

[ArsenneLupin]

Well to punish the girl might dissuade her from working in technology. We can't have that now can we?

Well, she'll just work in justice then. You don't need an understanding of technology there. And that way, she later can get back at her geeky classmate by punishing him harshly for repairing a friends' computer...

Re:Makes sense

[KGIII]

If I'm understanding the comments properly and recall the history of these such things in the UK then I'm pretty sure this is not a public list at all but a private list maintained internally by the UK police departments. Obviously, I did not read the article but someone was kind enough to quote it above.

Re:Makes sense

[wonkey_monkey]

Therefore he's a guilty perv and she's completely innocent.

Except he's not guilty of anything and she's also been recorded in the same database.

[The boy's] details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.

Re:Makes sense

[tsotha]

In a legal sense, women seem to have no agency. A male teacher sleeps with one of his 12 year old students gets decades of hard time. A woman? Four months probation. Because patriarchy.

Re:Makes sense

[tehcyder]

Perhaps you should read the article

Burn the witch!

Re:Makes sense

[wonkey_monkey]

Burn the witch!

It's a fair cop.

Re:Makes sense

[tehcyder]

If you commit a crime as a juvenile and are convicted, your record is (used to be?) expunged once you turned 18.

Not in the UK.

Cautions will become spent convictions and not discloseable, but certainly any sexual or violent offence involving a conviction will stay on your record and show up in any future DBS check.

Re:Makes sense

[Kartu]

I wonder would would happen if was other way around, seriously.

Re:Makes sense

[Obfuscant]

I know you're sentiments are well founded, but in all likelihood, what we are typing right here, right now will be on our records forever.

Yes, it will. Are you trying to equate posting here with sending naked pictures of yourself to 14 year old girls?

I'll point out that this UK list is nothing unusual. Every time someone calls the cops on someone in the US, that information goes into a database they can access for future reference. That's for both the suspect AND the person who calls. "Have we dealt with this person before" is a question that is important when considering whether the activity is simply "stupid" or has risen to the level of "harassment" or "intentional". That applies to both sides. "We've been called to this house and spoken to Bob about his loud parties three times now, we need to write a ticket instead of a warning", as well as "Frank has called us about the UFOs buzzing his house five times now, maybe we need to give social services a call."

Re:Makes sense

[rmdingler]

Yes, it will. Are you trying to equate posting here with sending naked pictures of yourself to 14 year old girls?

Of course not! Posting here is far more likely evidence of an antiestablishment streak, and therefore, more dangerous to the record-keeping gnomes than a simple pedophile.

I'll point out that this UK list is nothing unusual. Every time someone calls the cops on someone in the US, that information goes into a database they can access for future reference. That's for both the suspect AND the person who calls. "Have we dealt with this person before" is a question that is important when considering whether the activity is simply "stupid" or has risen to the level of "harassment" or "intentional". That applies to both sides. "We've been called to this house and spoken to Bob about his loud parties three times now, we need to write a ticket instead of a warning", as well as "Frank has called us about the UFOs buzzing his house five times now, maybe we need to give social services a call."

I am afraid the evolution of the surveillance machine ensures virtually everything is likely to be recorded from now on.

In keeping with the pink floyd medley

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you eat any pudding if you don't beat your meat...

Parenting failure.

[fishscene]

So... what's the story here? If someone was just a few years older, they could have also been charged? Let me clear some things up for us here. Parenting failure = Stupid judicial oversight, bizarre scenarios with society, and things blown out of proportion. The state in NO WAY WHATSOEVER have anything to do with this situation. At all. Kid sends picture to another kid. Not only should the boy be disciplined, but maybe the girl's parents should step in and set some limits for their child as well. And did I see that she distributed it? My point is this: We are pathetic. We blame others and at the drop of a hat, we bring civil charges to each other. It's disturbing, costs a LOT, and shows now love and respect to our fellow human beings. It's sad he has a record for the next 10 years. It's also sad he did that in the first place, but there *must* be consequences and if we aren't willing to work out consequences amongst ourselves, as RESPONSIBLE adults, we get stupid crap situations like this. Notice how I'm not directly blaming his parents or her parents, but addressing it as a problem of us. It's because I see this happening FAR too often. /endrant

Re:Parenting failure.

