Child porn or children being children?

[nakedstudent]

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/teen-girls-face-jail-time-for-sending-nude-pics-via-cell-phone-20090115/


I'm of the mindset that you can't set up a multilayered society. If it's illegal for adults to possess underage pictures it should also be illegal for kids to possess it.

I'm not entirely sure what the circumstances of the search of the phone were though. I know every district has it's own policy.

If I was making the rules, phones would stay in lockers... No exceptions. Furthermore, any phone confiscated in a school would be subject to search. Although they belong to the students or their parents, they are a huge distraction and also widen the possibility for cheating and other actions teachers and administrators should be aware of.

If parents or students don't accept district policy, they should put their kids in a different district.

[RalphVa]

This was blown out of proportion by the police.

All she did was take some nude pictures of herself and send to friends, some of whom sent to others. It was an innocent thing blown out of proportion. There was probably no pornography intent. Haven't seen the pictures to judge whether they showed a sexual nature to be judged porno. A picture showing a person naked is not pornography unless is suggests sex.

[Procrastinator]

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/teen-girls-face-jail-time-for-sending-nude-pics-via-cell-phone-20090115/


I'm of the mindset that you can't set up a multilayered society. If it's illegal for adults to possess underage pictures it should also be illegal for kids to possess it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "underage pictures", but as Ralph said, it is not illegal to possess pictures of nude minors if there is no sexual intent. From the description given by the police department captain: "It was a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude", it certainly doesn't sound like they were pornographic. His next statement gives some insight as to his mindset: "Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it."

If I was making the rules, phones would stay in lockers... No exceptions.

I agree with you completely.

Furthermore, any phone confiscated in a school would be subject to search. Although they belong to the students or their parents, they are a huge distraction and also widen the possibility for cheating and other actions teachers and administrators should be aware of.

Here, we differ. I don't think that students should have to give up their civil rights at the schoolhouse door, although the courts have long ruled that they do. Sure, confiscate them, even employ draconian punishment if one is found in a classroom, but why search the phone?

If parents or students don't accept district policy, they should put their kids in a different district.

WOW!!!

You do realize that school boards in Pennsylvania are elected to serve as representatives of the residents in that school district, don't you? You're actually saying that a parent who has an issue with a school district policy should not take it to a school board meeting and have it put on the agenda for discussion, but should simply pack their child off to another school district? You do realize that the parents would have to pay tuition to send their child to school in another district don't you? And surely you realize that the parents would be responsible for transportation.

Please tell me that you don't teach civics.

Does your 'like it or leave' policy also apply to teachers? If so, I guess there is no need for teacher's unions. If the union is unhappy with a school district's policy or contract offer, they can simply tell their members to simply go work for a different district. Is that how that works?

Joe

[Naturist Mark]

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/teen-girls-face-jail-time-for-sending-nude-pics-via-cell-phone-20090115/I'm of the mindset that you can't set up a multilayered society. If it's illegal for adults to possess underage pictures it should also be illegal for kids to possess it.
This is similar to another case of a girl charged with producing child pornography - that is of the crime of sexually exploiting a minor - essentially a sexual assault of a child - even though the child she "assaulted" was herself.

I also wonder at what point a 16 year old boy becomes a criminal when someone sends a photo to his phone. When the file arrives on his phone? When he opens the file? When he doesn't immediately delete the file? When he DOES delete the file (destruction of evidence of a crime)? Or only when he forwards it to another person?

-Mark

[zharth]

I really don't think this should be a legal issue. Regardless of whether or not they count as "children" (and I don't think "teenager" is equivalent to "child"), or even whether or not the photos can be considered "pornography" (and while it's true that nude pics are not inherently pornographic, I could believe that in these sorts of cases the intents may very well be sexual, even if the photos can be considered innocent when taken out of context), the reason that CP is so deplorable is because it involves vulnerable and impressionable young persons being abused and taken advantage of. I fail to see how a teenager voluntarily sharing pics of him/herself could be considered a crime against humanity. Who's being harmed in these instances? Unless there are other factors involved underneath the surface, nobody. It's one thing if the "community" frowns upon this kind of behavior, but that's an issue of image and values. If nobody is being sufficiently harmed, then there's no crime, and the law should have no jurisdiction.

As for the concern that "in this tech, gadget crazy world, things like self nude photos have a tendency to come back to haunt you", I really think this is an outdated concept that people need to get over. Sure, there are agencies out there (and I use that term loosely) with strict morals, that might punish you in any number of ways if they discover that you "exposed" yourself in such a way (e.g., a family member becoming upset, or a company refusing to hire you), but this is something we need to combat. I took naked pictures of myself while I was still a teenager, and I'm proud of that. In fact, I wish I had taken more. I looked great back then, and I'm happy to still have those photos today. It's true that in this tech-crazy world, they could fall into the wrong hands, but the only thing I have to lose is my reputation - and I build my reputation on a foundation of honesty. I'm not ashamed to be who I am. If you're ashamed of me for something I'm not ashamed of, then you're the one with the problem, not me. I really think we should all just get real once and for all.

So, as long as there is no actual abuse or coercion going on, I think this kind of behavior is neither stupid nor should it be illegal.

[nakedstudent]

Ralph, Procrastinator, Mark

I haven't seen the pictures either and could not comment on their sexual nature.

I'm speaking purely as a teacher myself when I get on cell phone policy. I've heard kids talk about cheating and know first hand how easy it is to send messages in class.

I feel (once again first hand) that cell phones are an extreme distraction to the learning environment and to expect teachers to continue to deal with more and more distractions with the advent and increase of technological capabilities undermines what we need to be doing with classrooms.

I can't tell you how many times since September that I've seen students texting during class WHILE they're asking me a question. When a phone is taken, it's only locked up for the night and they have it back the very next day.


I don't think the parents were arguing whether the pictures were "porn" or not. That's what threw me off about the whole story. If the parents don't deny the pornographic nature of the pictures, how can it be defended?

[nakedstudent]

I really don't think this should be a legal issue. Regardless of whether or not they count as "children" (and I don't think "teenager" is equivalent to "child"), or even whether or not the photos can be considered "pornography" (and while it's true that nude pics are not inherently pornographic, I could believe that in these sorts of cases the intents may very well be sexual, even if the photos can be considered innocent when taken out of context), the reason that CP is so deplorable is because it involves vulnerable and impressionable young persons being abused and taken advantage of. I fail to see how a teenager voluntarily sharing pics of him/herself could be considered a crime against humanity. Who's being harmed in these instances? Unless there are other factors involved underneath the surface, nobody. It's one thing if the "community" frowns upon this kind of behavior, but that's an issue of image and values. If nobody is being sufficiently harmed, then there's no crime, and the law should have no jurisdiction.

As for the concern that "in this tech, gadget crazy world, things like self nude photos have a tendency to come back to haunt you", I really think this is an outdated concept that people need to get over. Sure, there are agencies out there (and I use that term loosely) with strict morals, that might punish you in any number of ways if they discover that you "exposed" yourself in such a way (e.g., a family member becoming upset, or a company refusing to hire you), but this is something we need to combat. I took naked pictures of myself while I was still a teenager, and I'm proud of that. In fact, I wish I had taken more. I looked great back then, and I'm happy to still have those photos today. It's true that in this tech-crazy world, they could fall into the wrong hands, but the only thing I have to lose is my reputation - and I build my reputation on a foundation of honesty. I'm not ashamed to be who I am. If you're ashamed of me for something I'm not ashamed of, then you're the one with the problem, not me. I really think we should all just get real once and for all.

So, as long as there is no actual abuse or coercion going on, I think this kind of behavior is neither stupid nor should it be illegal.

So how do we deal with these cases that are becoming more and more prevalent when you yourself stated that there is ambiguity in the definition of what is sexual in nature?

Do you think it's feasible to "case by case scenario" these occurrences?

I agree with all you said about reputation and all of that. I just feel that if the same pictures would be considered as child porn for an adult, then the kids should feel similar punishment as an adult would. I don't think it's fair to say just because it's between 2 kids it's right. If you do that, you're telling kids that they can take pornographic pictures of themselves as long as they send them to people who are still under 18.

Sexual natured pictures at that age are wrong no matter who the recipient is.

[nudiarist]

Teenagers have been experimenting with sex since the dawn of time, but only now do they have the technology to create instant evidence.

Believe me, if we had digital camera phones back in the 70s when we were fumbling around in the back seats of cars, we would have taken pictures. You couldn't exactly take images like that and have them developed at the corner drug store, and if you had a Polaroid, you couldn't afford the film.

When we would talk on the phone years ago, sometimes conversations got a little sexually charged. Today, teens just "sext" each other.

It's immoral for a society to make felons out of children using laws that were created to protect them.

If statistics can be believed, hundreds of thousands of teenagers are sending nude photos with their cell phones. Society has to get a grip on reality and start recognizing that these kids have a right to their privacy, just like anyone else.

Fine, ban cell phones in schools if you must, but if a teen is caught with one, confiscate it and give it back at the end of the day, and don't snoop at the contents.

If a nude photo is discovered on a phone, report the incident to the parents and let them deal with it. Leave the police and prosecutors out of it.

Adults that are getting so freaked out with this phenomenon should just take a moment and think back to when they were that age. We all did something stupid.

Thankfully the new administration in Washington is going to abandon the abstinence only policy and begin offering real sex education. Part of the new initiative should address the sexting activity.

Also, there seems to be a bit of a calming by law enforcement officials on this issue. Yes, some kids are still getting into legal trouble, but if you look up recent stories on Google, in many instances the police are holding back on filing charges. With minors, police do have some discretion.

In nearly all the incidents, the photos only show nudity. It's very rare for a kid to send a graphic sexual image. Simple nudity is not child pornography as defined here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

Dr. Marty Klein weighed in on the issue here: http://sexualintelligence.wordpress.com/page/2/

The laws need to be changed so we stop ruining the lives of our children.

nudiarist
Diary of a Nudist
http://www.nudiarist.blogspot.com

[Bob S.]

Child pornography laws were created to protect children from being victimized by adults. They were never meant to protect the child (or in this instance, teens) from themselves. How can prosecuting these girls protect them? If convicted, they would have to be placed on the Sex Offender's Registry (no options for being convicted of producing and distributing CP). Now how is that protecting them? It will just ruin their lives and chances for getting a good job. And what would be the terms of their probation--they are to stay at least 500 feet away from themselves?

The effects of the prosecution will live with them for a long time and affect where they can go to college, what kind of job field they can get into, who they can hang out with, and many other issues simply for being stupid and taking nude pics of themselves.

This is the same for the guys who received the pics. They are also being charged with receiving the materials. Theirs may be an easier case, assuming they did not send the pic to anyone else. There is a difference between receiving pornographic material and requesting it. If the girls did this on their own just as a fun "gift" for their boyfriends, they cannot be convicted of receiving it.

In another blog site, a former federal prosecutor finds this case to be ridiculous and feels that there should be a law to protect teens who take pics of themselves. Again, this is a law meant to protect teens and children from predators, not to go after individual teens for taking nude self-portraits or, as the story that Mark mentioned, sexual self-portraits of themselves engaged in, "self-pleasuring".

This also is dangerous where non-sexual pictures are viewed as pornographic. When does the context of an underage nude picture change from legal image to pornographic image. Not knowing the exact image, we can't know the pose, but it doesn't sound, after reading a few articles, that it was obviously sexual.

