# ?Sexting? surprise: Teens face child porn charges



## LouDAgreat (Jan 15, 2009)

> *6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell phones*
> 
> *In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular practice known as ?sexting,? six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Purgatory (Jan 15, 2009)




----------



## Lee1993 (Jan 15, 2009)

this happened somewhere else near where i live in PA
maybe this is it i forget


----------



## Talon. (Jan 15, 2009)

i call bullshit.
they should not have to register as sex offenders if they all had each others consent.

i say put 'em on probation for a while.


----------



## Kusogitsune (Jan 15, 2009)

Good for them, not sending those pics to me.


----------



## Adonis (Jan 15, 2009)

They were distributing/receiving pornographic images of minors.

This is what happens when you take an extremely black-and-white approach to law.


----------



## Hothien (Jan 15, 2009)

Adonis said:


> They were distributing/receiving pornographic images of minors.
> 
> This is what happens when you take an extremely black-and-white approach to law.



This is what happens when law cannot keep up with the times, and when law-makers are too stupid to think that teens may want to willingly participate in such things.

In my state, they can have sex, but, if a nude picture is taken, it's illegal.


----------



## dummy plug (Jan 15, 2009)

kids nowadays


----------



## Legend (Jan 15, 2009)

The law is wrong in this case.


----------



## Kathutet (Jan 15, 2009)

Wat        .


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jan 15, 2009)

Yep...I've heard of similar cases of minors taking semi-nude to nude pictures of themselves and being convicted of possession of child pornography. The thought of someone being registered as a sex offender for taking pictures of themselves is irony at it's finest.


----------



## Cirus (Jan 15, 2009)

Those people were paractically all within two years of each other.  I don't see how this should even go to court.  I can understand charges if they were 18 and haveing a 14 yr olds pics on their phone, but this is bull shit.  Yeah they did stupid things, but it is no different then a 18 yr old giving nude pics to a 20 yr old.  I hope the prosicuter doesn't have this charge go forward cause it wrong.


----------



## Kathutet (Jan 15, 2009)

Kira Yamato said:


> Yep...I've heard of similar cases of minors taking semi-nude to nude pictures of themselves and being convicted of possession of child pornography. The thought of someone being registered as a sex offender for taking pictures of themselves is irony at it's finest.


But honestly, isn't it just stupid of being convicted for taking pictures of yourself? It's your body, lol.

Woah, laws... I'll never understand them.

All I can say regarding this matter is "wat".


----------



## spaZ (Jan 15, 2009)

This is another case at how stupid the American justice system is. LOL how can a minor that took a picture of them self be convicted of possessing child pornography? Or even be convicted of being an sex offender.


----------



## Lilykt7 (Jan 15, 2009)

how embarassing must this be for the girls. Seriously though 14-15? Ew.


----------



## GrimaH (Jan 15, 2009)

Lilykt7 said:


> how embarassing must this be for the girls. Seriously though 14-15? Ew.



Yeah, way too old.


----------



## Matrix_Ice (Jan 15, 2009)

This Is Why I Think The World Is Going To Hell In A Hand Basket. I Mean, Where's The Logic In This?


----------



## Moonshine (Jan 15, 2009)

what idiots how stupid can u be to take pics of urself half-nude and send them to people in your school while underage? Someone was bound to find out all about this.


----------



## Spencer_Gator (Jan 15, 2009)

what??? That's messed up


----------



## Koi (Jan 15, 2009)

Well, teen shouldn't be fucking morons and taking pictures of themselves to send around.

I don't _totally_ agree with the charges, but still.  It's a stupid thing to do in the first place.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2009)

I agree with the law in this case, kids shouldn't be sending nude pictures over text and email...remember what happened here about a year back when a girl sent her picture to a guy? It ended up in the hands of some 22 year old. 

This is a good way to make examples of them and let them know this won't go unpunished.




Koi said:


> Well, teen shouldn't be fucking morons and taking pictures of themselves to send around.
> 
> I don't _totally_ agree with the charges, but still.  It's a stupid thing to do in the first place.



I can always count on you to make some sense. This is just them trying to teach someone a lesson.


----------



## Girls' Generation (Jan 15, 2009)

The kid who got caught for using his cell phone should get charged.

Too bad he was too stupid enough to use his cell phone when there's clearly a policy banning cell phone usage in class.

Should have known.


----------



## Gecka (Jan 15, 2009)

Is it wrong that I do this as well?


----------



## Mibu Clan (Jan 15, 2009)

In think the charges may be somewhat correct...

But having them registered as sex offenders is a SERIOUS charge FOR LIFE!! I do believe this to be WAY EXTREME on part of the law.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2009)

Mibu Clan said:


> In think the charges may be somewhat correct...
> 
> But having them registered as sex offenders is a SERIOUS charge FOR LIFE!! I do believe this to be WAY EXTREME on part of the law.



You can get that for pissing outside though...


----------



## Rated R Superstar (Jan 15, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> *I agree with the law in this case, kids shouldn't be sending nude pictures over text and email.*..remember what happened here about a year back when a girl sent her picture to a guy? It ended up in the hands of some 22 year old.
> 
> This is a good way to make examples of them and let them know this won't go unpunished.
> 
> ...



Yeah, but they shouldnt have to register as sex offenders also. Maybe if parnets these days did their job, then stupid laws such as this one, wouldn't be created. Bottom line, a 15 year old should not have to register as a sex offender, if a fellow 15 year old send him/her nude pics.


----------



## Tseka (Jan 15, 2009)

Those are some attention-seeking minors.

If they want attention, I'll give them attention.


After school at my house


----------



## Aldrick (Jan 15, 2009)

Both sides are in the wrong.