[Anonymous Coward]

there *must* be consequences

Sorry, why must there be consequences? Why is it being taking as a fundamental truth that the kids did anything wrong here? Why exactly is it that, at the arbitrary age of 16 (this is the UK), suddenly anything and everything sexual is ok, but, before that anything and everything sexual requires "consequences"? Or, what level of sexual activity requires consequences? Does looking at the opposite sex require consequences. Dancing with a good half metre of space between? Dancing with *gasp*... touching? Kissing? Kissing with *tongues*!? Light petting? Medium petting? Heavy petting? I'll show you mine and you show me yours? Digital (fingers) sex? Digital (computers) sex? Oral sex? Vaginal sex? Vaginal sex with interesting positions? Anal sex? Kinky sex? Group orgies? Where do _you_ draw the line!? What's your logical, reasoned argument for why everyone should draw the line exactly where you do? What do you say about parents whose standards are less strict than yours? For that matter, what do you say about parents whose standards are more strict than yours? What level of "consequences" do you support? Do you think that girls who perform sex acts before marriage (consensually), should be honour-killed?

Seriously, what is wrong with you people. So many people seem to be so harshly judgmental. It's so freaking disturbing. I was that age once. I was the goody two shoes, innocent, one who would have never done anything like this ever. Meanwhile, I know that a good 70+ percent of my age-mates were up to things like this constantly. Where are their voices now? I'll tell you where they are. They've mostly joined the chorus of the harshly judgemental.

Re:Parenting failure.

[Anonymous Coward]

Far more importantly; why must those consequences be as though the one too young to do these sexual acts was an adult? Are they not to be punished because they were too young to perform these acts? Why are they suddenly treated as adults? If they are adults, it is now acceptable for them to perform these acts. When you place that boy on the registries, does he also gain an early drivers license? Early voters cards? Why can he not drink? Because he is still a child? Decide!

Re: Parenting failure.

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand. The nature of the act has nothing to do with it. There must be consequences because lessons must be taught. Civilization only works if people understand that they must obey the rules without question. Letting even a kid go without appropriate punishment would encourage others. Authority must not be challenged. Destroy this kid, save civilization. It's that simple.

so they should

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, why do people on slashdot think that it's ok for 14 year olds to do this? Would you want pictures of yourself at 14 naked to end up on the internet? It's wrong on so many levels and if we let this sort of thing continue then we're going to have an even more messed up world than we already have.

Re:so they should

[unimacs]

There lots of stupid things that 14 year olds can do which can be harmful to themselves and to others without being criminal. This kid may have trouble getting employment when he's 24 because of what he did when he was 14. In my opinion, one 14 year old sending a naked picture of themselves to another 14 year old requires some parental intervention, but it isn't criminal (unless it's in violation of some restraining order) and shouldn't become part of any police record.

As a culture, it seems we need to take a deep breath and figure out what is truly damaging behavior for teenagers and what is normal exploration of sexuality. Technology opens the doors to behaviors that weren't open before. What are the real consequences for those behaviors? Like I said, I don't believe that one boy sending a naked picture of himself to one girl is going to destroy her under most circumstances. However, what if 15 boys in a class thought it would be funny to send a naked pic of themselves to the same girl and they kept doing it over period of weeks and months? That I could see as being extremely traumatic for her.

Re:so they should

[RabidReindeer]

As a culture we need to take a deep breath and figure out when our attempts to "protect" children are significantly more traumatic and damaging than simply leaving them to resolve their problems themselves.

And start by remembering that not so long ago, 14-year old kids would be expected by their elders and the community to have already started raising their own kids. Which takes a lot more than just looking at pictures.

Somehow we managed to survive that for many millennia.

Re:so they should

[Anonymous Coward]

... Or enjoyable for her.

Re:so they should

[unimacs]

Just because we survived as a species does not mean that young girls lead idyllic lives when they were married off or sold into slavery at 13. When whole populations could be wiped out by disease, famine, or war, producing lots of babies was important to survival. Even then, there were pretty strict mores regarding sex. Violating them could mean a death sentence or being ostracized.

Typically, as societies become more successful and wealthy, women have fewer kids and wait until later in life to have them. And even though we are physically able to produce children at young ages, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Our brains aren't fully developed until around age 25 or so. Because of this many adolescents are practically wired to make crappy decisions. Sometimes the natural consequences are what's necessary to keep them from repeating the same mistakes. Other times some intervention or prevention is necessary. Lots of teens are definitely at risk for suicide. You don't always want to wait for them to work it out themselves.

I have a 15 year old son, and a 12 year old daughter so I'm right in the middle of this. Even though my son's hormones are raging and my daughter's are headed in that direction, they aren't even close to being physically or emotionally mature. They do not have the means to raise a child on their own. Of course, there is such a thing as birth control, but the chemical methods have bad side effects and potential health risks when used for a long time. Non-chemical methods tend not to be that reliable. So delaying full blown sex until their later teens or early twenties is something we'd like to see. Definitely past 14. Past 17 is probably pushing it, but we can hope. 17 is the current average for when kids become sexually active.

Re:so they should

[SuricouRaven]

Look into the IUD. Highly reliable, so simple a teenager can use it, minimal side effects.