Bob S.

[Procrastinator]

I don't think the parents were arguing whether the pictures were "porn" or not. That's what threw me off about the whole story. If the parents don't deny the pornographic nature of the pictures, how can it be defended?

What did you base that on? The parents weren't mentioned in the article.

Joe

[nakedstudent]

What did you base that on? The parents weren't mentioned in the article.

Joe

I listen to talk radio and have been hearing it on PA Radio News Updates.

They were simply saying that "The parents should be punishing the kids not the government." Which to me is a confirmation that the pictures are viewed as pornographic in nature.

I know I'm inferring, but it is based on a valid news source.

[walter05]

First of all, any minors are generally, for legal purposes considered "infants". When the infants attend school, the School, and its staff has the status of "En Loco Parentis" or in the place of the parents.

If the school confiscates a phone and chooses to look at the contents, that is fair. Since there have been issues with students using the phones to cheat, plan pranks, etc. the schools have a reasonable basis for examining the phones.

We should also understand that if a 14 year old girl sends a nude picture of herself to a 16 or 17 year old boy, she intends to have sex.

The ages of the kids is a factor. If a 14 year old girl sent a nude picture of herself to a 17 year old boy, and he looked at and kept the photo, mosts state laws would consider him in violation of the law.

If two 14 year olds have sex, there is generally not a legal issue. However, if a 17 year old has sex with a 14 year old, there is typically a form of statuatory rape that comes in. The law considers the infant, in this case a 14 year old one, unable to make the choice to have sex, and so the 17 year old would be in violation. Of course if the 17 year old were 18 instead, the charges would be more severe.

However, just because they are charged, it does not mean that they are convicted. A juvenile court judge will have a lot of room to craft a proper judgement.

I would like to see the girls sentenced to spending several afternoons volunteering at places for teens with kids and/or STDS. I would hope it would teach them the risks they were taking.

[naturush]

maybe this country needs to have "nudist studies 101" in high school. Everyone naked in a class for an hour every day their freshman year. Then relationships can be emotion based and not body based. Na, the teachers, administators, parents, cops-all of whom I'm guessing are over 18-might be offended.

[Nude in the North]

It's an amazing society we live in. We give children anything they want, then create rules to restrict their use of them. We tell them they are not mature enough to make decisions, yet allow them to be in situations where they can make those decisions without a chaperone to guide them.
Then when they make a decision to do something childish, we treat them like Adults.

Many Kids these days become interested in sexual ideas at a much younger age than anyone is willing to admidt. Or maybe it's always been that way. I know for a fact that nearly 40 years ago "I'm talking the 70's" that atleast some kids were sexually active at age 12. It might be more common today, or just more known. But we all need to understand that sexual curiosity begins at a very early age. And it's Not a crime. It's just the natural progression of the Human reproductive system.

We would all like to think that OUR kids are different. That we somehow were able to instill Morals, Fear, or something into them that would be more powerfull than any curiosity or hormonal influence. But no matter how hard we try, those are some pretty powerfull influences to overcome.

Growing up in a society where there is so much pressure to achieve, to have so much thrust upon you at such an early age. It makes the need for a release of these pressures all the more prevalent. This sets the stage for all sorts of questionable decisions. Drinking, Smoking, Staying out too late, even doing criminal activities. But at an age where the hormones are kicking in , and your just discovering your sexuality, Sexual interest moves to the front of the line.

These parents and Teachers might be shocked that these "little girls" would take nude pictures of themselves. But I'd be surprised if it's the first "sexual" thing they have done. And you can bet the other things they have been doing are far more Dangreous to their future.

[Kari P]

If the school confiscates a phone and chooses to look at the contents, that is fair.


No. That's a severe violation of privacy. Even children should have the right to keep their private messages private.

And, normally the child has protected his/her phone by a PIN code. The teachers would not be able to look at its contents unless the child co-operates, which I think should not be forced.


We should also understand that if a 14 year old girl sends a nude picture of herself to a 16 or 17 year old boy, she intends to have sex.


Not necessarily in the straightforward meaning: "Come to meet me, let's have sex!"

[Skinview]

I just feel that if the same pictures would be considered as child porn for an adult, then the kids should feel similar punishment as an adult would.No. Adults can use their authority to force or pressure minors to do things that they do not want to do.
I don't think it's fair to say just because it's between 2 kids it's right
Between peers, neither is an authority. Its exploitation for an adult with the authority that that entails to use a child to make porn. The issue should be coercion, not pornography.

If you do that, you're telling kids that they can take pornographic pictures of themselves as long as they send them to people who are still under 18.They should be able to send their porn pictures to whoever they want to, just as long as no adult is involved in taking them.

Sexual natured pictures at that age are wrong no matter who the recipient is.Sex is not wrong, regardless of age.

[Skinview]

This also is dangerous where non-sexual pictures are viewed as pornographic. When does the context of an underage nude picture change from legal image to pornographic image.

Ok everybody, who wants to live in a society where you may become a felon if a government employee gets a hard on while looking at your photography???

[Boreas]

The issue should be coercion, not pornography.

This is exactly the point. Even if the two teens are the same age, if one has been coerced then there is a problem. In Canada it could be a legal concern if one wanted to charge the other.

From what this story tells us, there is no reason to believe it is porn at this point. Unwise perhaps. Not porn.

[Boreas]

Ok everybody, who wants to live in a society where you may become a felon if a government employee gets a hard on while looking at your photography???

Not me. Nor do I want to live in a society where things are viewed in black and white terms. Rarely are things simple or as they first appear.

[Skinview]

If the school confiscates a phone and chooses to look at the contents, that is fair. Since there have been issues with students using the phones to cheat, plan pranks, etc. the schools have a reasonable basis for examining the phones.Mere possetion of a phone should not be cause for examination, unless the phone was banned in the first place.

We should also understand that if a 14 year old girl sends a nude picture of herself to a 16 or 17 year old boy, she intends to have sex.Not at all. Someone may be flirtatious or exhibitionistic and not want to have sex. Or maybe, (strange new concept) she is a nudist!

I would like to see the girls sentenced to spending several afternoons volunteering at places for teens with kids and/or STDS. I would hope it would teach them the risks they were taking.I would like to see the adults who were snooping in the phones of those girls apologise to them.

[walter05]

If parents believe their minor children are in danger, they have a duty to take all steps to protect them.

The school is in the place of the parents. They have the legal right to look at the pictures.

If one of those pictures indicated that a child was being molested by and adult, or was involved in violence, looking could be very helpful.

There are laws that actually mandate that the schools must look. (It depends on the state.)

I still find it unusual for a 14 year old girl to send a naked picture of herself to a 17 year old boy in a normal textile school. Imagine if that 17 year old boy had sent a naked picture of himself to her, and worse if he had an erection.

I don't think 14 year old girls or boys fully understand the consequences of digital naked pictures of themselves in circulation.

P.S. I know as a fact that many pedophiles pose as other teens. They send pictures that are supposed to be them and are not. They do this to get unsuspecting male and female teens to send nude pictures of themselves.

Then some of the pedophiles threaten the teens with exposing them to their peers. More than one teen has been sexually abused by these pedophiles as a result.

Under no circumstances will the law tolerate an adult, with the exception of those with a legitimate reason, having possession of those images. This is true whether the teen was coerced or not.

As a parent, I support that law.

[Boreas]

I heard a new term recently. It is "sexting" or something like that. It involves sexually explicit text messages between teens, and is happening in this area.

[walter05]

Sometimes teens think it is between teens. It could be between a kid as young as 11 and someone in his fifties.

It is a serious potential problem.

As a parent, I find it scary.

[Skinview]

I heard a new term recently. It is "sexting" or something like that. It involves sexually explicit text messages between teens, and is happening in this area.When I was in school, our sexually explicit messages had to be written on paper, or the bathroom stall. It happens in every area.

[walter05]

I thought when you were in school, they made cave drawings.

[nudiarist]

First of all, any minors are generally, for legal purposes considered "infants". When the infants attend school, the School, and its staff has the status of "En Loco Parentis" or in the place of the parents.

If the school confiscates a phone and chooses to look at the contents, that is fair. Since there have been issues with students using the phones to cheat, plan pranks, etc. the schools have a reasonable basis for examining the phones.

We should also understand that if a 14 year old girl sends a nude picture of herself to a 16 or 17 year old boy, she intends to have sex.

The ages of the kids is a factor. If a 14 year old girl sent a nude picture of herself to a 17 year old boy, and he looked at and kept the photo, mosts state laws would consider him in violation of the law.

If two 14 year olds have sex, there is generally not a legal issue. However, if a 17 year old has sex with a 14 year old, there is typically a form of statuatory rape that comes in. The law considers the infant, in this case a 14 year old one, unable to make the choice to have sex, and so the 17 year old would be in violation. Of course if the 17 year old were 18 instead, the charges would be more severe.

However, just because they are charged, it does not mean that they are convicted. A juvenile court judge will have a lot of room to craft a proper judgement.

I would like to see the girls sentenced to spending several afternoons volunteering at places for teens with kids and/or STDS. I would hope it would teach them the risks they were taking.

Clearly, a quick solution to this problem would be to a) ban cell phones in school, and b) if a student is caught with a phone, turn it over to the parents and let them deal with it.

There is no valid reason why a school official should be looking at a student's phone. If police need a search warrant to come into a private home, then a warrant should be necessary to search a cell phone. Suspicion of cheating or planning pranks is not "reasonable basis" for searching a student's private property. That's like saying if a student is accused of theft, the principal could order a strip search.

If the law requires school officials to search phones, that law should be challenged as being unconstitutional. Supposedly we all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, even teenagers. As long as the sexting is victimless, it should not be a crime.

And I don't care why these kids are sending nude photos to each other. Nobody really seems to be concerned if they are sexually active or not, or if they are practicing safe sex - all they care about is the photos.

Sarah Palin's kid got knocked up by someone with a real live penis, and she's hailed as some sort of role model, paraded out on the convention floor, but if she had taken a nude photo of herself and sent it to her sweetie, that would have been unacceptable. Maybe she did that, too.

Our society is inundated with sexual imagery, so why should anyone be surprised if teens want to be just like the adults? Singer Lily Allen is in the news for sending a topless photo of herself to the wrong person. This is just what people seem to be doing these days.

It's all just insane, using laws meant to protect children against children. Kids are going to have sex no matter how hard adults try and stop it. They always have, and they always will. Give them the information and guidance to make the wise decisions, and when they screw up, help them to understand what they have done. Throwing kids in jail, making felons and sex offenders out of them, all for just a few photos of a naked body, is cruel and unusual punishment.

nudiarist
Diary of a Nudist
http://www.nudiarist.blogspot.com

[Fitz1980]

I don't think the parents were arguing whether the pictures were "porn" or not. That's what threw me off about the whole story. If the parents don't deny the pornographic nature of the pictures, how can it be defended?

I don't see how the parent's feelings on the matter change the definition of the law. I'm sure that a textile Dad might see any pictures of his daughter's exposed breasts as porn. What if it was a picture that she & a friend took last spring break on South Beach, Miami where top freedom is legal? Besides the families will fight it in whatever way their attorney's feel that they have the best chance of winning. If they feel they can win on saying that searching the phone was illegal they will do that. If they feel they can win by arguing that the pictures weren't porn they will do that. If they feel they can best win by arguing that laws about exploiting a minor don't apply if the minor "victim and victimize" are THE SAME PERSON they will do that.