----------



## Nizuma Eiji (Jan 15, 2009)

WTF? This shit happens all the time. A minor getting charged for having nudes of a minor that willingly sent them is just retarded.


----------



## Tiger (Jan 15, 2009)

From the Law:

I screwed up again.

I hope the defendants are acquitted of the more serious crime and are given a lesser one which won't label them as sex offenders.

Stupid, ignorant and immature? yes. 
"Sending a message" is such a stupid reason to over-penalize these kids. It is, and everyone knows it. I hope that lawyer is better than his comments make him seem, and officials can go suck a dick for blowing it out of proportion just to make a point.

That doesn't mean I think what those kids did was right, or not incredibly stupid. But the idea is to send a message to protect those very same kids...labelling them as sex offenders is just the kind of thing that makes "Me" look incredibly stupid and juvenile.

In a system where a murderer can go free if the police make one or two mistakes in the proceedings, like - unlawfully finding incriminating evidence - for example, something like this makes me laugh at those interpreting what's written, and feel sorry for those little idiots.

The police should turn them over to their parents, and their parents should beat the shit out of them. There, they got the message, and don't have to be seen as sexual offenders for their lives.

I rate this case: M for moron.


----------



## HeiPoxia (Jan 15, 2009)

I dunno who's crazier in this scenario


----------



## Vanity (Jan 15, 2009)

How is it child porn if they are all underage and just taking pics of temselves to show to other people their own age?

I mean sometimes 13 year olds have sex with other 13 year olds. It isn't considered wrong.


----------



## Uhneed (Jan 15, 2009)

Is it a crime to have just received the message, even if you delete it right away? What can you do to avoid this?


----------



## Misha-San (Jan 15, 2009)

Lol that is funny. Girls should have know better than sending their pics to boys.


----------



## Red (Jan 15, 2009)

On one hand this protects others who may unwittingly get the pictures, imagine if one of these pictures found there way to some unsuspecting guys phone/email box etc? Would be horrible to go to jail just because some snot nosed ass hats can't keep their nudes to themselves. On the other hand jesus what the fuck they're sharing their own pictures let them do as they please.

Honestly, I don't know what to say.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2009)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> How is it child porn if they are all underage and just taking pics of temselves to show to other people their own age?
> 
> I mean sometimes 13 year olds have sex with other 13 year olds. It isn't considered wrong.



Because child porn is an absolute in the US. No matter the state or the age of consent, 18 is the benchmark. Having it in your possession, regardless of your age is against the law because if the porn exists, its already illegal. 

Hopefully people get the message now...


----------



## Mutant Anemone (Jan 15, 2009)

Wtf? _Registered sex offenders?_ 

It was stupid of those kids to do it, as those pics could've easily wound up in anyone's hands and MAN, would that be humiliating twenty years down the road. But labelling some ignorant kids as SEX OFFENDERS, making them bear the weight of that stigma THEIR ENTIRE LIVES, is arguably even worse. No, not arguably. That's just _torture_.

If kids are experimenting with this sort of thing, it's mom and dad's job to look after it. They can get grounded for months, have a little sit-down about child pornography and lose their cell phone for a year. It's all part of growing up. What the law did in this case is just...heh, cruel and unusual punishment. What the hell kind of adults decide to punish children this way?


I guess I'mma hafta go to jail nao cause I imagine my classmates nekkid


----------



## Adonis (Jan 15, 2009)

Kyasurin Yakuto said:


> How is it child porn if they are all underage and just taking pics of temselves to show to other people their own age?



The definition of child porn isn't reliant on the age/identity of the creator or the recipients. It is any pornographic image depicting a minor.

That said, branding teenagers as sexual offenders is simply egregious.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 15, 2009)

Adonis said:


> The definition of child porn isn't reliant on the age/identity of the creator or the recipients. It is any pornographic image depicting a minor.



People are like "But this is so sad..." 

If kids want to take this kind of risk with their future, they need to be ready to suffer the consequences. They're what? Fifteen or so? Old enough to fucking know better.


----------



## Adonis (Jan 15, 2009)

Honestly, though, would most people really make the connection between kids sending naughty pictures among themselves and a felony charge as serious as possessing/distributing child pornography.

While technically not wrong, the application of the law in this case is unduly harsh and myopic and I don't condone making legal martyrs of people.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 16, 2009)

i'm tired of using this image...


----------



## Un-Chan (Jan 16, 2009)

why did i not get these pictures?!


----------



## Girls' Generation (Jan 16, 2009)

The officers should be arrested for looking at it after seizing it! this is madness!


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Jan 16, 2009)

i found this whole situation to be kind of silly


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 16, 2009)

I can understand the teenagers getting charged since such pictures can fall into the wrong hands, but charging them as sex offenders is going way too far. The only message this sends is that the child pornography law needs to be revised.


----------



## Wayne Static (Jan 16, 2009)

Hey, at least it wasn't Eisen this time.


----------



## Amanomurakumo (Jan 16, 2009)

This reminds me of a guy I know that is a registered sex offender for something he did as a teen. He mooned a bunch of people and a cop saw and arrested him. Don't remember the exact charges but due to his age at the time, he is now a sexual offender.


----------



## |)/-\\/\/|\| (Jan 16, 2009)

It's some how strange since if these girls had actual sex with their classmates there would be no charges, however sending a nude/semi nude photos got them arrested.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

Amanomurakumo said:


> This reminds me of a guy I know that is a registered sex offender for something he did as a teen. He mooned a bunch of people and a cop saw and arrested him. Don't remember the exact charges but due to his age at the time, he is now a sexual offender.



Sounds like a dumb ass to me...maybe next time he'll think.


----------



## "LADY KISS" (Jan 16, 2009)

Maybe they should check things like Myspace


----------



## Adonis (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Sounds like a dumb ass to me...maybe next time he'll think.