Re:so they should

[RabidReindeer]

I'm not leading an idyllic life. Are you?

It's not about "idyllic", it's about relative levels of psychological damage.

And you can "like to see" sex delayed until 40, for all most teens care. They may not be making mature decisions, but they're still making them.

Re:so they should

[unimacs]

I'm not leading an idyllic life. Are you?

It's not about "idyllic", it's about relative levels of psychological damage.

And you can "like to see" sex delayed until 40, for all most teens care. They may not be making mature decisions, but they're still making them.

Idyllic? No. Pretty good? Yes. Far better than my life would likely have been like 1000 years ago. Very good chance I wouldn't have even lived this long.

Would you prefer to be living back when it was common for girls to be having kids by the time they were 14? How many sane women would want that?

My son has had "girlfriends" fairly regularly since he was 14. One of them from last year had to change schools when she was 12 or 13 because she had a "reputation" at her previous school as a result of various rumors. Some kid ended up groping her. This made her quite skittish around boys. Though you wouldn't expect any relationship among 15 year olds to last very long, the one she had with my son ended partially because of that. She's struggling. He goes to a small school. We know her parents.

I've seen many of his texts and unfortunately some of the pictures that have gotten exchanged between he and his friends. For the most part I consider it normal and harmless but it can very easily go too far and cause some real difficulties. He lost his phone for quite awhile because he made some bad decisions and we discovered them before it got worse.

So yes, they make decisions, and yes they should be allowed to make mistakes, - but there are times when parents need to step in.

Re:so they should

[Anonymous Coward]

'young girls lead idyllic lives when they were married off or sold into slavery at 13'

Why do people always think this only happened to girls? Hate to burst your bubble but boys where also sold off into slavery.

And now the photo will be uploaded...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to a huge database where a hash is made of it and distributed to police and service providers across the world. So:

The recipient's decision to pass it on to friends to embarrass the boy is not criminal; and
the decision of governments to allow an organisation(*) to keep a permanent copy of the picture is for the protection of children like the picture's subject; but
the subject's decision to make and send the picture in the first place is criminal.

In summary, you are criminalised and have your privacy permanently violated for your own protection.

(*) Which happens to be a private profit-making company, not a government organisation. The more you know.

I hate child abuse, and this is a fine example of child abuse.

Saved snapchat

[silas_moeckel]

Isn't that impossible she must be a hacker. So she distributed kiddy porn and was an evil hacker violating snapchats TOS. Oh thats right the SJW's would call charging her abusing the victim.

It's some young teenage kids trying to figure out sex it should have not made it past the headmaster and parents. It's not like it should have been shocking the UK age of consent is what 16? Mind you the two of them can have sex without legal issue throw snapchat into the mix and now it's a serious crime?

Re:Saved snapchat

[Anonymous Coward]

You can most certainly save snapchats. Just take a screenshot of your phone while viewing the image - the sender is notified that you took a screenshot, but it doesn't stop you.

Regardless, if the boy is punished for sending the image and she shared the image, she should not get of scot-free.

Re:Saved snapchat

[cascadingstylesheet]

Mind you the two of them can have sex without legal issue throw snapchat into the mix and now it's a serious crime?

Maybe it's that that's the problem? Kind of defines deviancy down, doesn't it?

Sexting can harm children

[hawguy]

It's nice that the police said:

"'Sexting' may seem like a harmless or normal activity but there are many risks involved. Once circulated, the sender loses all control of that image and can cause significant distress when it gets into wider hands. It is essential that we work, alone and alongside partners such as schools and families, to intervene early and prevent young people from becoming both the victims and perpetrators of crime."

How nice of the police to recognize that sexting has risks, and then they demonstrate that the police response is the biggest risk by filing a police report that will follow him for the next 10 years.

Re:Sexting can harm children

[tompaulco]

It's nice that the police said:

"'Sexting' may seem like a harmless or normal activity but there are many risks involved. Once circulated, the sender loses all control of that image and can cause significant distress when it gets into wider hands. It is essential that we work, alone and alongside partners such as schools and families, to intervene early and prevent young people from becoming both the victims and perpetrators of crime."

How nice of the police to recognize that sexting has risks, and then they demonstrate that the police response is the biggest risk by filing a police report that will follow him for the next 10 years.

This is really dumb. This is like being arrested for "accessory to burglary" if you fail to lock your door.

Re:Sexting can harm children

[serviscope_minor]

Yes, the biggest risk of sexting is that the police are in fact total bastards. He's learned a very, very important lesson.