I'm not so sure about the schools rational for searching the phone either. I guess it would depend on the situation. If they had reason to suspect that the phone was being used to cheat than sure; and by that I mean actual suspicions like it being out during a test, not just "well I took this from a kid in the lunch room, during lunch period but sometimes they do use them to cheat so I'm just going to check the memory and see if there's anything about yesterday's math test on there."

The thing I don't like is how far this could go. Phones as a distraction I see for sure. When I was in school 10 years ago we were not even allowed to have phones at school, back than most kids had pagers. If a kid has their phone out in class take it away from them. Heck make the parents come get it rather rather than just giving it back at the end of the day, that would probably make them more hesitant to do that again. Thing I don't like is how far can you take that. How about if you have a kid writing in a journal when they are supposed to be taking notes? Are you going to take the notebook away and check it for objectionable material? Plus involving the law seems a bit much. You said if grownups can't take and possess those pictures than kids can't either but that's not entirely it either. Grownups can't have sex with minors either but when another minor does it we don't prosecute them for it. If you caught two 16 year olds having sex in the bathroom or under the bleachers you take whatever actions your policy and the administration deems necessary but you don't call the cops and charge them both with unlawful contact with a minor.

[Skinview]

Right on, Fitz1980.

[countryguync]

If the boys received the photos and immediately deleted them, NO PROBLEM. But if the photos were received hours or days before the police find them, then the boys are in the wrong for possession of CP, not receiving.

Where do you think the child predators get their photos from? THE INTERNET of course. And HOW DO THOSE PHOTOS GET ON THE INTERNET?

Maybe the photos were simple nude shots, not sexually posed. But what's to stop a girl from going a step further the next time? Then a step further, and so on?

The kids will probably be charged in juvy. court and not get jail time. They should be on probation until age 21. Barred from possessing a camera phone until age 18.

[Skinview]

If the boys received the photos and immediately deleted them, NO PROBLEM. But if the photos were received hours or days before the police find them, then the boys are in the wrong for possession of CP, not receiving.Oh geeeze... Next you will be busting people who haven't burned their issue of Penthouse with Traci Lords in it.

Where do you think the child predators get their photos from? THE INTERNET of course. And HOW DO THOSE PHOTOS GET ON THE INTERNET?Slow down. The predators aren't the ones that look at them, its the ones who take them.

Maybe the photos were simple nude shots, not sexually posed. But what's to stop a girl from going a step further the next time? Then a step further, and so on?Um, whats your point??? ;)

The kids will probably be charged in juvy. court and not get jail time. They should be on probation until age 21. Barred from possessing a camera phone until age 18.We should hope not.

[Skinview]

I thought when you were in school, they made cave drawings.
Hey, I'm not that old!

[walter05]

Some of the pedophiles are very slick. They pose as other teens. Send pics that are not them and get pics back.

The slick ones, who are also the ones most likely to rape the teens don't look for anything on the web. They want real naked flesh and know how to get it.

Fitz;

You raise some good points.

All of you;

There are often degrees of statuatory rape. Statuatory rape is where the state determines someone could not consent so it is rape.

If two 14 year olds have sex, then this is typically not a form.

However, if a 12 year old and a 17 year old have sex, this is a form of statuatory rape in most states.

The fact that the girls were as young as 14 and the boys as old as 17 means there may be a serious criminal matter.

[Boreas]

The fact that the girls were as young as 14 and the boys as old as 17 means there may be a serious criminal matter.

So, the trick is to gather information before making any assumptions. It MAY be a serious criminal matter. It may also only be a kid thing. No one will know unless they check things out.

[nimrod]

If simple nudity were more widely accepted, would this even be an issue?

[nakedstudent]

If simple nudity were more widely accepted, would this even be an issue?

Without seeing the pictures, there is no way to judge whether this is simple nudity or not.

It's like asking if simple nudity was more widely accepted, would swinging even be an issue?

Just because the girls sent nude pictures does not mean they weren't pornographic in nature. Furthermore, just because you send some CLOTHED pictures, doesn't mean they AREN'T.

The problem is that because the girls are below the age of 18 and the photos were already deemed pornographic, nobody will ever see them... Not to mention the fact that the parents probably wouldn't want them released anyways.

[nakedstudent]

I don't see how the parent's feelings on the matter change the definition of the law. I'm sure that a textile Dad might see any pictures of his daughter's exposed breasts as porn. What if it was a picture that she & a friend took last spring break on South Beach, Miami where top freedom is legal? Besides the families will fight it in whatever way their attorney's feel that they have the best chance of winning. If they feel they can win on saying that searching the phone was illegal they will do that. If they feel they can win by arguing that the pictures weren't porn they will do that. If they feel they can best win by arguing that laws about exploiting a minor don't apply if the minor "victim and victimize" are THE SAME PERSON they will do that.

I'm not so sure about the schools rational for searching the phone either. I guess it would depend on the situation. If they had reason to suspect that the phone was being used to cheat than sure; and by that I mean actual suspicions like it being out during a test, not just "well I took this from a kid in the lunch room, during lunch period but sometimes they do use them to cheat so I'm just going to check the memory and see if there's anything about yesterday's math test on there."

The thing I don't like is how far this could go. Phones as a distraction I see for sure. When I was in school 10 years ago we were not even allowed to have phones at school, back than most kids had pagers. If a kid has their phone out in class take it away from them. Heck make the parents come get it rather rather than just giving it back at the end of the day, that would probably make them more hesitant to do that again. Thing I don't like is how far can you take that. How about if you have a kid writing in a journal when they are supposed to be taking notes? Are you going to take the notebook away and check it for objectionable material? Plus involving the law seems a bit much. You said if grownups can't take and possess those pictures than kids can't either but that's not entirely it either. Grownups can't have sex with minors either but when another minor does it we don't prosecute them for it. If you caught two 16 year olds having sex in the bathroom or under the bleachers you take whatever actions your policy and the administration deems necessary but you don't call the cops and charge them both with unlawful contact with a minor.

I'm not sure that minors aren't allowed to have sex with minors. It would be public indecency if anything...

[Boreas]

I'm not sure that minors aren't allowed to have sex with minors. It would be public indecency if anything...

And just how are they going to prevent it?

Most jurisdictions have an age of consent for sex. I believe Canada just raised it to 16 from 14. This is to give the courts some teeth in the event that an adult claims a teen consented to sex. There is some provision for peers, with the recognition that sometimes teens have sex.

[nakedstudent]

And just how are they going to prevent it?

Most jurisdictions have an age of consent for sex. I believe Canada just raised it to 16 from 14. This is to give the courts some teeth in the event that an adult claims a teen consented to sex. There is some provision for peers, with the recognition that sometimes teens have sex.

Read the post again. I made no comment about changing laws and didn't even inject my opinion on the laws concerning young people.

Since you ask, you can no sooner ban underage sex between consenting minors than you could a simple kiss or hug.

I just disagreed with Fitz's assessment of a hypothetical situation that contact with a minor would be the charge. I don't think that law exists for most relationships between minors. I'm relatively certain that there are exceptions made based on the age difference, but in Fitz's hypothetical scenario, there was no difference.

[TVNude]

Sadly, this is not the first time child pornography issues have been raised in Pennsylvania in a case like this. There was a situation in the Parkland (Lehigh county) school district involving about 13 students. The school district, in cooperation with the PA State Police, notified the parents of the kids that they would have to turn the kids' cell phones over to a state trooper for inspection and removal of images or face prosecution for possession of child pornography. This was all done with the full knowledge of the Lehigh county district attorney's office which had the same view - the images were child pornography. I never heard of any parent raising any kind of argument in the situation.

It's an easy win for a prosecutor.

[Bob S.]

walter: "We should also understand that if a 14 year old girl sends a nude picture of herself to a 16 or 17 year old boy, she intends to have sex. "

Not in today's environment. Sexting, which is what the girls did, does not necessarily mean that she wants to have sex. It means that she wants to tease her bf. Sexting is just a more extreme example of bf/gf flirting.

walt: "The ages of the kids is a factor. If a 14 year old girl sent a nude picture of herself to a 17 year old boy, and he looked at and kept the photo, mosts state laws would consider him in violation of the law."

Unfortunately in this circumstance, that is true, but again, if there is no true sexual poses to the pics, and if they are just nudes, then it is dangerous to consider this to be child porn.

walter: "if a 17 year old has sex with a 14 year old, there is typically a form of statuatory rape that comes in."

Except in the case of PA. The following is the law regarding Statutory Rape:

§ 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault
Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.

This means that a 14-year-old can have consensual sex with a 17-year-old. I believe there are similar laws in many other states. Still though, the sticking point comes when one partner is 18 or over.

No child should ever be charged with producing child porn by taking a picture of him or herself whether just nude or sexually posed. No similar-aged friend should ever be charged with possessing child porn when having a similar-aged friend send them a picture of their own volition.

These laws should be reserved for the real criminals, the people who are truly victimizing children. What does it help to criminalize teens who made stupid decisions?

Bob S.

[Fitz1980]

This means that a 14-year-old can have consensual sex with a 17-year-old. I believe there are similar laws in many other states. Still though, the sticking point comes when one partner is 18 or over.


Those are called Romeo and Juliette laws in common speech. Basically they exist so that the law can't ruin some poor 18 year old guy's life because the family of his 17 year old girlfriend doesn't like him. There have been cases where families try to turn laws designed to protect their kids from 25 year old scumbags against a guy who's like 1 or 2 years older than her.

In Georgia they had a big case a few years back with a High School football star who was charged with aggravated child molestation for having sex with a girl. They knew the charge of statutory rape wouldn't hold up but because of some legal trickery child molestation would. How exactly it could be child molestation when the girl and guy are in the same age bracket I don't know. It probably helps that this was in a more rural part of GA, the girl was white and the boy was black. His case was overturned by the GA State supreme court a few years later.

[Kari P]

Except in the case of PA. The following is the law regarding Statutory Rape:

§ 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault
Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other.


The fact that there is the mention "and the person are not married to each other" in the law evidently means that it is possible for a person younger than 16 years to be married.

Not here. The marriage age is 18 years. An exception can be applied for from the president but I don't think they are often granted at all, especially when one applicant is under 16 years.

And, the statutes about rape have been written so that rape can happen also in marriage, so that marriage is not an excuse for using the partner for forced sex or for sex between an adult and a child if they happen to be married.

[Ken Palmer]

Hello RalphVa. I agree with you 100% here. My understanding also is pornography suggests a sexual intent or gratification. Merely being nude is not pornographic at all. After all, we bathe and shower in the nude. Does this mean we are sex crazy? I don't think so! A simple matter of hygiene, of course. I know there are some people out there that will always equate being naked with sex, but that is something we will have to live and deal with sadly. Maybe it was not a good idea for the girls to send those photos of themselves nude to their friends, but I don't think they should be landed in jail for it. However, a good,solid admonishment from their parents would have been good enough.

Ken Palmer





This was blown out of proportion by the police.

All she did was take some nude pictures of herself and send to friends, some of whom sent to others. It was an innocent thing blown out of proportion. There was probably no pornography intent. Haven't seen the pictures to judge whether they showed a sexual nature to be judged porno. A picture showing a person naked is not pornography unless is suggests sex.

