Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Teen girls charged with child pornography after photographins themselves nude

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    That can't be real...

    Hopefully it will be dismissed on the ground that sexting is a form of sexual intercourse - and it isn't illegal for a 17-year old to have sex with a 15-year.
    In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Oerdin View Post
      I knew this was in the south. I'm telling you the south is the mother source for virtually all the retarded moral absolutism in America.
      Why don't you **** off, Oerdin?
      Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
      "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
      He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Oncle Boris View Post
        Hopefully it will be dismissed on the ground that sexting is a form of sexual intercourse - and it isn't illegal for a 17-year old to have sex with a 15-year.
        Don't know about Pennsylvania, but it would be statutory rape in much of the USA.
        Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
        Japher: "crap, did I just post in this thread?"
        "Bloody hell, Lefty.....number one in my list of persons I have no intention of annoying, ever." Bugs ****ing Bunny
        From a 6th grader who readily adpated to internet culture: "Pay attention now, because your opinions suck"

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Oerdin View Post
          I knew this was in the south. I'm telling you the south is the mother source for virtually all the retarded moral absolutism in America.
          Time to change the tinfoil.

          ACK!
          Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

          Comment


          • #20
            Damn, wrong state. What is the world coming to when you can't even kick the south?
            Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by SlowwHand View Post
              What is your suggestion?
              Honestly now, Sloww, do you think it makes sense to have laws and regulations on the books that should make people in this situation face serious criminal charges? What is your suggestion?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Wiglaf View Post
                If you're not a fan of 13 year olds getting it on, then it's a very logical law for them to not be allowed to arouse each other. Who knows who could intercept those images and use them for jackery or even more insidious purposes. :MAD : And the search wasn't illegal.
                It is logical for their parents to get involved, and have a stern talk with them.

                It is NOT logical for the state prosecutor to be involved.
                It is NOT logical for the school principal to be involved, if nothing happened on school property.

                And the search is certainly immoral and probably illegal.

                When the phones were captured, it was because they were used in improper time - not because there was suspicion of other wrong doings. Even police has to have proper cause when going through your personal stuff. And they usually require a warrant to access your phone communications.

                Instead of simply keeping them until the evening, respecting the kids' privacy, the school principal decided "hey, let's read their personal messages and view their personal images".

                Certainly Israeli schools confiscate phones away from pupils who use them in class. But everyone knows there's a boundary, and a teacher would never read anyone's personal messages or ogle at his personal photos.

                Had there not been racy pictures, do you have doubt it would have remained a secret that the principal was eyeing personal sms messages and images taken by kids?

                Originally posted by Darius871 View Post
                I'd love to see your basis for thinking a school official's invasion of a student's privacy is "illegal," whether moral or not. The 4th Amendment is effectively a dead letter in these circumstances and the 14th ain't looking so hot.
                Even police need warrants / probable cause to search a persons belongings, and his phone records and messages.

                In this case - there was no such cause. The kids were not caught in the act.

                The phone was taken, and the school principal was ogling at it for kicks, invading the kids' privacy.

                These are 14 y/o girls. They probably have tons of sms messages about puberty issues, guys they like, guys they don't like, and weird physiological issues they experience.

                Does the principal really have a legal access to reading their personal messages for controlling purposes?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Sirotnikov View Post
                  Even police need warrants / probable cause to search a persons belongings, and his phone records and messages.
                  The operative word being "persons," which A) legally doesn't always apply to brat kids and B) may be waived by a degree of consent that's implied by attending a public school. Once within those walls, minor students have far less rights than an adult crack dealer on the street does, because under the doctrine of in loco parentis the parents' consent to the school's custody renders the school a "parent" for a number of purposes. Specifically, the SCOTUS in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (involving search of a student's purse) held in no uncertain terms that the probable cause standard does not apply to minors in school. I'm sure Ozzy could clue you in on all this.
                  Unbelievable!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I seriously doubt that anything will legally happen to these kids.
                    Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                    "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                    He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by SlowwHand View Post
                      I seriously doubt that anything will legally happen to these kids.
                      Apart from the fact that you didn't answer the 'what's your suggestion' thing, did it occur to you that this already happened since these kids will be charged for a serious crime?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        "will be charged". What did I just say? I doubt it.
                        Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
                        "Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
                        He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by SlowwHand View Post
                          "will be charged". What did I just say? I doubt it.
                          Well, you said that you doubted something would legally happen to those kids. I expect that if an officer came to your door tonight and told you about charges of sexual assault, you would think that "something legally" happened to you. And even if they later dropped the charges, or you were acquitted in a court of law, I would expect the experience took its toll on you.

                          (Edit: That aside, what's the answer to your own question: What's your suggestion?)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            This one is extremely difficult.

                            First, children are sexual beings, just like anyone else. This is a huge taboo, but yet it is true and we don't have to agree on it, it is scientifically a fact.

                            Kids will act sexually, and they do, all the time. Towards themselves and others, usually their own peers.

                            There is nothing inherently wrong with it. It is not evil by nature.

                            However, and this is how it becomes difficult. Most of us agree, that children needs to be protected against sexual predators, and not only that, but that no adult-child relation is healthy nor is it acceptable when it comes to sexual terms. This is pretty clear cut. So far there still is no conflict.

                            But what do you do, when you try to enforce this idea, that you protect kids from adults? If it's kids and kids... OK. But what if a kid makes a clearly sexual video or imagery out of themselves and makes it available to adults? Say a kid sells it, with a clear purpose of making money. It's not so clear cut anymore. The adult, who is a buyer, obviously is guilty. But should the kid go not guilty? If not, then where do you draw the line? If you make it available, isn't it really a same thing, you just take off the profit scheme. But the bottom line is still the same. Should be illegal and thus punishable.

                            So... where goes the baseline? How do you determine when the kid is breaking the rules, and when is it natural sexual things that do not go under the possibility that adults might be involved (the point when it becomes unnatural, or illegal). Did they breach the possibility of availability?

                            I would just give a slap on the wrist on this one, for the government coming to intervene in things like these mostly do more damage, most likely giving them a traumatic experience that associates with their sexuality, thus ironically being the most harmful factor sexually in this scenario. But then again, it's not that clear cut. I'm glad I don't have to deal with problems like these.
                            In da butt.
                            "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
                            THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
                            "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              My point is, if you accept the premises I just gave out, then it leads to a conclusion, where a kid cannot put pics of him/herself available, that are of sexual nature. It does not matter who makes it available then, so if the kid did it, they just became guilty none of the less.

                              So the question then is, how do you define making material of this nature available? Your own camera, that only you have and keeping it to yourself? Clearly private, and not available. But what if you, like these girls, send them via phone? Is it the equivalent of sending them via e-mail, what you're doing is anyway is that you're sending this material over the net anyway. Is that the line? I don't know.

                              But even then, I'd see the only crime being dissemination, not holding or manufacturing, because I don't see how that can be illegal. How can it be illegal to take a picture of yourself, no matter what? Seems silly. Dissemination is different though, it is making it available. Also, how do you charge the boys, if the girls sent the images? I mean it is not like they can undo it, the girls sent them. They can, of course, delete the pictures right away, and if they did that, they shouldn't be accountable for anything at all. But I assume they didn't delete them.
                              In da butt.
                              "Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
                              THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
                              "God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                This makes me furious this is rediculous...... i'd say what I think more then this but it'd prolly be a crime. I guess its wise that saying "if you can't say anything nice dont' say anything at all."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X