Not a Sex Offender's Register

[mentil]

I RTFA (I know)
He wasn't placed on a sex offender's register (last I heard, the UK declined to implement one), rather a registry of people who have had legal complaints filed with the police agency. Someone (probably a tip from whatever social network the picture was shared on) notified the police about it, and a public record was automatically made about that notification. The police didn't press charges, as they claim to be lenient about teen sexting; an actual modification to the law would be a better option than selective enforcement, however. A bigger problem is that a publicly-searchable registry exists of people who have been accused of a crime, even if the police thought there wasn't enough of a case/cause to arrest or prosecute them. Most people never get called on their 3 felonies per day, so it can be used to single out people no more guilty than typical.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[Shimbo]

We do have a sex offenders register but we don't have felonies in the UK. As regards the public searchability of it - it's not exactly public information but might be disclosed to a potential employer, if relevant. So he wanted to become a teacher, it would be a problem but it wouldn't be disclosed to everyone who asked.

On the existance of a 'suspicion' registry - it's a tricky issue. Often people convicted of serious sexual offences leave a trail of prior allegations and suspicions behind them. It's tempting to take the position that until something is proved in court the only fair thing is to do nothing about it. I'm not sure that gets the balance right - you risk harm to innocent parties in either case, so there is no good solution. Obviously, this is over the top in this case - sadly police have got more process driven, and common sense has gone out of the window a bit.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[dryeo]

Most people never get called on their 3 felonies per day, so it can be used to single out people no more guilty than typical.

Most people don't do 3 felonies a day. I personally haven't done a felony in over 30 years (when I last visited the USA) and 95% of the worlds population seldom if ever visit the "Land of the Free" which is the only place that has felons (a class of people who have their rights curtailed forever, originally so the King could take their property (fief)).

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[khallow]

It's tempting to take the position that until something is proved in court the only fair thing is to do nothing about it. I'm not sure that gets the balance right - you risk harm to innocent parties in either case, so there is no good solution.

It's not just tempting, it's the right thing to do. The problem here is what's the threshold of proof to get on a list of "suspicion" registry? If it's not just as firm as actual conviction of a crime, then it's punishment without due process, perhaps libel as well.

A free society has no place for public accusations or suspicions without evidence that can be gamed by anyone with a grudge, particularly the authorities.

Obviously, this is over the top in this case - sadly police have got more process driven, and common sense has gone out of the window a bit.

There's one word to describe this situation - unaccountability. Established procedures can be used to insure that some common task, such as arresting someone, is done right. But they can also be used to evade responsibility. Zero tolerance policies and similarly heavy-handed responses no matter how slight the issue are an example of procedure gone wrong.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[KGIII]

Hmm... So if I murder someone and have not yet been proven guilty then I should be allowed to roam the street freely? The sentiment is nice but I don't think it works well in the real world.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[Imrik]

If the prosecutors have decided not to file charges against you then yes, you should be allowed to roam the street freely.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[khallow]

So if I murder someone and have not yet been proven guilty then I should be allowed to roam the street freely? The sentiment is nice but I don't think it works well in the real world.

It works better in the real world than punishing people on flimsy excuses.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[KGIII]

That may be true but I think your statement is a little overly broad. This person should not be in jail, he's a kid. (He's not on some public facing list, either.) I don't have much of a problem with that - we keep police records regardless of convictions and typical background checks only cover convictions, at least in my country. The UK may have a different policy.

Then, there are exceptions. There are folks who have been accused of crimes so terrible that we have chosen to give up rights in order to incarcerate them for the protection of the rest of society. Your view doesn't include those folks and I'm afraid you're definitely in the minority on this one. I'm a pretty damned big fan of liberties and, well, even I can see the sense in this policy. Not that it isn't abused nor is the UK's system free from abuses. However, I see the logic behind it and tend to agree.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[KGIII]

How does that relate to the topic at hand? Beating up straw men is easy. You'll win this way, for sure. I'm really curious what your point is, as you might have one. Initially I was going to just ignore you but I figure I'll ask.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[tehcyder]

Most people never get called on their 3 felonies per day, so it can be used to single out people no more guilty than typical.

Most people don't do 3 felonies a day. I personally haven't done a felony in over 30 years (when I last visited the USA) and 95% of the worlds population seldom if ever visit the "Land of the Free" which is the only place that has felons (a class of people who have their rights curtailed forever, originally so the King could take their property (fief)).