[walter05]

I agree if we were a nudist society, I would not say that a 14 year old girl sending a naked picture to a 17 year old male is attempting to have sex or be sexually suggestive at least, but that is not the case here.


I have pasted in the Georgia code. I am more familiar with. Your citation of the Penn. code is the governing law in this case.

16-6-3.
(a) A person commits the offense of statutory rape when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with any person under the age of 16 years and not his or her spouse, provided that no conviction shall be had for this offense on the unsupported testimony of the victim.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of statutory rape shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years; provided, however, that if the person so convicted is 21 years of age or older, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years. Any person convicted under this subsection of the offense of statutory rape shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.
(c) If the victim is at least 14 but less than 16 years of age and the person convicted of statutory rape is 18 years of age or younger and is no more than four years older than the victim, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[Bob S.]

Fitz: "In Georgia they had a big case a few years back with a High School football star who was charged with aggravated child molestation for having sex with a girl."

I remember that case, Fitz. It was terrible, but it bears something similar to this case. In both, the prosecutor tried to penalize the perpetrator by using a law meant to protect children while in both cases, there was no hint of force or adults, whom the laws were intended to go after.

Kari: "The fact that there is the mention "and the person are not married to each other" in the law evidently means that it is possible for a person younger than 16 years to be married."

I believe every state in the US has a provision for minors who want to marry. It requires at the least a written, notarized permission from the parent/guardian of the child. The limit is 16-years-old. Any younger and you need special permission from the courts. Some states do not allow for anyone under 16 to get married.

walt: "I agree if we were a nudist society, I would not say that a 14 year old girl sending a naked picture to a 17 year old male is attempting to have sex or be sexually suggestive at least, but that is not the case here."

walt, I just took issue with you suggesting that she wanted to have sex. I am not saying that it was not a sexually teasing act. It was, but it was not necessarily an invitation for sex itself.

Bob S.

[walter05]

I will agree with your qualification.

If a 14 year old girl sends a naked picture of herself to a 17 year old boy, perhaps it is sexually provocative, but not an inviation for sex.

However, I bet he thinks either it is an invitation for sex or that he can get her to have sex with him. The consequences of the photo are likely to be his penis in her vagina either way.

If she is just being sexually provacative in an iresponsible way, then the intercourse is likely to be unprotetected. That means his sperm and her ovum having a chance to come together and create a baby. At that point, the out of wedlock births and abortion issue comes into play.

If she does not fully understand the consequences of her actions, then she can't fully consent. That is why there are statuatory rape laws.

[Fitz1980]

However, I bet he thinks either it is an invitation for sex or that he can get her to have sex with him. The consequences of the photo are likely to be his penis in her vagina either way.

If she is just being sexually provacative in an iresponsible way, then the intercourse is likely to be unprotetected. That means his sperm and her ovum having a chance to come together and create a baby. At that point, the out of wedlock births and abortion issue comes into play.

That is a mighty big leap right there son. We've now gone from something that could be as simple as a girl flashing her boobs on a camera phone to out of wedlock pregnancy. I don't see that much of a link between flirting and unprotected sex and they are two different issues. BTW the best way to prevent unprotected sex between teens is to talk openly with them about the issues. Here in FL they are ditching the Bush (George & Jeb) supported abstinence only sex-education programs because as a side effect of programs that tell kids that sex is only for married couples, condoms often fail & and premarital sex will ruin their reputations is that you have more kids with STDs & pregnancies.

[walter05]

Before you thought of yourself as a nudist, when you were a 17 year old male, what did you think if a girl sent a naked picture of herself to you?

I did not mention it, but I wonder if she is setting herself up for rape and/or date rape also.

[Boreas]

Before you thought of yourself as a nudist, when you were a 17 year old male, what did you think if a girl sent a naked picture of herself to you?

I did not mention it, but I wonder if she is setting herself up for rape and/or date rape also.

This is a good point. I just have to comment though.

Your comment assumes all young males have difficulty controlling their urges, and all young women will fall prey to these "animals". While many young men would see these naked pictures as an invitation for sex, I think also that most would reluctantly respect the girl when she says no.....even if she does it with some force. Also, young women are better able to handle themselves than what you give them credit.

So, while it might increase her risk of rape in certain circumstances, and may indeed be unwise, it does not guarantee a rape.

[walter05]

First of all, we have numerous posts on young men not able to control erections.

Second of all, this is a 14 year old. If the question is, especially for non-nudists, do I believe that a 17 year old male with an erection with a naked female can control himself? I would have to say I would not want to bet on it.

Do I believe the 14 year old could stop him? I would not bet on that either.

[richo]

First of all, we have numerous posts on young men not able to control erections.

Second of all, this is a 14 year old. If the question is, especially for non-nudists, do I believe that a 17 year old male with an erection with a naked female can control himself? I would have to say I would not want to bet on it.

Do I believe the 14 year old could stop him? I would not bet on that either.

One seems to be making a big jump from a photograph to in-person nudity; the two are rather different.

Part of "the problem" is that many teens will do things in front of a camera they would never do in front of another person - even if it's a webcam or if they're sending the photos to someone. There's a sense of "privacy" when one is alone, so inhibitions tend to be less.

I would argue that sending someone nude photos does not necessarily lead to being nude in front of that person; as someone who was fairly active on BBS's and the internet in his youth (and had a webcam to boot), I can say for certainty there are quite a few people I flirted with and sent photos or streaming video to who never once had me nude in real life. And, yes, I was 16-17-18 at the time. Likewise, I saw photos or videos of them, and never had sex with them or even got slightly undressed in their presence.

Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but it does demostrate part of the psychological difference. There's also a "slight" difference between not being able to stop an erection (which is a subconscious or biological response) and raping someone (which is a conscious action). And as a final note, the fact that some girl sends me a naked picture isn't necessarily implying that 1) I requested such or 2) I plan on acting on it; maybe she sent it specifically because I wasn't paying her "enough attention" in her mind. Assuming guilt on my part for a completely passive action (receiving something that I can't, in actuality, prevent - the receiving of a message from someone I don't necessarily know is going to send one) is extremely dangerous and contrary to our most Western legal principles.

There's a whole football field (either variety) of speculation involved here, from start to finish.

[Boreas]

First of all, we have numerous posts on young men not able to control erections.

Second of all, this is a 14 year old. If the question is, especially for non-nudists, do I believe that a 17 year old male with an erection with a naked female can control himself? I would have to say I would not want to bet on it.

Do I believe the 14 year old could stop him? I would not bet on that either.

First of richo responded very well to this. I'd like to add a couple of points. You were once a 17 year old male. Does that mean you would not have been able to control what you did with the erection? As richo said, rape is a conscious act. I am betting you did have enough sense/restraint to not rape a girl. I was once a 14 year old girl. Of course, that was in the dark ages before cell phones! :laugh: I was also a somewhat shy girl, so I am not sure I would have done that. Never-the-less, had I done that, did have enough sense to know how the boy might respond. Also, it would be a big leap from doing that to actually being naked with the boy. I am quite sure I would have known how to prevent myself from being in a bad situation, as most girls are.

I have often had the argument with men about how they were " once a teenage boy, and know how teenage boys think". Well, I was once a teenage girl, and hung with other girls, and can assure you that girls are quite capable of looking after themselves. Much better in fact than many former teenage boys (namely dads in particular) give them credit for.

Sending the photos, while unwise, does not automatically lead to rape.

[Fitz1980]

First of all, we have numerous posts on young men not able to control erections.

Second of all, this is a 14 year old. If the question is, especially for non-nudists, do I believe that a 17 year old male with an erection with a naked female can control himself? I would have to say I would not want to bet on it.

Do I believe the 14 year old could stop him? I would not bet on that either.

Controlling yourself from having consensual sex and controlling yourself from sexual assault are two different animals. Does that kind of flirting have something to do with sex or at least the possibly/suggestion of it, most probably. Should we use it to brand one or both parties as sexual predators for the rest of their lives, I say NO.

Do teen boys want to have sex for sure. Do teen girls want to have sex, yes they do. As discussed elsewhere on this forum there is a double standard in our society about boys and girls. The idea is that teen boys want to have sex and will do whatever to get it while teen girls want love, respect, acceptance & will use sex/sexuality to get it is a double standard and not even an accurate one in my experience. It's the standard that lets our society see a 35 year old woman who has sex with a 13 year old boy as a woman with bad judgment who non the less fulfilled his greatest fantasy while a 25 year old who has sex with a 13 year old is a dangerous sexual predator. My point is that if a 14 year old girl is sending sexually explicit messages to a 17 year old than he's probably thinking "sex" and she probably is to. She may be just teasing him for attention or she may be trying to get laid; yea girls like sex too and even want to have it before they at an age where they are mature enough to handle the emotions that it often comes with.

[walter05]

I would not have taken the change. When I was 17, 27, or even 37, I was not any place alone with a naked female that I did not intend to have sex with.

[Boreas]

I would not have taken the change. When I was 17, 27, or even 37, I was not any place alone with a naked female that I did not intend to have sex with.

I think similar could be said about most females. Are you seeing how it is a leap to say that naked pictures on a cellphone will automatically lead to sex?

[Fitz1980]

I would not have taken the change. When I was 17, 27, or even 37, I was not any place alone with a naked female that I did not intend to have sex with.

At 17 I wasn't either, but I was a virgen back than. At 19 I was naked with a naked female who I had no intention of having sex with. My first girlfriend's mother (yes I was 19 when I had my first GF) was a nudist and the first time I met her she was naked. That situation was an accident but we did see each other naked quite a few times after that and I certainly never intended on having sexual relations with her, that would have really strained the relationship that I had with her daughter. In fact she was a big factor in me finding out what nudism was about.

27 I was certainty in such a situation as I visit nudist resorts and nude beaches and I sure aren't thinking on having sex with every female on the beach. In fact I've been to such places alone and didn't intend on having sex with anyone there.

[walter05]

Mothers in law or mothers of girlfriends are different.

Nudist events are different.

Boreas;

If I was 17 and a teen age girl sent me a picture of herself nude, I would have thought she was offering something.

That may not be absolutely true all of the time. However, most textile teen males would think that.

[Boreas]

Boreas;

If I was 17 and a teen age girl sent me a picture of herself nude, I would have thought she was offering something.

That may not be absolutely true all of the time. However, most textile teen males would think that.

Would you have raped her because she was "offering" you something? Or to use softer language, would you have forced yourself on her? Would you have pursued things if she changed her mind and said no at some point?

[walter05]

The truth be known, I would not rape anyone. I expect many males would not either.

However, I would not want any of my 4 teen daughters to send nude pictures of themselves to other boys counting on them to be gentlemen.

Some will not be.

I suspect that some cases of date rape are as a result of confusion. I suspect most young men would never choose to do that. However, when playing in sexually provocative ways, things get out of hand.

I would therefore not want to be in that position. I definitely don't want my daughters to be in that position either.

[Lord Drakkus]

I must say that I'm intrigued by the direction this discussion has gone. Was the girl offering herself in the picture? Will the boy be able to control himself? Was it intended to be sexual at all? All good questions...

I still remember 10 years ago, back when I was in High School. From that experience, I would have to say that the response of the Boy would have to depend on the boy. There are those that would see that picture and obsess over it until he "had to have it," and would rape her, yes. But that's a VERY small minority. There are also those that would save the picture and use it against her when he had the chance. There's a bit more of them than the rapists, but still not too many. There are those that would delete it. Still more, but probably less than 25%. The majority of them? Probably keep the picture because they like it and/or think it's funny. No malice involved.