That's bullshit, CTK.

Being put on a list with child molesters and serial rapists because you fucking mooned someone is perverse.

When registered as a sex offender, there is no next time and the fact it's being thrown around so lightly is disconcerting.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

Adonis said:


> That's bullshit, CTK.
> 
> Being put on a list with child molesters and serial rapists because you fucking mooned someone is perverse.



I'm not saying its right, but I'm also not saying I give a darn. 

I don't pull my ass out in public for a good reason.


----------



## Adonis (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm not saying its right, but I'm also not saying I give a darn.




All you're doing is touting your apathy which isn't helping your point. Whether you'd do it or not doesn't justify ruining a guy's life over a harmless prank.



> I don't pull my ass out in public for a good reason.



Nor do I; doesn't mean I sneer and say, "Serves him right." like a callous prude.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 16, 2009)

There should be a punishment in line, but to have them registered as sex offenders is ridiculous.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

Adonis said:


> All you're saying is touting your apathy which isn't helping your point. Whether you'd do it or not doesn't justify ruining a guy's life over a harmless prank.
> 
> 
> 
> Nor do I, doesn't mean I sneer and say, "Serves him right." like a callous prude.



That's not being a callous prude, that's just called being responsible. There's nothing prudish about not mooning someone. 

And apparently the prank wasn't so harmless.


----------



## Adonis (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's not being a callous prude, that's just called being responsible. There's nothing prudish about not mooning someone.
> 
> And apparently the prank wasn't so harmless.



It's called a disproportionate punishment.


----------



## syrup (Jan 16, 2009)

Don't see the big deal, not like the girls were exploited for the pics


----------



## Talon. (Jan 16, 2009)

^exactly

why in the hell would they be charged as sex offenders? theres no offense that took place, if everyone involved enjoyed it....


----------



## Aokiji (Jan 16, 2009)

Morons, minors=/=children. 

Or I'm a p*d*p**** if I think a seventeen year old is hot.


----------



## Adonis (Jan 16, 2009)

Aokiji said:


> Morons, minors=/=children.
> 
> Or I'm a p*d*p**** if I think a seventeen year old is hot.



Considering there's only two years outside of the statutory range in the U.S. (16 and 17), it didn't seem like a distinction worth making and I assumed everyone would get the point.

Alas, you want to play Cpt. "I'm the first person to ever research something, dur, me correct you!"

Yes, I'm aware of ephebophilia and minor status going to the age of 18 and whatnot. The law, however, obviously defines child pornography as any pornography involving a minor.

tl;dr: Shut up.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

syrup said:


> Don't see the big deal, not like the girls were exploited for the pics





Talon. said:


> ^exactly
> 
> why in the hell would they be charged as sex offenders? theres no offense that took place, if everyone involved enjoyed it....





Aokiji said:


> Morons, minors=/=children.
> 
> Or I'm a p*d*p**** if I think a seventeen year old is hot.



First off, it doesn't matter what the age of consent for your state is. In Texas its 17. But the age for someone to be in porn legally is still 18...

And like I stated earlier, I don't understand why its so hard to understand that the possession, making and distribution of child pornography is illegal. 

That's like a drug dealer saying, "Yeah we had the drugs...but no one used them or passed them out, so why am I going to jail?" 



Adonis said:


> Considering there's only two years outside of the statutory range in the U.S. (16 and 17), it didn't seem like a distinction worth making and I assumed everyone would get the point.
> 
> Alas, you want to play Cpt. "I'm the first person to ever research something, dur, me correct you!"
> 
> ...



Actually I think some states are as low as 14 and 15...I think one is Mass...


----------



## SharinganSasori (Jan 16, 2009)

wow this just goes to show how screwed up and totally fucking hypocritical our law and justice system is. This will NEVER stop happening(teens taking pics of themselves). When i was in highscool last yr, i could look at any guys phone and I could find at least one such picture. this is just like prostitution and drugs. you wont stop teens from doing this, because thats just how teens are. stupid or not. thats how they are....i myself dont see a problem with it...i just dont. unless the pics are going to the whole damn school then i see an issue..or unless the ages are completely fucked up...the damn law needs to be changed in my opinion, but it never will while we still have old fasioned fucks in our government and law system who have their head so far up their ass their behind the times, this is NORMAL for teens now adays...if every single teen was prosecuted for shit like this...then wow, we'd have hardly any free teens left.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

SharinganSasori said:


> wow this just goes to show how screwed up and totally fucking hypocritical our law and justice system is. This will NEVER stop happening(teens taking pics of themselves). When i was in highscool last yr, i could look at any guys phone and I could find at least one such picture. this is just like prostitution and drugs. you wont stop teens from doing this, because thats just how teens are. stupid or not. thats how they are....i myself dont see a problem with it...i just dont. unless the pics are going to the whole damn school then i see an issue..or unless the ages are completely fucked up...the damn law needs to be changed in my opinion, but it never will while we still have old fasioned fucks in our government and law system who have their head so far up their ass their behind the times, this is NORMAL for teens now adays...if every single teen was prosecuted for shit like this...then wow, we'd have hardly any free teens left.




_wow this just goes to show how screwed up and totally fucking hypocritical our law and justice system is. This will NEVER stop happening(people murdering each other). I can't think of one day that goes by without someone getting murdered. this is just like prostitution and drugs. you wont stop people from doing this, because thats just how people are. stupid or not. thats how they are....i myself dont see a problem with it...i just dont. unless people are murdering the whole city or something...the damn law needs to be changed in my opinion, but it never will while we still have old fasioned fucks in our government and law system who have their head so far up their ass their behind the times..._

See how stupid it looks when applied to other things? 