It is a right wing meme that the government has created so many laws that everyone is guilty of breaking x number every day without realising it. There's a quote from (of course) Ayn Rand that they usually drag in to "prove" their point, but I can't be arsed to find it.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[dryeo]

Until you are taken in front of a Judge and formally charged with a crime, the State should not be able to hold you excepting the reasonable time it takes to be put in front of a Judge, 72 hours is often considered that reasonable time.
Upon being charged with a crime, the Judge can order that you are kept in jail or released with conditions pending trial. For murder, the Judge is likely to order that you are kept in jail or if released, there will be a large bail condition as well as other conditions.
If charges are dropped, then you are released. Otherwise eventually, in a reasonable time, there is a trial and found guilty or acquitted. If acquitted you are released and your records should be locked up or destroyed.
Note that even if accused of murder, you are allowed to roam the street freely until charged and brought before a Judge on those charges and if the prosecution decides to drop the charges, perhaps due to lack of evidence, you are once again free to roam the streets. The point is that it takes a Judge to order your freedom to be removed, a simple accusation is not enough, at least in a free country.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[khallow]

There are folks who have been accused of crimes so terrible that we have chosen to give up rights in order to incarcerate them for the protection of the rest of society. Your view doesn't include those folks and I'm afraid you're definitely in the minority on this one.

We already have laws and legal processes in place for those people. There's nothing to fix here, except perhaps getting a more competent and professional police force. Due process is a core part of democratic law because it has long been the case that wrongful and unjust punishment is a more serious problem than letting a few murderers go for lack of evidence.

He's not on some public facing list, either.

Even if that were true (it's not since the public can access the list as was noted in the second paragraph of the story), he's still on a list that the police can see and that info can be used against him at a later time.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[KGIII]

That's well and good but the statement really indicated that they didn't want people to be punished without due process - due process itself allows punishment prior to prosecution - ie. the 72 hour hold.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[dryeo]

In theory, the 72 hour thing isn't supposed to be punishment, though in practice having to spend any time in jail is punishment and if you are remanded into custody and spend months waiting for trial, that can be pretty punishing as well.
The point is that if not convicted, you should not be put on a list, records should be destroyed or at least locked up.
For example in Canada, they're supposed to destroy your fingerprints 6 months after acquittal or 1 year after a stay of charges and other records buried. Not only that, but it takes a Judges order, usually at sentencing, to be put on the sex offenders list. Same with things like firearms restrictions, happens as part of sentencing, when appropriate rather then a blanket class of people with restrictions on their rights forever.

Re:Not a Sex Offender's Register

[KGIII]

In my view even a minute in jail is a punishment regardless of intent. Removing someone's freedom is just about the greatest punishment we can do - I'd say it is more punishing than death but I have a rather pragmatic view.

"Hang me oh hang me, so I'll be dead and gone.
Hang me oh hang me, so I'll be dead and gone.
I wouldn't mind your hanging boy,
But your waiting jail cell walls."
                                                                                  -- Grateful Dead - All Around This World

Of additional importance is that this is not a public facing record but an internal record. It is the same as the police keeping a record of the number of times you've been stopped on the highway and not cited. They keep those records. They don't generally turn up anywhere else, not even on background checks - even though everyone here seems to think they do.

Anyhow, the OP clearly indicated that they don't want people punished prior to convictions. That's a noble statement and one that's tough to argue against unless we stop to realize that we live in the real world. We have, indeed, elected to give up essential liberties in favor of security - that's exactly what the 72 hour hold is. That's what incarceration prior to conviction is. It's rife with abuse, it's abhorrent, and it is essentially skirting due process. It, other than the abuse, is pretty much a requirement and, honestly, I can't think of a better solution.

Still better than the US

[watermark]

This is still better than the US. He would have had to register as a sex offender, which is a life-long sentence. He would not allowed to live near a school or attend a school, and would have to notify his neighbors that he is a registered sex offender...for the rest of his life.

Re:Still better than the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Pissing outside will also get you on the US sex offender list.

Re:Still better than the US

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that constitutional?
Aren't there rules against forcing people to speak?

Re:Still better than the US

[rmdingler]

Pissing outside will also get you on the US sex offender list.

To be fair, that would only happen if you had your twig out.

Mister.

Re:Still better than the US

[KGIII]

Nah, they have multiple classes. His would not be considered a predator so would end up on the list for a shorter time frame at least that's what the various lists I've checked indicate. I'm not sure why your post is moderated as informative when it is factually incorrect. They have life-time registrants but those are for predatory offenses in every list I've ever looked at.

Also, few of those other things you mention are laws (in most states) but are probation conditions. They're generally free to live most anywhere (and certainly are after they've been removed from the list in cases like this), attend school, etc... Notification is the law, that much is true I think?

This could have changed but I was recently checking an area where I was thinking about buying some property and it was still the same there.

Re:Still better than the US

[Imrik]

In most jurisdictions this is only true if you aren't trying to avoid being seen.

Re:Still better than the US

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Damn you are crazy around there. I'd be a multiple repeat sex offender there then. Glad I don't live there, so I don't have to pee in my pants when nature calls.