My point? Most boys in High School aren't NEARLY as sexually oriented as we adults seem to think. And even those that are wouldn't be careless enough to equate a nude picture sent to their Cell Phone as an offer of sex. People in the younger generations have a much higher awareness of STDs than the older generations could imagine. I myself know more about most of them than my Mother/MIL/Grandmother COMBINED. I'm quite sure that my children will know more about them than I.

So, was it stupid? Depends on the teens and their relationship. If she was careless enough to send the picture to a rapist, then I hope she can protect herself. But since there's such a low percentage of rapists in the teen population, the only thing she has to worry about is the publicity that it's gotten her. The whole situation has gotten completely out of hand over nothing, IMO.

[Boreas]

Thanks Lord Drakkus. It is nice to hear that a young man or two can control himself! :sneaky:

[countryguync]

Saw the Dr. Phil show today and he talked about stupid/dangerous/illegal things kids do these days. He had the parents of a 12 y/o girl who has been "sexting" photos of herself in "sexy" poses while partially undressed. She has received text messages asking her to "send pic of u naked". This girl was asked why she does this and her response was she wanted her "friends to like her". Do true friends ask each other to do things they know are wrong or dangerous?
She clearly needs some conselling. And Dr. Phil is making help available for the girl and her parents. The father was torn up and very emotional while he tried to talk about what he saw on his little girls cell phone. Check out www.drphil.com (http://www.drphil.com) to find the episode of 1/27/09

[walter05]

Working with law enforcement I have seen similar situations. Unfortunately, the other kid might be a 50 year old man posing as another kid even with nude pics of other kids he pretends are himself.

It is very dangerous what kids can do online.

Your question is very good.

[simonsebs]

Utah House OKs bill reducing nude-photo penalties (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11564255)

This goes along with the original topic, so I'm putting it here.

[Boreas]

I have seen some of this in my work as a counsellor. The parents involved were very surprised by what was on their daughter's cell phone. The teens live in a different world it seems.

[Fitz1980]

I have seen some of this in my work as a counsellor. The parents involved were very surprised by what was on their daughter's cell phone. The teens live in a different world it seems.

My experience is that lots of parents are living in a dream world where they have no idea what their kids are up to online or in the real world. I've known high school kids who I worked with who would call Mom after work and say they were spending the night with a friend when they were really attending all night drinking parties with us College kids. I knew a girl who grew up way out in the country (North GA mountains) and when she went away to college her parents had a long talk with her about how she was going to be exposed to stuff that she had never seen before, namely sex & drugs. They thought that she was a virgin who had never even seen drugs; they had no idea that she had been sexually active and a regular marijuana smoker junior and senior year of high school.

This isn't anything new either. I know that lots of people on this board are older than me so I'm going to direct this question to them. Did your parents know what was happening with you when you were that age? When you lost your virginity did you parents have any idea? The only problem now is thanks to the information age we now have proof positive of past indiscretions that lingers in the digital world forever. Used to be notes that got passed around and stories about "easy" girls that might ruin a reputation, now it's actual digital pictures and forever being known as "that girl from the Girls Gone Wild commercial."

[bernardc]

A naked friendly laughing kid with his/her parents is never porn.porn focusses explicitely on the genitals being manipulated to the point of orgasm,and explicitely visiolised and photographed,and to stimulate lust.Porn is explicit genital action,not happy kids playing naked with parents.See the website of "Sunsport gardens.com

[Boreas]

A naked friendly laughing kid with his/her parents is never porn.porn focusses explicitely on the genitals being manipulated to the point of orgasm,and explicitely visiolised and photographed,and to stimulate lust.Porn is explicit genital action,not happy kids playing naked with parents.See the website of "Sunsport gardens.com

Not necessarily. Read the initial post again. The concern was a teen girl who had sent a naked picture of herself via cell phone to a teen boy. We of course have not see the picture to know how sexually explicit it was. Of course, it could have been merely naked. It could have been sexual without the action you describe.

Fitz, I agree with you. We did not have the technology that kids have today. That does not mean it would not have happened. Once people thought that the Beatles and rock and roll music were scandalous. When I was a teenager, many of the older people in our community thought we were going to hell in a handbasket because of our clothes and long hair. There were some teens causing problems, but they were a minority. The teen years are about experimenting, and pushing the envelope. Parents do not always really want to know all the details! :eek:

[nimrod]

I will ask the question again. If nudity were more widely accepted would this be a problem?

Two thoughts on it, and this is assuming that the pics are just simple nudity. First, if nudity were more accepted it would take away the "naughty" factor of sending a nude photo of ourself. If you did send a nude pic, it would be the same as sending any other picture of yourself.

Second, if the pictures were of just simple nudity there would be no shock value to any who happened upon them because simple nudity would not have the negative attitude applied towards it that it does now.

I do realize that the kids might up the anty and the pics could become sexual in nature, but if they had a healthy attitude about themselves, would the need to draw attention to themselves remain. I guess that is what it really comes down to, how they feel about themselves.

[Boreas]

If simple nudity were more acceptable, I do not think this would even be an issue, unless the photos were actually sexual in nature.

[Bob S.]

walt: "However, I bet he thinks either it is an invitation for sex or that he can get her to have sex with him. The consequences of the photo are likely to be his penis in her vagina either way."

Possibly. As I mentioned, this could have been a tease for her bf. Sex is always a possibility, but another aspect that hasn't quite been touched on yet is her reputation. What does it say for a girl who would sent out naked pics of herself, even if it was just to her current bf?

What guy would just keep that to himself?

Boreas: "If simple nudity were more acceptable, I do not think this would even be an issue, unless the photos were actually sexual in nature."

Even if the pics were sexual in nature, should this be prosecuted? Should any teen ever be prosecuted for producing child porn when taking a photo of themselves? I would say no! Those laws are to protect children from perverted adults or forceful peers, not from themselves.

Should the teen boys be prosecuted if their teen bf/gf or friend voluntarily sends them a sexual picture of themselves? I would say no. These laws are meant to go after producers of child porn and the recipients who go looking for pics of the victimized children. They weren't meant to go after the teen sig others of those who would sent that kind of picture.

Bob S.

[Boreas]

Even if the pics were sexual in nature, should this be prosecuted? Should any teen ever be prosecuted for producing child porn when taking a photo of themselves? I would say no! Those laws are to protect children from perverted adults or forceful peers, not from themselves.

Should the teen boys be prosecuted if their teen bf/gf or friend voluntarily sends them a sexual picture of themselves? I would say no. These laws are meant to go after producers of child porn and the recipients who go looking for pics of the victimized children. They weren't meant to go after the teen sig others of those who would sent that kind of picture.


That is the point isn't it. It is totally stupid that teens would be charged with producing or possesing porn. Those laws are to protect them. If they are being unwise, then teach them. Don't prosecute them.

[Fitz1980]

Possibly. As I mentioned, this could have been a tease for her bf. Sex is always a possibility, but another aspect that hasn't quite been touched on yet is her reputation. What does it say for a girl who would sent out naked pics of herself, even if it was just to her current bf?

What guy would just keep that to himself?


Well if they are so worried about her reputation I don't think that getting her involved in a high profile court case.

[Pete Knight]

That is the point isn't it. It is totally stupid that teens would be charged with producing or possesing porn. Those laws are to protect them. If they are being unwise, then teach them. Don't prosecute them.
We get these over officious morons over here too, they aren't content with applying sensible law using common sense, they have to apply the law to the last letter.
We have rafts of European laws that are flouted by the French, but our officials apply them far too rigorously. Take the market stall trader who used imperial weights for selling fruit and vegetables, she was taken to court by the local council trading standards office, the case has finally been dropped, after huge expense to the public purse.

Laws have, and always will have, loopholes that either side can exploit, and sometimes it seems as though winning is the only motive and justice is forgotten.

Pete Knight

[walter05]

Your point about the boy sharing them is one I had not thought of. You are right. The threat of showing them could be used to coerce her into sex.

A teen boy could show them to other guys. Maybe one of them is less able to control himself.

Once she has a reputation as a slut, justified or not, it is more difficult to prove she did not want sex. This also makes her more vulnerable to rape.

First of all, the ages are a factor. I would agree about prosecution.

In juvenile courts, there is a lot of room for the judge and authorities to exercise discretion. This is a non-violent crime. Therefore, I expect them to attempt to do what will be best for the kids.

We agree it was stupid.

However, I hope there will be some mandated awareness of consequences for her. She needs to learn to protect herself.

If the photo has not been sent out, I hope the adults delete it.

[countryguync]

I will ask the question again. If nudity were more widely accepted would this be a problem?

Two thoughts on it, and this is assuming that the pics are just simple nudity. First, if nudity were more accepted it would take away the "naughty" factor of sending a nude photo of ourself. If you did send a nude pic, it would be the same as sending any other picture of yourself.

Second, if the pictures were of just simple nudity there would be no shock value to any who happened upon them because simple nudity would not have the negative attitude applied towards it that it does now.

I do realize that the kids might up the anty and the pics could become sexual in nature, but if they had a healthy attitude about themselves, would the need to draw attention to themselves remain. I guess that is what it really comes down to, how they feel about themselves.
To NIMROD; Right on the mark!!!

[Bob S.]

walt: "Your point about the boy sharing them is one I had not thought of. You are right. The threat of showing them could be used to coerce her into sex.
A teen boy could show them to other guys. Maybe one of them is less able to control himself.
Once she has a reputation as a slut, justified or not, it is more difficult to prove she did not want sex. This also makes her more vulnerable to rape."

You really are focusing on the threat of rape just because she took these pictures. The possibility of rape, the way I see it, is the same as a normal sociable girl who did not pass along nude pics of herself ( I would also consider coerced sex as a form of rape).

Just because a teen boy, even a 17-year-old boy, sees a nude pic of a girl he knows does not mean he now has a heightened risk of raping her. If the nude pic does push one over the edge to want to rape, he was already on the verge of wanting to rape that girl (or another girl) already but the pic could not be the reason why he raped her.

As for reputation, that has nothing to do with proving that a sexual encounter was willing or not. Her reputation (except if she was into more "adventurous encounters" is unrelated to a specific sexual encounter where she claimed she was forced into sex.

Bob S.

[nimrod]

You really are focusing on the threat of rape just because she took these pictures. The possibility of rape, the way I see it, is the same as a normal sociable girl who did not pass along nude pics of herself ( I would also consider coerced sex as a form of rape).

Bob S.

I agree with you Bob. I guess some here are still having some trouble seperating nudity and sex. I have to say that even before I was a nudist and still equated the two, I did not want to go out and rape a woman just because she had nude photos taken of her. Never looked at a Playboy and thought that I would like to force the centerfold into having sex with me. I see it as blaming the victim. "If she didn't dress that way I wouldn't have raped her."

[Boreas]

It is very sexist to assume that when a woman sends a nude picture of herself she is expecting sex or can expect to be raped. It is very sexist to assume that a man cannot control himself or always wants sex because he receives a nude picture. It is very sexist to assume that her reputation is any more important than his.........

Etc.

[MoonShadow]

Boreas, BobS, Nimrod - absolutely! Great posts!

[Bob S.]