It's bad because its child porn and those same pictures sometimes make it online. It's not the same as a fucking polariod or photo because one picture taekn on a phone can end up on millions of computer screens in a matter of days if played right...

Not to mention *possession and distribution* of child porn are illegal, no matter the ages of the people. 

And normal doesn't make something right. People don't have to be this way and saying that they do is just ignorant.


----------



## SharinganSasori (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> _wow this just goes to show how screwed up and totally fucking hypocritical our law and justice system is. This will NEVER stop happening(people murdering each other). I can't think of one day that goes by without someone getting murdered. this is just like prostitution and drugs. you wont stop people from doing this, because thats just how people are. stupid or not. thats how they are....i myself dont see a problem with it...i just dont. unless people are murdering the whole city or something...the damn law needs to be changed in my opinion, but it never will while we still have old fasioned fucks in our government and law system who have their head so far up their ass their behind the times..._
> 
> See how stupid it looks when applied to other things?
> 
> ...



huh so your gonna neg rep me for the truth. wow real cool. reeeeal cool.  oh yeah makes total sense what you wrote there yeah...
you know, lots of stuff has been illegal in the past thats legal now, its all a matter of time. you fail to realize how many people would actually be jailed for this if EVERYone was caught. entire schools would be prosectuted. IN MY OPINION those who RECIEVE the photos, should not be punished. those who TAKE the photos should. people DONT have to be this way, but you know they will. and saying they shouldnt is just as ignorant. you think everyone is a goodytooshoes? think again, no ones perfect we all do stupid stuff, but its my opinion that the laws are becoming more and more blurred. its illegal sure. but murder kills. whens the last time a picture killed? maybe my mind is just..different. and maybe im missing a step in my thought processes, but i think this whole thing is bullshit anyway. an age is just that. an age. legal or not. its an age.
BTW: you post makes NO SENSE AT ALL. it just made you look more stupid to me. what i wrote was completely different, and there is no logical way to compare the two-_-


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

SharinganSasori said:


> huh so your gonna neg rep me for the truth. wow real cool. reeeeal cool.  oh yeah makes total sense what you wrote there yeah...
> you know, lots of stuff has been illegal in the past thats legal now, its all a matter of time. you fail to realize how many people would actually be jailed for this if EVERYone was caught. entire schools would be prosectuted. IN MY OPINION those who RECIEVE the photos, should not be punished. those who TAKE the photos should. people DONT have to be this way, but you know they will. and saying they shouldnt is just as ignorant. you think everyone is a goodytooshoes? think again, no ones perfect we all do stupid stuff, but its my opinion that the laws are becoming more and more blurred. its illegal sure. but murder kills. whens the last time a picture killed? maybe my mind is just..different. and maybe im missing a step in my thought processes, but i think this whole thing is bullshit anyway.* an age is just that. an age. legal or not. its an age.*
> BTW: you post makes NO SENSE AT ALL. it just made you look more stupid to me. what i wrote was completely different, and there is no logical way to compare the two-_-



Whatever you want to say, but just know that you're just digging yourself into a hole over there. But with phrases like the one in bold text, maybe you think child porn is good? 

You see my post is just your post with the words changed to show how what you said could be applied to any commonly broken law. I like how people believe that the stupid shit they do will someday become legal because they are the future. 

I've got news for you the people doing this are the ones who might have this come bite them in the ass later and its a good thing if it does. I don't feel sympathy for kids who get into shit because of pictures like this they sent. If you plan to run for public office or something like that this could be a hilarious story for you to explain away. 

The lowest the age of consent will ever drop nation wide here is probably 16, and that's pushing it. But don't expect anyone to think that kids exploiting themselves and exposing themselves is okay. We'll see how you feel when you have a daughter and catch her doing this stuff.

And learn to use a damn enter key here and there.


----------



## rldragon (Jan 16, 2009)

... Stupid Americans  






End of story...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

rldragon said:


> ... Stupid Americans
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Insightful reply...you showed us.


----------



## Abigail (Jan 16, 2009)

The problem I have with it is both the girls taking the pictures and the boys recieving them are "minors" so matyring them as sex offenders is stupid. Should they be punished yes. Should it be something that follows you your entire life no.


----------



## SharinganSasori (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Whatever you want to say, but just know that you're just digging yourself into a hole over there. But with phrases like the one in bold text, maybe you think child porn is good?
> 
> You see my post is just your post with the words changed to show how what you said could be applied to any commonly broken law. I like how people believe that the stupid shit they do will someday become legal because they are the future.
> 
> ...



oh yeah because i obviously said in my post that i think its ok, i never have, nor ever will think it is ok or good. LET ME GET THAT STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW.
your post just doesnt make any sense when tried to apply to mine. you just cant do it. im sorry but to try just makes you look dumb. end of story. all im saying is 1. this is normal teen behavior. 2. those who TAKE the pics should be punished, not the ones who RECIEVE them. 
and i'll use what key i want when i want. and when i do have a daughter or son, they can do this shit if they want because i cant stop them...all i can do is try to raise them right. invariably its up to them tho how they want to behave, and no parent will stop them. this is how teens think. dumb it may be, but if they want to have it bite them in the ass later then it will. i agree, its NOT AND NEVER WILL BE OK. however, what i dont like is you taking my post apart like you did, and making me out to be someone who enjoys this, because im not like that. btw enter key is for organized people who like to look smart with their posts. im too lazy.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Jan 16, 2009)

so you are committing a crime if you are *receiving* a message,

No that makes no sense if. you don't know the contents of a picture message before you receive it and can no way be held responsible for its content.


----------



## Ice Cream (Jan 16, 2009)

My cousin's in jail right now for failing to register as a sex offender.

He had sexual intercourse with a girl who was proven to be a minor but
lied about her age at the time. 
(She even confessed this and had fake identification.)

