Sexting: Think of the Children!

Quote:

---

PHILADELPHIA - A teenage girl who appeared topless in a "sexting" cell phone picture that was distributed among her middle-school classmates should face child-pornography charges, a Pennsylvania prosecutor argued before a U.S. appellate court on Friday.

In the first U.S. case to test the constitutional status of "sexting," the American Civil Liberties Union countered that the incident does not come close to meeting the definition of child pornography which typically depicts graphic sexual acts with minors and is done for commercial gain.

The ACLU also said the Wyoming County prosecutor erred when he threatened 16 teenagers with the felony charges unless they agreed to a participate in a "re-education" course on why sexting was wrong.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals was considering a March 2009 court ruling that said the pictures, in which teenagers sent sexually suggestive pictures of themselves to their friends by cellphones or the Internet, fall under the U.S. Constitution's free speech protections.

Officials of the Tunkhannock School District in rural northeastern Pennsylvania contacted the county prosecutor's office in January 2008 after finding pictures on the cell phones of the 16 students.

Most of their families agreed to undertake a "re-education" program called for by the prosecutor, but three refused. Prosecutors were seeking to press charges against one of the three girls.

Pictures showed two of the girls wearing white bras and another standing topless outside a shower with a towel wrapped around her waist, the ACLU said. The pictures did not show any sexual activity.

MaryJo Miller said outside the appeals court on Friday that the picture of her daughter, who was wearing a bra, was originally taken in 2006 when she was 12 years old and attending a slumber party.

When she saw the picture, she thought the girls were "goofballs," Miller told reporters. "It was a training bra. You are going to see more provocative photos in a Victoria's Secret catalog."

But the county argued that the pictures were pornographic because they were disseminated for the purposes of sexual stimulation and so would be of great interest to child molesters.

Appellate Judge Thomas Ambro said prosecutors are not entitled to try to "re-educate" minors. "I don't know of anything that allows the district attorney's office to play the role of teacher," he said.

The court is expected to rule within 90 days.

---

Source

We've had some discussion on similar topics in the past. I'm wondering if anyone here actually supports these 'sexting' prosecutions. GGT?

What does prosecuting them achieve, exactly?

Maybe we should confiscate all under-16s sexual organs. Then they wouldnt be able to get up to any mischief, would they?

Or we could burkha them up...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spawnie

What does prosecuting them achieve, exactly?

Maybe we should confiscate all under-16s sexual organs. Then they wouldnt be able to get up to any mischief, would they?

Or we could burkha them up...

---

If there existed a way to suppress sexual urges in "children" (People under 21/unmarried) without jeopardizing their physical development (mental and emotional not so important), you can bet your world-weary tucus there'd be people all for that shit.

The arguement that outside of their context they could be used for the gratifcation of paedophiles is so lame I really have no words for it. If out of context use would be the norm forl legality we'd be Phoxing society so hard that living itself could be a crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wraith

We've had some discussion on similar topics in the past. I'm wondering if anyone here actually supports these 'sexting' prosecutions. GGT?

---

Prosecuting the kids and parents? No.

Prosecuting an adult who finds/takes nude images and distributes them to other adults as "kiddie titillation"? Probably.

This brave new cyber cell phone world is getting complicated. Maybe it's not even about pornography but privacy? Kids do stupid things, and almost never understand possible down-sides, or that just because they can do something--doesn't mean they should.

Parents are being stupid, too, for giving kids phones that take pics, but don't teach them about 'the big bad world' that IS out there, or that their naive view of privacy can back fire. Hell, I'd bet most parents don't even know the apps their kids are using.

For all the talk of this generation being tech savy, they don't understand what going viral means. It's not limited to phones either; it applies to social networks like Facebook and Myspace, too.

Sounds like a teachable moment to me, more than anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Prosecuting the kids and parents? No.

Prosecuting an adult who finds/takes nude images and distributes them to other adults as "kiddie titillation"? Probably.

This brave new cyber cell phone world is getting complicated. Maybe it's not even about pornography but privacy? Kids do stupid things, and almost never understand possible down-sides, or that just because they can do something--doesn't mean they should.