I'm scared to speak out against child porn laws

[Anonymous Coward]

But I've decided it has to be said. Speaking out against child pornography legislation is dangerous with social justice warriors advocating a bunch of nonsense and using emotional scaremongering. We have all been told child pornography is this horrible thing that scars children for life and furthers abuse of children. It's not. It's the societal response to sex that's emotionally damaging. We're the problem, not the paedophiles. The government and social justice warriors are using paedophiles for political gain just like they have for anarchists, communists, and the ever so scary pot smoker.

What we get when we accept these positions is a draconian set of laws and unjustifiable persecution of a minority. There is no data on what percentage of paedophiles are molesting children because such data can't be articulated when homosexuality and paedophilia have been or are illegal. Some drug dealers murder people, but not all pot smokers are murders. Child pornography is little different and it's no different than adult pornography in that its users are not all a bunch or rapists. Thats the most illogical conclusion you can come to if your rational adult. The real-world studies suggest that the legalization of pornography reduces rape so what logic is there in outlawing child pornography? There is none. If the social justice warriors and politics really cared about children they wouldn't be banning it. They'd be flooding the market with it.

Instead what we get form these positions is censorship that is used by the elite to abuse society. From copyright and political censorship to the violation of the rights of the *children* to be free from undue government intervention.

Lets stop this now! Write your politicians *in favour of legalization* and fix the real problem: stop looking at sex as some sort of deviant acts. This isn't the dark ages and sex is a *human* condition. It's not something to be ashamed of.

Re:I'm scared to speak out against child porn laws

[HiThere]

To be fair, I'm not sure that "child pornography for gain" should be decriminalized. And if "child pornography" were sufficiently narrowly and precisely defined it would probably be reasonable. (Nothing wrong with pictures of children, no matter what they aren't wearing. The nude picture of a naked child on a bear rug should only raise the hackles of conservationists. Etc. Pictured of forcible penetration, OTOH, are probably reprehensible outside of academic courses on abnormal psychology...and to be handled with restraint even there.)

Then we come to the totally stupid question of whether a drawing of a child engaged in erotic(?) activity is pornography. Unless you can show that the drawing was made from life there's no question of any child being damaged in the creation of the work. So that should totally NOT be considered "child pornography", even though it may clearly be pornography. The sole purpose of child pornography laws should be to protect children, and even then mainly against those who are more powerful than they are. (I am willing to consider mobbing behavior to be criminal, I just think it needs a different class of laws.)

Re:I'm scared to speak out against child porn laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Your missing the point. A photograph can't hurt anyone. We (society) photograph children all the time. You don't prosecute people for this. Most of the time people don't even know they are being photographed. So obviously the act of photographing is not the crux of the problem.

It's the violation of another persons space against there will that is a real problem. Rape it is rape and if a child is forcefully raped against there will you should prosecute the person committing that rape.

What they call child pornography though is also not necessarily a picture of a person being raped. They classify erotica and even non-erotic nudity as child pornography.

Then there is a system of classification in at least some countries that makes no sense in regards to the materials that are found in prosecutions. If you limit the availability of pornography materials those who are seeking a particular sexual niche (particular of a sexual niche) are going to end up saving materials that are not what they otherwise seek out. It might be that 95% of the material on the internet is nothing but erotica and it might be that this is what makes up the majority of content saved by an offender, but that doesn't mean that other 5% has any significance to the persons willingness to act violently.

There are all sorts of sexual kinks people have including BSDM and it doesn't mean that people who like BSDM (even involving children) are going to go out and commit violent acts against other people. To draw that connection you'd have to take an imprisoned population and study it and then wrongly draw that conclusion. This is sadly what is going on. However logically it seems that your going to get the wrong view of things. If you take doctors who are imprisoned chances are more of them will have committed some violent act too, but you can't conclude from that that all doctors are violent. It is most likely the case that there are more violent paedophiles in prison than non-violent paedophiles. Unless the government is succeeding in in locking up all paedophiles (which seems highly doubtful).

Re:I'm scared to speak out against child porn laws

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats's the thing isn't it.
I can almost guarantee that if I ever had kids there'll be pictures taken of them having their first bath, being bathed later, running under sprinklers, or other situations where they'll be unclothed. It's not porn to me, but it's almost certain that there would be some people somewhere that would get aroused by it, so it'd be porn for them.
Having said that, I'm not about to go sending the photos out willy nilly.

Re:I'm scared to speak out against child porn laws

[tehcyder]

We have all been told child pornography is this horrible thing that scars children for life and furthers abuse of children.

That's because it is, and it does, if you're referring to actual pictures/videos of children being raped.

I agree that one teenager sending another teenager a naked pic is not the same thing.

What's with these laws today?

[Lothsahn]

Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?

Assistant Chief Constable on the radio this am ..

[niks42]

.. made some good points.