No matter how upset my family is over the situation and how trivial
the law may be; there is nothing that can be done about it. 

He will be registered as a sex offender upon release and it will follow him the rest of his life.

This on the other hand is going to far. The teenagers should be held
accountable for their actions but giving them a title of a sex offender
is just ludicrous and shows what a failure the law has become.


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 16, 2009)




----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jan 16, 2009)

This answers my long-asked question of "if you take a picture of yourself nude at 15 and look at it when you're 18, is that illegal?".

Apparently it's illegal even if you're still 15.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> First off, it doesn't matter what the age of consent for your state is. In Texas its 17. But the age for someone to be in porn legally is still 18...
> 
> And like I stated earlier, I don't understand why its so hard to understand that the possession, making and distribution of child pornography is illegal.
> 
> That's like a drug dealer saying, "Yeah we had the drugs...but no one used them or passed them out, so why am I going to jail?"



nope, it's like a guy being arrested for possession after a guy threw a bag of cocaine in his car

if someone gives you a box, that by coincidence contains a firearm, you stick your hand in and pull out, in total and complete innocence, a glock 9mm; is it fair that you get 5 years for that?

they did not have intent to pass them around, unless proven the contrary they didn't ask for these pics; and our course, they were underage to, a 17-year-old cannot go to jail for having sex with a 15-year-old if they both consent, why should he go to jail for looking at pictures of his 15-year-old fuck-buddy **


----------



## Goongasnootch (Jan 16, 2009)

Y'know, such things never happened before cell phones when people would take Polaroids or whatever. Why is it such a fucking federal case now?


----------



## Blue_Panter_Ninja (Jan 16, 2009)

whahahaha USA is getting more ridiculous.


----------



## Uhneed (Jan 16, 2009)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> so you are committing a crime if you are *receiving* a message,
> 
> No that makes no sense if. you don't know the contents of a picture message before you receive it and can no way be held responsible for its content.



I'm hoping that the boys are being punished for not deleteing the pictures once opening them. If you can be labeled as an offender for receiving a message which you likely didn't want then I can imagine bored teens sending pictures out in mass trying to get their teachers, friends, ect. in trouble.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> so you are committing a crime if you are *receiving* a message,
> 
> No that makes no sense if. you don't know the contents of a picture message before you receive it and can no way be held responsible for its content.



I think the whole thing is that you need to just delete them RIGHT AWAY. 



Sephiroth said:


> nope, it's like a guy being arrested for possession after a guy threw a bag of cocaine in his car
> 
> if someone gives you a box, that by coincidence contains a firearm, you stick your hand in and pull out, in total and complete innocence, a glock 9mm; is it fair that you get 5 years for that?
> 
> they did not have intent to pass them around, unless proven the contrary they didn't ask for these pics; and our course, they were underage to, a 17-year-old cannot go to jail for having sex with a 15-year-old if they both consent, why should he go to jail for looking at pictures of his 15-year-old fuck-buddy **



You should just delete the cocaine (not up the nose).

But why should they go to jail? Why?

Everyone repeat it with me...IT'S ILLEGAL.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think the whole thing is that you need to just delete them RIGHT AWAY.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



show me one part of the article that says that the boys (other then the one who had his cellphone confiscated and his privacy invaded) did not delete the pictures, other wise they are innocent until proven the contrary


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> show me one part of the article that says that the boys (other then the one who had his cellphone confiscated and his privacy invaded) did not delete the pictures, other wise they are innocent until proven the contrary



Students don't really have privacy, if you have your phone out in class it might get taken up...that's how it goes. And if they pictures are deleted, there's not much they have to worry about.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Students don't really have privacy, if you have your phone out in class it might get taken up...that's how it goes. And if they pictures are deleted, there's not much they have to worry about.



it's illegal for you to access a student's cellphone, even if it's confiscated, your suppose to return it to him by the end of classes


----------



## .: )REIRA( :. (Jan 16, 2009)

Rather stupid to be laying charges when those students did it willingly. And yes, what was that teacher doing accessing a student's cell? Talk about invasion of privacy D:

All in all though, those students were stupid to do such a thing. :/


----------



## .:Jason:. (Jan 16, 2009)

The law fails. Seriously, putting them on the sex offenders list for that? Bullshit. And if I recall, doesn't it only count as porn/child porn if it's a picture/video of them having sex? Law is bullocks. Let the teens free.


----------



## Tiger (Jan 16, 2009)

This is still going? Adonis already won the thread with eloquence.

I know four cops, and no they don't mind me calling them cops. I asked 3 of them, because I couldn't contact the fourth, what they thought of this case.

All three said that it was wrong to send a message to teens by possibly ruining these kids' futures, and the officials running the case are - and I quote - "dickheads" and from the other two: "assholes".

Not one of them, by my questions - would have taken those phones to the higher-ups and written up the kids in a light that would garner any kind of severe punishment.

So you tell me, is this a case of "justice served"? Or is this a case of a couple asshole cops blowing their case out of proportion, coupled with a chief of police in that area who all-of-a sudden became petrified that his own young daughter was getting into the same thing...so they decided to hang these kids up from the ceiling to warn the others?

The picture I paint is pretty bleak, but Americans...don't fool yourself into believing your system isn't corrupt. Depending on the moods, whims, or personal lives of these officials...this case could have been tossed out before it ever reached the press. Or instead, it becomes a national issue, and they can't stop the ball from rolling until the teens are either charged with a lesser crime...or labelled as sexual offenders for the rest of their lives.

I can only hope the judge has better sense than the cops did. But then if you think that system is pure, you've got another thing coming. It all comes down to who the judge is, and whether he/she wants to set a new precedent or not. Then again, the judge may just laugh it right out of his/her courtroom. Wouldn't that be nice for the officials in the case? You wouldn't want to make an example of those few cops for one little thing like that, would you? No, you wouldn't want that.