Parents are being stupid, too, for giving kids phones that take pics, but don't teach them about 'the big bad world' that IS out there, or that their naive view of privacy can back fire. Hell, I'd bet most parents don't even know the apps their kids are using.

For all the talk of this generation being tech savy, they don't understand what going viral means. It's not limited to phones either; it applies to social networks like Facebook and Myspace, too.

Sounds like a teachable moment to me, more than anything.

---

I'm sorry but there's just no way you can put any kind of positive spin on a prosecutor going after teens taking pictures of themselves for other teens.

Production of child porn is generally considered reprehensible because it hurts kids involved in the production. Teens exploring their sexuality and bodies is a part of their development. To go after them as if they intended to produce fodder for kiddy diddlers is beyond insane.

These pictures can leak around, sure. Might even be embarrassing for the kids in question later on in life. And parents should talk to their kids about sex and sexuality and how maybe it's not the best idea to let Lance, your 23-year-old biker boyfriend, to take nudies of you for his buddies. But none of that has anything to do with some ham-fisted prosecutor fishing for a place in the public eye.

And where did I say prosecutors should go after the teens themselves? Nowhere.

I did say it's also a privacy issue--that is true for adults as well---say you take a naked pic for fun, but some creep gets it, maybe even photoshops it, and makes it viral. Happens every day, just ask Hollywood.

But that's more or less a separate issue

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

But that's more or less a separate issue

---

Why? OP says SEXTING. The medium is part of the discussion, not just the content.

Because it is conducted under the umbrella of war on kiddie porn.

If prosecutors and cops want to worry about "sexting" and other camera phone hi-jinks, they should perhaps first turn their gaze towards all the people who slyly photograph kiddy-winks in parks, playgrounds and other places, rather than the kiddy-winks themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Because it is conducted under the umbrella of war on kiddie porn.

If prosecutors and cops want to worry about "sexting" and other camera phone hi-jinks, they should perhaps first turn their gaze towards all the people who slyly photograph kiddy-winks in parks, playgrounds and other places, rather than the kiddy-winks themselves.

---

Agreed. End of discussion? :?

Look, I have no problem with teens who want to share some sexeh photos within their group of peers. But I'd like them to think about the privacy and ownership issues. It is complicated....

ie I know I own a Polaroid, but not sure if I own a jpg that's downloaded onto Verizon and transmitted via cell phone. Does it become the receivor's property to use as they want, what about the server/servicer, what happens to my expectation of privacy--out the window.

Would love to see a poll of teens and their ideas of texting/pic sharing/emailing/cell phone logs. It's brought down elected officials and even Tiger Woods. Teachable moment.

Fair enough!

btw, Polaroid is trying to launch a comeback, and they've hired Lady Ga Ga ;)

What the fuck?

This thread is ending with ness saying 'fair enough'?

Personally, I think teens should be prosecuted for it. By handling or distributing photos of underage people in nude positions, they are creating child pornography. The fact that it is of themselves is irrelevan

this isn't one of those crimes where intent or any other types of mens rea should be considered. It's an event crime, simply owning it should be enough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DecoyMilk

What the ****?

This thread is ending with ness saying 'fair enough'?

Personally, I think teens should be prosecuted for it. By handling or distributing photos of underage people in nude positions, they are creating child pornography. The fact that it is of themselves is irrelevan

this isn't one of those crimes where intent or any other types of mens rea should be considered. It's an event crime, simply owning it should be enough

---

If this isn't a troll

Good luck outlawing diaper and toy commercials

So you can't split babies in toy adverts and teens in various states of undress in sexually charged positions?

fair enough!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DecoyMilk

So you can't split babies in toy adverts and teens in various states of undress in sexually charged positions?

fair enough!

---

You just said, basically, that images of children that could conceivably titillate a paedophile are kiddie porn

Is it your claim that no paedophile can become aroused from adverts featuring children between ages of 1 and say 10 in various stages of dress?

Quote:

---

It's an event crime, simply owning it should be enough

---

So if one of these pics gets sent to my phone, placing in my possession without my knowledge a/o permission, I'm liable. These children need educated about the possible repercussions of this kind of action, not prosecuted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nessus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DecoyMilk

So you can't split babies in toy adverts and teens in various states of undress in sexually charged positions?

fair enough!