The school raised it with the police, and they are duty bound to record the 'offence'. However, that is no guarantee it would ever surface again. In the future, if young man decides to go for a job in public service - a policeman, teacher, lollypop man, chat show host - whatever, then the process would be:

Potential employer would ask for a Criminal Records Bureau check. Check would come back positive, at which point the police have the right to decide it was too long ago, too trivial etc and can ignore the finding. Second, they would contact the young man and tell him that they have received a request, and that the CRB check has turned something up.
Young man then has the option to challenge the CRB check, and it may at that point go no further. Only if those two hurdles are tripped over would the result return to the potential employer, who themselves might decide it is all bollocks and ignore it.

Who is at fault here? The boy for doing something childish? Hardly. Apart from the inconvenience of a few photons, it is unlikely to be a novel picture that causes a particular offence. The girl for doing something irresponsible as well? Dubious, really. Even if she forwarded it with a bit of libellous writing attached, hardly the crime of the century. The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.

Ironically... this is why we need pedophilia

[Karmashock]

Some people need a van with candy cruising around town to have a reason not to send pictures of their penis to people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This man is doing a public service...

Not really... but I'm attracted to perverse arguments... :D

Fair enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

If a classmate had *sent* him a nude photo of themselves, HE would *still* be the one hauled off over it. As the sender of the photos, he's oppressing threatening someone. As the receiver of them, he'd still be oppressing and threatening them.

Find a better source

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be better to find a source that knew the Criminal Records Bureau was replaced in 2012.

Objectivity, lost.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 3 things to observe about this case:
1. The kid is a dumb idiot and needs to be punished for sending naked pics.
2. The girl is a dumb idiot and needs to be punished for further forwarding and spreading the pics.
3. The police are dumb idiots who have such a low standard, and such low quality as a police force, that publicizing and making a police statement out of a god damn random teenager over naked pics is something they are more proud of; instead of seeking to publicize and make statements about real crime with real criminals that would actually require effort and principles (in the case of corrupt politicians which there are plenty of).

Captcha: excrete
How fitting.

Re:Assistant Chief Constable on the radio this am

[Anonymous Coward]

All that bullshit bureaucracy for sending / distributing a photo?
That's quite a few civil servants justifying their cushy jobs.

Re:Assistant Chief Constable on the radio this am

[Anonymous Coward]

England must be better than the U.S. then. As a civil servant in a cushy Computer Programmer/Analyst position I am grossing just over 40k per year. It is going to take 10-20 years to pay back the student loans. Cushy? Really? Don't believe everything that you think.

Law in the UK?

[PPH]

The police determine the guilt/innocence of a suspect? And they determine the remedial and/or punitive measures to be taken?

What did you folks do with your courts? Please don't tell me you closed them. I thought those wigs were cool.

Re:Law in the UK?

[wonkey_monkey]

The police determine the guilt/innocence of a suspect? And they determine the remedial and/or punitive measures to be taken?

No, they don't. What made you think that?

No-one's been found guilty of anything. Events occured. The police were inolved. They have made a record of this.

Re:Law in the UK?

[PPH]

From TFA:

A teenage boy has had a crime of making and distributing indecent images recorded against him

In the USA, no crime is recorded until the courts return a verdict of guilty.

Huh?

[cascadingstylesheet]

I guess I'm supposed to be shocked by the headline? Oh noos.

If you'd prefer he get an @ss-whupping or psychiatric treatment instead, OK, I guess that would work.

Re:Assistant Chief Constable on the radio this am

[quenda]

The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.

You can't just blame the teacher in isolation. The UK, more than anywhere else, has long been in the grip of a "peds under the bed" hysteria.
It is a society that may have made the teacher afraid for he job if she did not report it.

Fucking Christ can we stop this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we please stop persecuting children because they're dumb children? You know, because THEY'RE CHILDREN!

Jesus fucking Christ on a stick, humanity is stupid and lawyers suck donkey balls (all day, and they love it).

If she shared . . .

[hduff]

If the girl shared the pictures, she's just as guilty and should be treated the same.

Re:If she shared . . .

[wonkey_monkey]

And so she was:

[The boy's] details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.

Re:If she shared . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

If you say so. Good it was the girl spreading around the pictures, if it were the boy I bet he would be convicted.

What? No Mad Dogs?

[JimSadler]

At least they are not as off the wall as the US about such things. It is not at all unusual for 14 year olds to have sex in the US and it is not something that will be stopped. Whether he or she puts images on the net is not something anyone should worry about. i know people need false things to worry about but seriously i don't see child molesters behind every shrub in America. The US has been on a witch hunt for at least fifty years and that witch hunt has not done one bit of good for the kids nor anyone else. It does far more harm to a kid to see a parent using a bit of alcohol than getting involved in sex early in life will ever do. Parents have huge, negative effects upon children.