----------



## Koi (Jan 16, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> it's illegal for you to access a student's cellphone, even if it's confiscated, your suppose to return it to him by the end of classes



Uh, no, it's not.  If the school's policy, which every student consents to upon enrollment, says that phones will be confiscated and are subject to being held for as long as a teacher/staff member feels necessry, and that when the phone is in their hands that they can be looked through, then there's nothing you can do.  It's a contract, basically.

So, no, it's not illegal, and they can keep that phone for as long as they'd like before summer break.  _Especially_ if it's a private school.

In my high school they'd take your phone and unless you were in with the secretary or the dean, you weren't supposed to have it back until the end of the year.


----------



## Suzuku (Jan 16, 2009)

I don't know, this is kind of stupid. There's a difference between middle aged men being pedos and teenagers having fun. I dabbled in "sexting" back in high school as well, does that mean I should have been arrested for having girls my age on my phone?


----------



## 64palms (Jan 16, 2009)

I thought I had posted in this thread before.

Well, more proof that laws are no longer oriented in protecting kids from rape, but for establishing Christian standards.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

64palms said:


> I thought I had posted in this thread before.
> 
> Well, more proof that laws are no longer oriented in protecting kids from rape, but for establishing Christian standards.



Wow, you bringing up religions again in a negative fashion in a conversation where it has no bearing. Good going there.


----------



## Shidoshi (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think the whole thing is that you need to just delete them RIGHT AWAY.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It wouldn't matter in a digital case.  Investigators can prove who received the picture message by getting the record of the sender(s) and recipient(s) from the wireless company (which I would think probably happened in this case, too), even if the person deleted it immediately after viewing the content of the message.

You don't really think that all the guys who had the pics on their phones didn't try deleting them when they found out one of them were caught, did you?

I agree that they should be punished -- I also agree that the law needs to catch up to the ubiquitous technology.  You can't _block_ text messages so you can't prevent someone from illicitly sending you illegal crap.  There has to be a provision to protect people in instances like this, but I doubt it exists.

As odd as CMX's statement might be, the law *could* be interpreted in such a way that it would be illegal to be in possession of an underage nude picture of you that you took yourself, because the broken law, in this case, is not just the fact that they were distributed, but that they existed at all and that the owners and creators were in possession of it.

I'll pose a serious question:  if you had pictures of yourself as a baby...one of those pictures a parent takes of you in the bathtub for posterity, and you decide to digitally scan the picture of it for longevity (because light, air and entropy wreak havoc on photographs after a decade), would you then be guilty of possession of child pornography?  What if your mom or dad sent the picture to a relative?  Would they be guilty of the distribution of child porn?

Where is the line drawn?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

Shidoshi said:


> It wouldn't matter in a digital case.  Investigators can prove who received the picture message by getting the record of the sender(s) and recipient(s) from the wireless company (which I would think probably happened in this case, too), even if the person deleted it immediately after viewing the content of the message.
> 
> You don't really think that all the guys who had the pics on their phones didn't try deleting them when they found out one of them were caught, did you?
> 
> I agree that they should be punished -- I also agree that the law needs to catch up to the ubiquitous technology.  You can't _block_ text messages so you can't prevent someone from illicitly sending you illegal crap.  There has to be a provision to protect people in instances like this.



True, but if you never open it, (in my case at least) you never pay. Of course that would require knowledge of what it was.


----------



## Shidoshi (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> True, but if you never open it, (in my case at least) you never pay. Of course that would require knowledge of what it was.


And therein lies the problem.  You don't always know what you're being sent, and the law would have a helluva job of proving who had the foreknowledge that that *one* picture message contained what the law constitutes as child pornography.  If the law were up to date with the technology it's supposed to enforce, there'd be provisions for situations like this...which aren't even _rare_ occurences.


----------



## Mike Hunt (Jan 16, 2009)

Damn the law is fucking stupid.


----------



## Goofy Titan (Jan 16, 2009)

Only in America.


----------



## Masaki (Jan 16, 2009)

> that cell phone can be put on the Internet



They clearly have no idea of what they are talking about.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 16, 2009)

Koi said:


> Uh, no, it's not.  If the school's policy, which every student consents to upon enrollment, says that phones will be confiscated and are subject to being held for as long as a teacher/staff member feels necessry, and that when the phone is in their hands that they can be looked through, then there's nothing you can do.  It's a contract, basically.
> 
> So, no, it's not illegal, and they can keep that phone for as long as they'd like before summer break.  _Especially_ if it's a private school.
> 
> In my high school they'd take your phone and unless you were in with the secretary or the dean, you weren't supposed to have it back until the end of the year.



they can take your phone, but if they look through it, they're invading your privacy and maybe subject to lawsuit; it's the same scenario as your boss sits on your desk and reads your e-mails; it doesn't matter if they have any authority, they simply can't access your personal records

and i recommend reading your contract with the school better, most of the world, refusal to return confiscated objects that have been cleared is considered theft


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> they can take your phone, but if they look through it, they're invading your privacy and maybe subject to lawsuit; i*t's the same scenario as your boss sits on your desk and reads your e-mails*; it doesn't matter if they have any authority, they simply can't access your personal records
> 
> and i recommend reading your contract with the school better, most of the world, refusal to return confiscated objects that have been cleared is considered theft



Bull fucking shit, your boss can go through your emails and most companies do. Where do you think all those law suits about inappropriate emails and people wasting time getting personal mail on the clock come from?