---

You just said, basically, that images of children that could conceivably titillate a paedophile are kiddie porn

Is it your claim that no paedophile can become aroused from adverts featuring children between ages of 1 and say 10 in various stages of dress?

---

I never mentioned paedophiles at all. It's not a subjective test of 'would this get a paedo off?' Any sexually charged photo of an underage person in a lesser state of undress than is usually expected should be classed as child porn.

So a 14 year old in just a towel round her waist = porn. A baby wearing just a nappy = not porn, because you would expect babies to be dressed like that at some point.

And rum, yes, if you were sent the photo and didn't delete it straight away you would be committing an offence, in the same way that if somebody handed you a bag of cocaine without knowledge of what it was, you'd be guilty of possession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumrunner

Quote:

---

It's an event crime, simply owning it should be enough

---

So if one of these pics gets sent to my phone, placing in my possession without my knowledge a/o permission, I'm liable. These children need educated about the possible repercussions of this kind of action, not prosecuted.

---

Why is it education OR prosecution? Why not both? They're not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumrunner

Quote:

---

It's an event crime, simply owning it should be enough

---

So if one of these pics gets sent to my phone, placing in my possession without my knowledge a/o permission, I'm liable. These children need educated about the possible repercussions of this kind of action, not prosecuted.

---

Yes, you pervert! I just know you've got Kodaks of your kids' bare butt nakkid on a bear skin rug.

You've probably also used interstate federal postal service to send reprints to relatives! That poor pimply kid running the photo-service at K-Mart almost reported you to a kiddie porn task force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DecoyMilk

I never mentioned paedophiles at all. It's not a subjective test of 'would this get a paedo off?' Any sexually charged photo of an underage person in a lesser state of undress than is usually expected should be classed as child porn.

So a 14 year old in just a towel round her waist = porn. A baby wearing just a nappy = not porn, because you would expect babies to be dressed like that at some point.

And rum, yes, if you were sent the photo and didn't delete it straight away you would be committing an offence, in the same way that if somebody handed you a bag of cocaine without knowledge of what it was, you'd be guilty of possession.

---

If this is your honest opinion, I don't really see a point in discussing this with you any further. Ah well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by decoymilk

And rum, yes, if you were sent the photo and didn't delete it straight away you would be committing an offence, in the same way that if somebody handed you a bag of cocaine without knowledge of what it was, you'd be guilty of possession.

---

That was cocaine, I swear.

Decoy, I can't remember your position on these kinds of things....from the Other Place.

Are you just now being vocal because you're going to be a father soon, or is it more of the freedom of expression here that the Other Place didn't have?

Quote:

---

Yes, you pervert! I just know you've got Kodaks of your kids' bare butt nakkid on a bear skin rug.

You've probably also used interstate federal postal service to send reprints to relatives! That poor pimply kid running the photo-service at K-Mart almost reported you to a kiddie porn task force.

---

GGT,I notice you never sent them back. :mrgreen:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rumrunner

Quote:

---

Yes, you pervert! I just know you've got Kodaks of your kids' bare butt nakkid on a bear skin rug.

You've probably also used interstate federal postal service to send reprints to relatives! That poor pimply kid running the photo-service at K-Mart almost reported you to a kiddie porn task force.

---

GGT,I notice you never sent them back. :mrgreen:

---

That's because when I sent a stick of Doublemint gum to my kid at camp, there was some brouhaha about sending contraban through our federal postal service.

If I was going to mail you a nakkid baby pic, maybe I'd send it with a tin of magic brownies, and who wants the feds sniffing around our mail box? Should I Fed Ex this stuff instead?

Inquiring minds want to know

Thaks, but I've got my own brownies. A little muffin, maybe. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Decoy, I can't remember your position on these kinds of things....from the Other Place.

Are you just now being vocal because you're going to be a father soon, or is it more of the freedom of expression here that the Other Place didn't have?

---

It's neither. I probably did make my point about it at some point over there, but I realised a fair way back that the majority of people skim-read my posts, so you may have just missed my point.

I'm struggling to see what is so radical with what I have said though. Perhaps you could care to enlighten me?

Your ideas of possession of said pornographic material, that would be a start.

I don't understand. Are you saying that somebody who possesses child porn isn't always guilty of a crime?