Re:What? No Mad Dogs?

[wonkey_monkey]

i know people need false things to worry about but seriously i don't see child molesters behind every shrub in America.

That's because they've learned how not to be seen!

Re:What? No Mad Dogs?

[Anonymous Coward]

... Parents have huge, negative effects upon children.

The job of parents is to protect children from intense physical and emotional distress. So leaving aside addiction or violence, most parents achieve that. Parents fail in two areas: 1) Overestimating the emotional damage an adult activity will cause. Eg nudity or public fucking. Being an important experience to adults doesn't make it important to children. 2) Underestimating the emotional strength a child has: This is aimed at teenagers who are trying to understand their mood swings and their sexual attraction to other people. Parents further avoid this topic because A) they never developed a fundamental knowledge of this problem themselves, and B) they can't remember how they learnt the skills they used to survive their own puberty.

Re:What? No Mad Dogs?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm disappointed that you didn't link to this.

Knew a person arrested for peeing in public

[Trax3001BBS]

As out of the way as one does, he was convicted of a sex crime.

Re:Knew a person arrested for peeing in public

[ArsenneLupin]

You can get convicted for a sex crime for about anything. I knew a guy who got convicted for a sex crime for having used the command dpkg --purge. Turned out the forensic "expert" knew nothing about Linux, and figured that this is a command to remove all traces of kiddie porn...

Police motivation

[Anonymous Coward]

What's astonishing is that this child was interviewed by Police in his School's h=Headmasters Office and made to give a confession under duress without the usual legal protections. All of which has led to a criminal conviction against the child.

The Police clearly were interested in the conviction rather than the safety and protection of the boy in this instance.

Re:Police motivation

[wonkey_monkey]

All of which has led to a criminal conviction against the child.

No, it has not. He hasn't been convicted of anything.

Lean to read.

PUT HIM IN JAIL FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE!

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeez. What a mess our so-called civilized societies are turning into. And this all while we watch. Deppressing, ain't it?

cow yeah!

[Anonymous Coward]

hit them hard!

Re:Assistant Chief Constable on the radio this am

[thegarbz]

The fault surely lay with the teacher for propagating the pain, and not dealing with it sensibly in loco parentis.

The teacher is a single person working in a larger system. I ask you, what would have happened if the teacher didn't propagate this up the chain and news got out? Do you think people would accept the appropriate judgement of the teacher? In much of the Western world we'd be asking for the teacher's head and to remove them from the classroom.

The problem is the wider system that attempts to repress sexuality out of what I can't imagine as being anything other than fear. Remember we're talking about a country where two sexual acts between consenting adults is considered illegal (some forms of BDSM, and most forms if recorded.)

The girl was also put in the database

[wonkey_monkey]

A lot of people have leapt to the conclusion that the girl got away scot-free.

From the BBC article on the same story:

[The boy's] details - along with those of the girl involved and another teenager - had been added to a police intelligence database and could be stored for at least 10 years.

Not as widely reported...

[hyades1]

The Stoney Creek Times-Untelligenser claims that having seen evidence of what the young man has on offer, nearly three hundred of the young lady's closest friends have sent him text messages, five policewomen have suggested he agree to a further interview in more friendly surroundings, and a calls of an undefined nature from the local priest have maxed out his voice mail.

And the Essex Pig Company has invited him to cut the ribbon at their new sausage factory in Swansea.

10 years offender registry

[sad_]

10 years on the sex offenders register, article will stay on the internet forever.

ONE. OR THE OTHER.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are either children, and do not know what they're doing, and thus cannot vote, drink, drive, decide what to do with their own bodies or be held responsible for their actions
Or they are NOT children, and DO know what they're doing, and can thus vote, drink, drive, decide what to do with their own bodies and be held responsible for their actions.

What we have here are corrupt monsters having it both ways; holding kids responsible for doing things that they are - by virtue of being too young to know what they are doing - not allowed to do; things they WOULD be allowed to do if they were old enough to know what they are doing.

These disgusting sons of bitches are having it both ways in an unacceptable power-trip.

You know who else has that? those other monsters running dickass cults like the 'tribes'.

Re:How to Shove a Yoda Doll up your ass! The 9 Ste

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, that was insightful!

I've always wondered how to (correctly) shove a Yoda doll up my ass, and the Internet was surprisingly void of useful information about this topic prior to your post.

Eat your cake and have it too

[phorm]

Simply enough:

Either
a) At 14 he's a child enough that he shouldn't be facing (long-term life-damaging) adult consequences for his actions
or
b) At 14 he's adult enough to face such consequences. However then he's an adult and therefore the pictures shouldn't be considered underage.

Essentially, they're considering him under-age for the purpose of posting pictures, but of-age for the purpose of being charged/registered. What a crock.