----------



## Psycho (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Bull fucking shit, your boss can go through your emails and most companies do. Where do you think all those law suits about inappropriate emails and people wasting time getting personal mail on the clock come from?



it's illegal for him to randomly sit on your desk and read your e-mails, if he catches you doing it, it's a whole other story


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> it's illegal for him to randomly sit on your desk and read your e-mails, if he catches you doing it, it's a whole other story



Many companies screen all emails going through their computers...


----------



## Psycho (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Many companies screen all emails going through their computers...



i'm talking about personal e-mail accounts, not company e-mail accounts


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 16, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> i'm talking about personal e-mail accounts, not company e-mail accounts



Even those if you access them from work.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 16, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Even those if you access them from work.



that part is a violation of privacy, unless your boss has given you an assignment, or you already have an assignment; whatever you do on your PC is your business until it affects the company somehow (at least that's how it works here, but it's completely illegal for a teacher to check out something on a student's cellphone)


----------



## Raiden (Jan 17, 2009)

Ouch, the small between the ages makes me wonder if the guys should receive the punishment that per say a thirty four year old would receive for possessing child pornography. Tch, girls are crazy these days. Knowing society today, they're probably going to be called "sluts" for not respecting their bodies....at least not in public.


----------



## colours (Jan 17, 2009)

how scandalous


----------



## Mintaka (Jan 17, 2009)

PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!


----------



## Sephiroth (Jan 17, 2009)

Christian values shouldn't get mixed with the law. 

Any females want to send nude pic, I'll take them off your hands.


----------



## DemonAbyss10 (Jan 17, 2009)

yeh, and in pennsylvania the age of consent is 16, so bah.
The odd thing about PAs legal system is that if the two people involved /all the people involved decided not to have a court case done for , lets say assault... the state can still say "well you and your victim may have forgiven and forget and are best buds now, but we will still shove your ass through the legal system because no WE are gonna file the charges for yas.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 17, 2009)

Xehanort said:


> Christian values shouldn't get mixed with the law.
> 
> Any females want to send nude pic, I'll take them off your hands.



How is this Christian values? Don't bring that weak shit in here, its a law against people exploiting teens...even if they happen to be other teens. And don't say it can't happen because its happened right here on this forum.


----------



## Koi (Jan 17, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> that part is a violation of privacy, unless your boss has given you an assignment, or you already have an assignment; whatever you do on your PC is your business until it affects the company somehow (at least that's how it works here, but it's completely illegal for a teacher to check out something on a student's cellphone)



Clearly you missed the point: When you sigh that contract upon employment, or enrollment in school, _your privacy is theirs._  Your boss has the SAME EXACT RIGHTS to look through your work computer/files as your school's administration does to look through your locker.  That's how it works here.  It's far from illegal to go through a confiscated cell phone, _especially_ if it was taken away in the first place from someone who was using out of what the school contract dictates as acceptable cell phone use.


----------



## Nic (Jan 17, 2009)

I really don't get why some people have the need to do these sorts of things.


----------



## Suzuku (Jan 17, 2009)

Nic said:


> I really don't get why some people have the need to do these sorts of things.


Because it's fun, sexy, and stimulating.


----------



## .:Jason:. (Jan 18, 2009)

Masaki said:


> They clearly have no idea of what they are talking about.



This. One can't get a picture on the internet from a cell phone.


----------



## Platinum (Jan 18, 2009)

The U.S. justice system is so strange .


----------



## Team 8 is awesome (Jan 18, 2009)

WTF there isn't even that big of a difference in age between them. Man, what is America coming to? Separation of church and state sucks ass nowadays.


----------



## Lilykt7 (Jan 18, 2009)

Jeez the moms of the boys in this story were just on the news. They're blaming the girls for seducing their sons and are claiming their boys are completely innocent. 

I don't think its fair for the boys to get listed as sex offenders and say they had child pornography but still. They also showed the pictures of the girls (with the faces covered thank goodness). No need for that either. People KNOW what nude pictures look like or im pretty sure they can picture for themselves what that looks like. Did the news channel need to do that? 

Could you imagine what the girls and their families are going through right now? It was a stupid STUPID decision but come on. That news channel sucks and loses my respect for doing that. 

Those moms are also ridiculous. Seduce? Like their precious sons are really so pure and innocent as to not hold any responsibility for what happened?


----------



## Psallo a Cappella (Jan 18, 2009)

Koi said:


> Clearly you missed the point: When you sigh that contract upon employment, or enrollment in school, _your privacy is theirs._ Your boss has the SAME EXACT RIGHTS to look through your work computer/files as your school's administration does to look through your locker. That's how it works here. It's far from illegal to go through a confiscated cell phone, _especially_ if it was taken away in the first place from someone who was using out of what the school contract dictates as acceptable cell phone use.


 
Truth. Especially when enrolled in public school; most rights disappear the moment you're on the property. Then can look through your locker, your purse, cut the lock off your locker if they feel the need to or have enough reason. Employees are fired from their uppers finding emails of content they find offensive or talk against the company at which they work. Most companies have blocks on their computers, too. No privacy.

As for the article  . . . ugh. Just, ugh.


----------



## Talon. (Jan 18, 2009)

i think the parents should try and overturn the sentence. any normal parent knows that this is bullshit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 18, 2009)

Talon. said:


> i think the parents should try and overturn the sentence. any normal parent knows that this is bullshit.



Why because kids can't break the law? Sometimes you have to suffer with the consequences.


----------



## Stroev (Jan 18, 2009)

Shame they weren't doing it.

Of their own free will.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 18, 2009)

Stroev said:


> Shame they weren't doing it.
> 
> Of their own free will.



Exactly. People want to make all these addendum to the laws just to appease new technology when the only people who should even be considered to get off the hook for this are any of the kids who opened the texts and immediately deleted them or those who never opened them.