Boreas: "It is very sexist to assume that when a woman sends a nude picture of herself she is expecting sex or can expect to be raped. It is very sexist to assume that a man cannot control himself or always wants sex because he receives a nude picture. It is very sexist to assume that her reputation is any more important than his........."

It is not necessarily sexist to assume that a woman who sends a nude picture to a boyfriend is not doing so as a sexual turn-on. That is a touch below requesting sex, but it isn't simply innocent either, especially in the textile community.

As for reputations, since we only have her sending a pic, the only reputation we can judge is hers. Yes, we can judge his on what he did with the pic, but we don't know in this case. Had the guy sent his gf a nude pic, we would be talking about his reputation. Neither is any more important, but I am focusing on the after-effects of her actions.

Bob S.

[walter05]

There are a small percentage of males that do take advantage of women. They are not necessarily dumb.

I have been in a juvenile court when a 14 year old girl was claiming that a 16 year old boy raped her. The boy's attorney destroyed her on the stand.

If the male knows that he has a greater chance to get away with it. The predator will go for the girl he can have his way with without fear.

[Boreas]

There are a small percentage of males that do take advantage of women. They are not necessarily dumb.

I have been in a juvenile court when a 14 year old girl was claiming that a 16 year old boy raped her. The boy's attorney destroyed her on the stand.

If the male knows that he has a greater chance to get away with it. The predator will go for the girl he can have his way with without fear.

Yes, I agree. Your example is one reason why many victims do not come forward. In Canada courts are not allowed to bring in the woman's sexual history unless it is shown to be relevant. Now lawyers cannot accuse women of being promiscuous and therefore "deserving" it. Even sex workers need some protection.

Making a blanket statement suggesting the girl was only looking for sex and arguing about her risk of being raped is what I was responding to.

For the record, I have worked with sex abuse victims, and likely a few offenders. Victims are not only female. Perpetrators are not solely male, though the majority of perpetrators are male.

[walter05]

My blanket statement was meant that many 17 year old males will believe she wants sex.

I don't believe she is deserving to be raped. However, she greatly raises her risk.

The problem is that there are women who have falsely accused males also. The mere fact that a male's semen is in a female's vagina demonstrates that they had intercourse. The question then becomes whether or not it is consensual.

I have taught my daughters that if they are ever in a situation where they think a male is attempting to take advantage, a strong knee to the testes will give them enough time to get away. I tell them that is their best protection.

[Nude in the North]

I don't know if this has been brought up yet or not. But there is a possiblity that they have already had sex. And that neither of them need to be coerced.

Personally I don't think she is any more vunerable to anything now than she was before.

I think the school and staff that viewed the pictures should be facing invasion of privacy charges. Removed from their positions, and jailed. After a fair trial of course.

Why is it that generation after generation, when people have childern of their own. They forget what it was like when they were kids.

We are the sum of our experiences. We are not Clones.

[walter05]

We do remember.

[Lord Drakkus]

Yes, we do remember what it's like to be a kid. But we get wiser as we get older, and we realize the things we thought nothing of as children can have some serious consequences that those children are not aware of.

It's not that we forget what it's like to be children, it's that now we're aware that kids don't know what they think they know.

[Naturist Mark]

Looks like the prevalence of teens sending nude photos of themselves is far more than realized. There are a lot of kids who the authorities now need to prosecute for "kiddy porning" themselves ...

Large Percentage of Young Adults Posting Nude Pictures (http://americansexuality.blogspot.com/2008/12/large-percentage-of-young-adults.html)One in five teen girls (22%)—and 11% of teen girls ages 13-16 years old—say they have electronically sent, or posted online, nude or semi-nude images of themselves.

Full CosmoGirl survey results (PDF) (http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/PDF/SexTech_Summary.pdf)

[walter05]

It is very common. College age adults are doing it regularly.

When getting background search information on them, I regularly see nude pictures from various networking sites. Some of them while engaged in sexual acts.

Young adults have no understanding of what they are doing. Neither do kids.

Walter

[countryguync]

Watching todays episode of the Dr. Phil show 2/03/09. He talked about kids texting on their cell phones and what their parents can do to keep up with what their kids are doing. New technology is available to keep tabs on all calls and text messages to/from their kids cell phone that are from/to a non-authorized number. The service is called "RADAR" from My Mobile Watchdog. Dr Phil will have a link on his website to information all parents need to know. He has a 13 y/o girl on the show who was raped by a 20 something she met online and was texting with on her cell phone when he wanted to meet her in person.

Go to www.drphil.com (http://www.drphil.com) for more information.

[MoonShadow]

Yes, I agree, parents need to know what their kids are doing with their cell phones. Why not just get the kids a plain phone that just allows calling another person and not have internet access or texting? Why do kids need this when the point of a cell phone is TO CALL another.

[Lord Drakkus]

Yes, I agree, parents need to know what their kids are doing with their cell phones. Why not just get the kids a plain phone that just allows calling another person and not have internet access or texting? Why do kids need this when the point of a cell phone is TO CALL another.

That's my thought exactly. My Wife and I have talked about this at length, and checked around with the different providers. There are phones you can get that you can limit to only being able to call certain numbers, as well as limit it to voice calls ONLY, and no text or picture messaging. When our daughter starts 6th grade, or turns 12 (we're not sure which yet), that's what we're going to give her. Our main concern is possible cost and the "spoiled" factor, but not being able to send nude pictures of herself to strangers or semi-strangers would also be a nice bonus. I dont' think she would do it anyway, but some things you just never know.

[walter05]

Kids think they are texting another kid and it could be a 50 year old man.

He sends a picture he has acquired of a teen girl with a necklace.

She responds with a picture with a necklace.

He photo shops the image on a teen girl with small breasts and says he got it from a mutual friend.

He sends a topless picture of the necklace picture he sent her with bigger breasts.

She responds with a real picture of her breasts and the neclace.

He then starts to threaten with sending the picture all over her school.

He agrees to meet her and exchange photos.

He takes her somewhere and he rapes her. He tells her that if she tells, he will use the photos to prove she wanted it. He manipulates her.

For the next few weeks, he calls her, picks her up, and has sex with her repeatedly.

Finally, her parents find out by accident when they have her cell phone and receive a text message from him. They call the police.

They catch the guy. He is currently serving 30 years.

The 14 year old is okay, except having Herpes for life.

This is based on a real case. I am hiding information to protect the girl, her family, and the law enforcement case.

There are additional charges pending. The police want this guy to rot in prison. I hope they get their wish.

P.S. in U.S. prisions, these creeps are regularly violently raped by their fellow prisoners. Many of the prisoners were sexually abused as kids themselves. They punish others who did this.

[Pete Knight]

Her Majesties Prison Service has, what is known as, Rule 45, segregation of a prisoner for his/her own protection. Most child molesters end up in segregation cells, often known as solitary confinement.

The Soham murders horrified the whole of Britain a few years ago, two girls were molested and brutally murdered, the perp, Ian Huntley, was attacked in prison despite being segregated, even hardened criminals have children and hate these creeps.

Pete Knight

[Fitz1980]

Yes, I agree. Your example is one reason why many victims do not come forward. In Canada courts are not allowed to bring in the woman's sexual history unless it is shown to be relevant. Now lawyers cannot accuse women of being promiscuous and therefore "deserving" it. Even sex workers need some protection.


It's the same way here in the US. They can't bring up an accusers sexual history so that a defense can't be "made" by painting a victim as promiscuous or if she did have a sexual history with the rapist in the past. In fact that pendulum has swung so far in that direction that it's sometimes unfair to the accused. A few years ago in the US we had a case where a famous (married) athlete had sex with a woman who later accused him of rape. By her own admission she had consensual sex with another man 12 hours after the alleged rape occurred. Rape victims generally don't go out and have consensual sex the day after suffering such a horrible trauma and that speaks directly to the credibility of her story, as did her history of trying to extort money out of people before. The defense was barred from introducing that fact because of rape shield laws, which were designed to protect woman's sexual history from being used against them not to keep out evidence that is directly tied to the facts of the case.

[Yuppers]

I have watched the late late night tv on commercial tv here in Australia. I see commercials for downloading porn on the mobile(cell) phone and a minimum age of 14 years old. However, a teenager can face court for sending photos of themselves on the phone where they are naked. The law clearly is an ***!

[Bob S.]

Just a clarification update from CIO Today (http://www.cio-today.com/news/Teens-Who--Sext--Charged-With-Porn/story.xhtml?story_id=0120013PCX60):

This month in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, three high school girls who sent seminude photos and four male students who received them were all hit with child pornography charges. And in Newark, Ohio, a 15-year-old high school girl faced similar charges for sending her own racy cell phone photos to classmates. She eventually agreed to a curfew, no cell phone and no unsupervised Internet usage over the next few months. If she complies, the charges will be dropped.
In Pennsylvania, all but one of the students accepted a lesser misdemeanor charge, partly to avoid a trial and further embarrassment, a public defender in the case said. The mother of one boy is considering fighting all charges.

So apparently, there was no nudity in the pictures the girls sent. They were semi-nude pictures, which may mean they were either in their underwear or topless. If no nudity was shown, this is a dangerous idea that they could charge someone with child pornography for non-nude pictures. For five of the students, they pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. It will be interesting to see if the final boy and his parents fights the charge or accepts the plea deal.

Bob S.

[Boreas]

Just a clarification update from CIO Today (http://www.cio-today.com/news/Teens-Who--Sext--Charged-With-Porn/story.xhtml?story_id=0120013PCX60):

This month in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, three high school girls who sent seminude photos and four male students who received them were all hit with child pornography charges. And in Newark, Ohio, a 15-year-old high school girl faced similar charges for sending her own racy cell phone photos to classmates. She eventually agreed to a curfew, no cell phone and no unsupervised Internet usage over the next few months. If she complies, the charges will be dropped.
In Pennsylvania, all but one of the students accepted a lesser misdemeanor charge, partly to avoid a trial and further embarrassment, a public defender in the case said. The mother of one boy is considering fighting all charges.

So apparently, there was no nudity in the pictures the girls sent. They were semi-nude pictures, which may mean they were either in their underwear or topless. If no nudity was shown, this is a dangerous idea that they could charge someone with child pornography for non-nude pictures. For five of the students, they pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. It will be interesting to see if the final boy and his parents fights the charge or accepts the plea deal.

Bob S.

That is crazy. At least they ended up with lesser chargers. Never-the-less, as someone said, these charges were meant to protect the kids. They were not meant to be used on the kids. Sheesh. :rolleyes: I think there MUST be better ways to address this behaviour if it is inappropriate.

[Pete Knight]

That is crazy. At least they ended up with lesser chargers. Never-the-less, as someone said, these charges were meant to protect the kids. They were not meant to be used on the kids. Sheesh. :rolleyes: I think there MUST be better ways to address this behaviour if it is inappropriate.

There will always be the over officious type who are intent on applying the law irrespective of the lack of reason, and with a complete absence of common sense. They think they are doing a wonderful job, yet we see them for the fools they are.

Pete Knight

[walter05]

It sounds like they missed an excellent opporunity to educate the girls.

What a shame.

Walter

[Fresh Air]

Mmmm, it's not what the picture IS that makes it child porn. It is why the picture is taken and why it is being viewed.

[Bob S.]

A tragic case involving sexting--and a problem with sharing pictures of yourself that you do not want others to see.

According to MSNBC (http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/03/06/teen-commits-suicide-is-sexting-to-blame/), an 18-year-old girl killed herself after enduring relentless taunting and verbal abuse when pictures of herself that she took were distributed around the school by her boyfriend after their relationship ended.

This is a tragedy and shows another problem regarding sexted pictures--the reaction by some people who think nothing of what they are doing. In this case, the problematic people were younger girls, possibly already jealous of her.

Bob S.

[maxnude]

It's not child porn if there was no sexual intent or activity in images.

Plain nudist or naturist images or plain nude images are not Child porn either.

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Pornography

[simonsebs]

U.S. prosecutor sued over semi-nude teen photos case (http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE52O63O20090325)

Here's an update to the story.

[Bob S.]

And I hope they are successful. The prosecutor needs to know that tossing threats such as that at minors is worse than what they did. He was threatening them with having their lives ruined.

Bob S.

[Illinois59]

I guess the parties behind the economic meltdown that cost millions of people their jobs, their retirement savings, their children's college educations, and so on are far less guilty of a crime than those who have a nude photo on their cell phone. There really isn't much being said about punishing those who profited greatly by the economic games they played until the economic house of cards that they built finally collapsed.

[Keith58]

A tragic case involving sexting--and a problem with sharing pictures of yourself that you do not want others to see.

According to MSNBC (http://www.lemondrop.com/2009/03/06/teen-commits-suicide-is-sexting-to-blame/), an 18-year-old girl killed herself after enduring relentless taunting and verbal abuse when pictures of herself that she took were distributed around the school by her boyfriend after their relationship ended.

This is a tragedy and shows another problem regarding sexted pictures--the reaction by some people who think nothing of what they are doing. In this case, the problematic people were younger girls, possibly already jealous of her.

Bob S.

And there are SOME who think something similar cannot happen on a forum like this by a disgruntled forumite if one should post a picture of themself nude.

For that case, I will not post my photo. No way.

I can control myself, but my control ends at my fingertips...

Keith

[Keith58]

And I hope they are successful. The prosecutor needs to know that tossing threats such as that at minors is worse than what they did. He was threatening them with having their lives ruined.

Bob S.

Yeah, a corrupt lawyer (similarly said "liar") in public office is enough justification for capital punishment.

NC did itself a favor ridding the Bar and the public of Nifong. Maybe the prosecutor in this case will be served a similar fate.

Keith

[ranul]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2009/03/26/8898066-ap.html

She put some pictures on myspace

[EZ Nude]

Here we go again! This makes my blood pressure explode.
The last line in the article says it all.......

"Unfortunately, youth don't have the same judgment as adults," she said, "and often, adults don't have the same technical savvy as the youth."

How many of us have done stupid things in our youth and when you think about it now, you can't believe you made it this far in life. The kids need help, not scar them for life based on a bad act done as a child.

I better stop. I'm close to throwing my laptop out the window.

[Agde]

Perhaps the photo sharing phenomenon could help teach teens (and everybody) to distinguish between nude photos and sexual photos? A generation sharing nude photos of each other might actually take the the wind out of the sails of mass media sexploitation.

[ThalUtat]

It's really difficult to assess this because we don't know what "very explicit" means. It's tough enough to make the "nude isn't lewd" argument if the image is indeed lewd.

How old is the boyfried to whom she sent these images? Did he really need that much encouragement?

One of the problems we have as a movement (naturism and nudism, maybe two movements) is that we live in a society that so treasures the erotic that our children learn early and strongly that the only measure of their self-worth is in their sexual availability.

So much more reason to press forward for advocating family-friendly clothes-free activities.

Bill
Long Island

[Fitz1980]

How many of us have done stupid things in our youth and when you think about it now, you can't believe you made it this far in life. The kids need help, not scar them for life based on a bad act done as a child.


I like the way that you put that. It seems that so many in our world want to forget what things were like as a child/teen. It's nice to say that kids are having sex and getting sexual at earlier and earlier ages but the big difference is that there's more of a record of it now. For how long have kids been playing "truth or dare" or doing whatever that lead to the girls showing themselves to someone they felt was desirable, and I'm not talking about nudism, I'm talking about "hey look at these." Only they used to be backyard games done away from the prying eyes of parents (you know the same place where you smoked pot) whereas now there could be a digital record on the net. I think that for someone of my generation (29 next week) to try to tell their kids that they avoided drugs and waited until marriage would be a lie and an unbelievable one at that for most. But at the end of the day I don't think it's that different for the previous one at at that. Where were you during the summer of love? as it were.

Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers.
Socrates
Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC)

[Naturist Mark]

We had to destroy the village in order to save it.

[RalphVa]

I agree with Naturist Mark. I thought the NJ law on nudity was against indecent exposure. Unless it offended someone, nudity is not indecent. Maybe the silly laws covering minors do cover this. Can't see prosecuting her for putting her own pictures out there.

[shaneone]

This is just truly bizarre. The possibility of being registered as a sex offender for having your own nude pic is idiotic.
Yes, you need to be careful what you do with it and who you send it to, but lets gets real here. It is nothing more than a nude pic.

[Bob S.]

For those who are here from girl arrested for own nude pictures (http://www.clothesfreeforum.com/showthread.php?t=13962),I felt like merging the threads as they are both very similar.

Bob S.
moderator

[Bob S.]

As I stated on this thread before, this NJ case is an overactive prosecutor thinking that he is helping the situation by prosecuting the girl. However, he is not doing her any favors. The laws are meant to protect children/teens who are being victimized by others who are exploiting them.

In these cases, no one is being victimized, except by the prosecutors. The person in the pictures should always be treated delicately. In this case, since the person who took the picture and the person in the picture are the same, the prosecutor is ignoring the idea that the "victim" needs to be protected and is instead criminalizing the act. In doing so, he is attempting to ruin the girl's future all because she was stupid. Life on the Sexual Offender's List hinders someone's future in where she can live, what profession she can go into, and even whether she can continue school.

In Miami, there are such restrictive laws regarding sex offenders that 52 of them are living under a bridge as they cannot find an affordable place to live that satisfies all the requirements as maintained by the laws. Two townships in NJ have similar laws to those in Miami regulating where sex offenders can live. Would this NJ girl be able to move back into her house if convicted and registered? In the two townships whose laws are being reviewed by the NJ Supreme Court, sex offenders cannot live within 2500 feet of schools, parks, playgrounds, or day care centers.

Making the "victim" pay for the crimes of the "perpetrator" is always wrong. When they are both the same person, it is just inane to prosecute. All that does is to victimize the victim even more.

Bob S.

[Running Bear]

This is an excellent idea that I have expanded.
"Society treasures the erotic so that our children learn strongly from an early age that the only measure of their true worth is their sexual availability" (quote from ThalUtat)
This affirms that children are well aware of the erotic side of life and the suggestion that acknowledging the erotic side of life is a chance for us adults to catch up.
Naturism seems to exercise the mind to become detached from its senses. The object of the senses (nudity) is under the control of the mind. A disciplined mind in control of its senses is not possible when you hide the object of the senses (textiles).
Training children to exercise their mind is the best way to protect them from evil. Protecting them with ignorance is ineffective.

[MichiganMe]

In Pennsyvania, three teenage girls and their mothers are suing a county district attorney who threatened to arrest the students on pornography charges after semi-nude photographs of them appeared on other students' cell phones reported the New York Times News Service in an article written by Sean D. Hamill and Liz Robbins. A federal judge, James M. Munley, said at a hearing Thursday that the suit raises "serious constitutional issues". "It seems like the the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here," added the judge. "How does that make sense?" The lawyer for the district attorney of Wyoming County countered that state law "doesn't distinguish between who took the picture and who was in it".

Munley (of U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania) will not rule until next week on a request for a temporary restraining order forbidding the D.A. from filing the charges. They maintain that the charges are retaliation for the parents' assertion of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights in opposing the D.A.'s offer to forgo charges if the students attended classes dealing with pornography and sexual violence. A total of 20 students from the Tunkhannock Area School District were caught up in the investigation. Seventeen of the students agreed to attend the classes.

One mother, an employee of the high school, testified that she found a photo of her daughter and a friend harmless. It had been taken two years earlier and showed the girls from the waist up wearing bras.

The above is a summary of the article. I don't have a link to it. I found it in the March 27 edition of the Ann Arbor News on page A6.

Finally we have some parents standing up to an out of control D.A. This is what it will take to put an end to the prosecutions, for currently the D.A.s believe that they will be punished politically if they don't respond forcefully to the "problem" of nude photos taken by minors of themselves. As more parents stand up for their kids (and the rights of the parents to police the kids themselves as they see fit), the D.A.s will begin backing off and the law will be limited to its original intent: protecting kids from sexual predators.

The mere depiction of nudity (or the actuality of nudity) is not lewd. You and I know that and most people know it too, even though they are not nudists. However, nudists have allowed the textilists, and here I mean the criminally minded who obscure their own criminal activities by pretense of concern for morals, to control the argument regarding social nudity. The result is that, while most everyone knows that simple nudity is not lewd, they think that everyone else must believe otherwise. Consequently, D.A.s, to protect their political asses, have been making these ridiculous charges against kids.

Parents finally acting to defend their kids will help put the D.A.s in their place, but we can and must help out by being open about our own love of naturism. We have to work to allow all those people who know that simple nudity is OK to also know that most other people agree with them. I have an article on this that The Naturist Society wants to publish in their magazine. I have to expand on it a bit before I submit it for publication.

Sincerly,
Matthew Kerwin
President, Southeast Michigan Naturists
Founder, Michigan Nude Beach Advocates
www.michigannudebeachadvocates.org

[Yuppers]

This is certainly the wrong way to handle this young woman. The amount of teenage girls posting raunchy photos of themselves shows just how much society has failed them as they seek feedback in their need to be wanted and accepted.

[simonsebs]

Federal Judge Issues TRO in Teenagers’ Child Porn Case (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/03/31/federal-judge-issues-tro-in-teenagers-child-porn-case/)

Here's an update to the story.

[zharth]

Photos of the girls were found on cellphones confiscated by school officials... Two of the girls were depicted from the waist up in opaque bras; one girl was wrapped in a towel with her breasts exposed.

Is that it? Talk about a non-issue...

[Yuppers]

And western society looks down on Islam for the need to cover up.

[Big-Thinker]

I also think this is blown out of proportion. I think it's strange that it's legal for kids to have sex all day long, but the minute a picture is taken, it becomes a hideous crime. Now don't get me wrong - I don't think these kids should be taking pictures of themselves to show to others (I also don't think kids/teenagers should be having sex). It's just not wise. I think it's one of those many things parents SHOULD warn/talk-to their kids about. And all parents need to understand the internet now. We're not in the stone age anymore, and we're not in the pre-internet age anymore either.

I also think this shouldn't be such a serious crime. Yes, it should be serious if adults intercept and distribute, but I think making it such a serious charge for teenagers risks humiliating further someone who has already been extremely humiliated by the pictures being intercepted/distributed in the first place. I believe these kinds of serious charges will lead to suicides for some, or in some cases heavy drug use later. Is that really worth it, to teach them a lesson? Now ganted, some kids don't have any shame and probably need some extra counseling, heavy discipline by parents to get them to think about consequences of their actions. I think in most cases, it shouldn't be a legal issue, but something that is handled privately, by parents and counselors. It could be on their public legal record forever, and if it gets into the news... well as they say, the internet never forgets! Kids do stupid things - some more stupid than others. Don't brand them with that mistake for life.

Making things like this such a serious crime also diminishes the meaning of those charges. Hell, if every kid that took a picture of themselves nude is branded a sexual offender/predator/child pornogragher, then the public may not take it seriously anymore when someone is legally designated one.

[WilliamCA]

You can thank Bill O'Reilly for a lot of this stupidity on this subject. He's so hell-bent on "protecting the children" he can't pull his head out of his ***. Kids have been doing dumb **** since time immemorial. To punish some 16 yr old girl for taking pictures of herself in the nude is stupid. It's obviously politically motivated. What happened to a free society?

[inudist]

You can thank Bill O'Reilly for a lot of this stupidity on this subject. He's so hell-bent on "protecting the children" he can't pull his head out of his ***.

To hear what Bill O'Reilly had to say about this go to
http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/index.html
click on the Is it Legal Tab, and select the Sexting Controversy video. It is in minutes 2-4 of a six minute video, right after a segment on Sarah Palin.

I don't agree with him on this one- it should be the parents, not lawyers dealing with these children, but in all fairness what he had to say was nothing like what WilliamCA's post describes.

[Bob S.]

Here is an update from AP to a case of a NJ teen who posted nude pics of herself on MySpace from AOL news (http://news.aol.com/article/probation-for-teen-in-nude-photos/540257?icid=main|netscape|dl1|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fn ews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fprobation-for-teen-in-nude-photos%2F540257):

Bob S.


Probation for Teen in Nude Photos

TRENTON, N.J. (June 24) -- A 14-year-old New Jersey girl who posted nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com will have child pornography counts dropped.
The Passaic County Prosecutor's Office says the girl must undergo at least six months of counseling and probation and must stay out of trouble. If she does, all charges will be dropped.
The Clifton teen was initially arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. If convicted on those counts, she could have been required to register as a sex offender.

[maxnude]

TRENTON, N.J. (June 24) -- A 14-year-old New Jersey girl who posted nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com will have child pornography counts dropped.

The 14 year old should have been banned from the internet during the probation period, and learned how to read sites "Terms of Service"

The whole ordeal would have been prevented if she would have read MySpace's TOS. MySpace does not allow any nudity.

I know you often see nudity as above, and it might take a while but when found its deleted along with the posters account and the IP address blocks further attempts to open a new account or change of user ID.

[nimrod]

The Passaic County Prosecutor's Office says the girl must undergo at least six months of counseling and probation and must stay out of trouble. If she does, all charges will be dropped.

Sounds like the girl is going in for reprograming. "They" have to make sure that she realizes nudity is wrong.

[zharth]

Sounds like the girl is going in for reprograming. "They" have to make sure that she realizes nudity is wrong.

That's what it sounds like to me, too.

[inudist]

[QUOTE=Bob S.;231997]Here is an update from AP to a case of a NJ teen who posted nude pics of herself on MySpace from AOL news (http://news.aol.com/article/probation-for-teen-in-nude-photos/540257?icid=main|netscape|dl1|link7|http%3A%2F%2Fn ews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fprobation-for-teen-in-nude-photos%2F540257):

Bob S.
QUOTE]

Thanks for the update. Sounds like the prosecutors got what they originally wanted. What happened to the days when parents handled stuff like this? Take away the phone, ground 'em for a week, and its all over. How many taxpayers dollers were wasted on this?

[davep]

I agree that it's largely down to education: girls (and boys, let's remember) need to be made aware of the risks in sending these pics, and (since some will still do it to their Special Other) above all that they must never send them to anyone they don't know face-to-face. People need to know that what they send today can be used against them tomorrow when that loving boyfriend's become a spiteful monster - and not just kids, adults too.

I think the issue of distribution to recipients not intended by the original sender is one that needs especially tough action: this really is gross abuse and exploitation, whether to hurt an ex-girlfriend or to win favour with peers. Any boy who'd pass on his ex's suggestive/naked picture to get his revenge is just beneath contempt and deserves to have the book thrown at him - same goes for anyone else circulating the stuff to look "cool" with their peers.

It's certainly a massively growing issue - and remember the cases we hear about are only the tiny tip of the iceberg. There'll soon be millions of kids with these potentially disastrous time-bombs ticking away on someone else's computer: the technology's out there, children are suffering premature sexualisation as the entertainment industry ups the teen sexual ante to market its banal products, and society doesn't seem to care enough to do what's needed to protect the senders from abusers within or outside their age group.

In an ideal world we may one day be able to say let them be a bit racy, it's harmless fun. But it's not an ideal world, and the message to kids should be: Don't send it; and for anybody recirculating it, Expect the harshest penalties for the child abuse that it is.

[zharth]

There'll soon be millions of kids with these potentially disastrous time-bombs ticking away on someone else's computer...and society doesn't seem to care enough to do what's needed to protect the senders from abusers within or outside their age group.

Maybe I'm being naive, but at the risk of sparking controversy, I will say that my instinct suggests that maybe you are exaggerating the dangers involved with this behavior? Sure, there's the possibility of a person's reputation being damaged, and even the possibility of a particular person being targeted for some form of abuse, but how prevalent is that, really? Perhaps my perspective is a bit lenient, but I honestly don't think it's such a big deal. We make this sort of thing out to be such an evil, sinful, activity, that we're creating the very dangerous environment that we must then protect ourselves (and our children) from. Maybe this isn't the right place to discuss this, but if we were more open and honest (while still being respectful, and showing discretion) about sexuality in general, I think the situation could only improve. Repression and forbidden desires are what lead to outbursts of dangerous and criminal behavior.

That having been said, I agree that it is simply dishonest and downright despicable to disseminate sensitive photos of another person without their consent, and is something I would never consider doing. But it's the gut reactions people have to this phenomenon that unsettles me. It's life and life only, we should be allowed to have fun, take risks, and make mistakes, without letting our entire lives become ruined as a result of the societal pressure to fly straight.

[Caipora]

I agree that it's largely down to education: girls (and boys, let's remember) need to be made aware of the risks in sending these pics, and (since some will still do it to their Special Other) above all that they must never send them to anyone they don't know face-to-face. ...

I think the issue of distribution to recipients not intended by the original sender is one that needs especially tough action: this really is gross abuse and exploitation, ...

It's certainly a massively growing issue - and remember the cases we hear about are only the tiny tip of the iceberg. There'll soon be millions of kids with these potentially disastrous time-bombs ticking away on someone else's computer: ... society doesn't seem to care enough to do what's needed to protect the senders from abusers within or outside their age group.

Well, no, actually.

One of the early objections to the telephone was that if a woman had one in her home, she was subject to being accosted by men to whom she had not been introduced!

And of course there was a time when a lady had her name in the newspaper three times: when she was born, when she married, and when she died.

Times have changed. It is no longer possible to keep one's name out of the paper, and the phone ringing with calls from people we don't care to speak to is an inconvenience, not the loss of our reputations.

Now, pictures. Naturists have often seen proof of what many can only speculate: that we are all naked under our clothes. I'll go even further: sex is a normal activity for post-pubertal animals of any species, including the human.

The notion that it is illegal to take photographs of things that are entirely legal to do, is simply absurd. So there are nude pictures of me, or you, or the neighbor's kid, on the internet. Someone looks at them and finds that exciting. I realize that it's a convention to call this "gross abuse and exploitation", but ... why? How do I know someone is looking at pictures of me, and ... why do I care?

There are primitive tribes that believe that a photograph captures part of the subject's soul, and there are primitive "child protection advocates" who evidently believe the same thing, because there's no other mechanism that explains why it is so terribly, terribly harmful to a child that someone looks at a picture and thinks nasty thoughts.

What it really boils down to is that just as the U.S. has too many civil attorneys, it has too many criminal attorneys, police, "child protection workers", and other fear-mongers, who by creating a non-existent harm line their pockets with taxpayer's money.

- Caipora

[Kouak]

I took naked pictures of myself while I was still a teenager, and I'm proud of that. In fact, I wish I had taken more. I looked great back then, and I'm happy to still have those photos today.

Be careful. In today's warped world, it would not suprise me if some prosecutor tried to charge you for having child porn...even if they are of yourself?

[davep]

... maybe you are exaggerating the dangers involved with this behavior? Sure, there's the possibility of a person's reputation being damaged, and even the possibility of a particular person being targeted for some form of abuse, but how prevalent is that, really? Perhaps my perspective is a bit lenient, but I honestly don't think it's such a big deal. We make this sort of thing out to be such an evil, sinful, activity, that we're creating the very dangerous environment that we must then protect ourselves (and our children) from.
Maybe I'm overstating the danger as it is at present, but I think it's growing, and I think we're wise to look ahead and adopt a cautionary approach in this case. I certainly agree there's nothing evil about kids sending pictures of themselves, and I agree that it's backward ideas among their peers and society at large that make the practice so dangerous. But as I said, ours isn't an ideal world, and children's lives can be made unbearable by the scorn and shame heaped upon them by others. I remember being a child, and I recall the ease with which anyone could be singled out by their peers for horrific emotional torment over the slightest variation from the norm. It can be a jungle out there, and it's tragic but they need to protect themselves accordingly.

[davep]

So there are nude pictures of me, or you, or the neighbor's kid, on the internet. Someone looks at them and finds that exciting. I realize that it's a convention to call this "gross abuse and exploitation", but ... why? How do I know someone is looking at pictures of me, and ... why do I care?
You may not care about how pictures of you are used, and I applaud your freedom from such inhibitions. Me, I've no such uninhibitedness, and that's just me: I'll share my body with anybody who'll share theirs, it's a reciprocal deal, and if they happen to get off on the sight it'd be a miracle. For the rest, there's plenty of other bodies of people who're happy to be seen voyeuristically, and if they're happy I'm happy: I'd just rather mine's not one of them.

But if you're a teenager surrounded at school by some who'd use such pictures to ridicule, ostracise and torture you just for "fun", and by a majority who'd fall in line or keep their head down rather than risk identifying with you, then it's a very different matter. And kids will use a good deal less when the fancy takes them. It doesn't matter what each of us thinks we'd feel as adults. We're not them.

[Caipora]

But if you're a teenager surrounded at school by some who'd use such pictures to ridicule, ostracise and torture you just for "fun", and by a majority who'd fall in line or keep their head down rather than risk identifying with you, then it's a very different matter. And kids will use a good deal less when the fancy takes them. It doesn't matter what each of us thinks we'd feel as adults. We're not them.

Well yes, teenagers and younger will ostracize for all sorts of things: wearing off-brand jeans, wearing red shoes on a Thursday, not being athletic, being homosexual, etc.

But for none of those thing do we say, "My goodness, we should put someone's name on a list for life for that!"

You've brought up the special case of someone's picture is on the Internet, and their community, family and friends, winds up knowing of it. Laws have been written removing from the prosecution the need to identify the subject of a picture, or even prove that the person shown is a minor.

If no one knows who the heck the person in the picture is, how has the subject been harmed by someone they've never met or heard of getting his jollies from the photo?

- Caipora

[zharth]

Be careful. In today's warped world, it would not suprise me if some prosecutor tried to charge you for having child porn...even if they are of yourself?

You're right, but I suspect they'd have a rather hard time, considering that the earliest of those kind of pictures I have are from age 18. But the only reason I don't have anything younger is that it took that long for technology to catch up with me.