Those who kept them deserve what they get and I hope they do get it. I may speed, but I don't pitch a bitch when I get caught doing it and it doesn't make it right.


----------



## PrometheusZero (Jan 19, 2009)

Does that mean if someone spams my phone with dodgy pics I can get arrested even though I'm being hounded by something beyond my control?

Sure, I can block there number by rining my mobile company and saying 'dude, this guys harrasing me....block his number' wait for them to sort it out (2 days) and then I've been arrested for what I didn't want in the first place! Arrrggghhhh!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 19, 2009)

PrometheusZero said:


> Does that mean if someone spams my phone with dodgy pics I can get arrested even though I'm being hounded by something beyond my control?
> 
> Sure, I can block there number by rining my mobile company and saying 'dude, this guys harrasing me....block his number' wait for them to sort it out (2 days) and then I've been arrested for what I didn't want in the first place! Arrrggghhhh!



You can just delete the first one and not open the next...pretty easily done.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 19, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can just delete the first one and not open the next...pretty easily done.



He said spam, so I'm pretty sure there'd be more than just two.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 19, 2009)

Seto Kaiba said:


> He said spam, so I'm pretty sure there'd be more than just two.



I think you should have enough sense to realize you'd just delete any after the first? Seriously its not that fucking hard. I've gotten annoying texts in the past and guess what? They still deleted. 

Stop trying to make up silly scenarios where this "could happen" or "what if". 

What if some 12 year old girl undressed in front of you in the middle of the street, does that make you a pervert? Jesus we can all make up stupid situations, stick to the issue.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jan 19, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I think you should have enough sense to realize you'd just delete any after the first? Seriously its not that fucking hard. I've gotten annoying texts in the past and guess what? They still deleted.




You wouldn't know the first is offensive without opening it, in which case you could probably be charged, at least going by the way this incident was handled.



> Stop trying to make up silly scenarios where this "could happen" or "what if".



No.



> What if some 12 year old girl undressed in front of you in the middle of the street, does that make you a pervert? Jesus we can all make up stupid situations, stick to the issue.



It's pertaining to it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 19, 2009)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You wouldn't know the first is offensive without opening it, in which case you could probably be charged, at least going by the way this incident was handled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here's how most of the phones I have seen work. 

You get a text, the picture attached. Look at the text and picture. If you DOWNLOAD IT, its permanently in your phone. 

If you delete the text...its gone.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 19, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Here's how most of the phones I have seen work.
> 
> You get a text, the picture attached. Look at the text and picture. If you DOWNLOAD IT, its permanently in your phone.
> 
> If you delete the text...its gone.



all information that has passed through your phone is still partially encrypted there, if you delete it, they'll just say that you were trying to get rid of the evidence


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 19, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> all information that has passed through your phone is still partially encrypted there, if you delete it, they'll just say that you were trying to get rid of the evidence



You're dealing in hypotheticals still, like I said, we can't just make up extravagant situations and then forget about all the things that make law enforcement law enforcement. They do investigate things, like if you know the person who sent it, or if you willingly knew what it was. Stop trying to prove a point with made up situations when these kids are still guilty.  

They did something illegal that shouldn't have been done.


----------



## Psycho (Jan 19, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You're dealing in hypotheticals still, like I said, we can't just make up extravagant situations and then forget about all the things that make law enforcement law enforcement. They do investigate things, like if you know the person who sent it, or if you willingly knew what it was. Stop trying to prove a point with made up situations when these kids are still guilty.
> 
> They did something illegal that shouldn't have been done.



the information in the article is not enough for you to say that they are undeniably guilty, it does not say if any of the students deleted the pictures, it does not say if all the recipients were friends with the girl who took naked pics, it does not say if any of them consented, it doesn't even say if the message from which the pics were discovered had been previously opened

and since when legal is moral and illegal is immoral


----------



## iander (Jan 20, 2009)

First off, this is a severe invasion of privacy.  A school can confiscate a student's cell phone but much like a backpack, it is considered a closed container.  Meaning that the only way they could look through the phone is with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.  Unless that info has been left out of the article, this seems like a breech of privacy by the school.

Second, while I agree with the idea of preventing child pornography, this was not a reasonable application.  The reasonable thing to do would have been to get the girls and guys in a room and tell them that texting nude pics of themselves to others is considered illegal and that it can be dangerous since the pics could end up on the internet and thus they need to delete the pics and never do it again.  That would be the reasonable thing to do.  To treat them like criminals, embarrass them publicly, and possibly ruin their future with criminal records is beyond ridiculous.  That is what happens when innocent sexuality is dealt with punishment rather than understanding and explanation.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2009)

Sephiroth said:


> the information in the article is not enough for you to say that they are undeniably guilty, it does not say if any of the students deleted the pictures, it does not say if all the recipients were friends with the girl who took naked pics, it does not say if any of them consented, it doesn't even say if the message from which the pics were discovered had been previously opened
> 
> and since when legal is moral and illegal is immoral



Saw it on the news here, they didn't delete them 

And this isn't a case about morals, its a case about Child porn. If you want to talk about morals, take it somewhere else because I don't care who's doing the sending or receiving, Child Porn is illegal. 
 


iander said:


> First off, this is a severe invasion of privacy.  A school can confiscate a student's cell phone...



The Hell they can't, if you bring cellphones to school, you know that they can take it up and it says so in the hand book. Especially if it becomes a distraction in class. 



iander said:


> but much like a backpack, it is considered a closed container.  Meaning that the only way they could look through the phone is with reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.  Unless that info has been left out of the article, this seems like a breech of privacy by the school.



No you're wrong again, they can take a phone up just for you having it in class. Most times phones are required to be left in lockers or in the very least pockets. If they can see it, they can take it up. 

You might as well saying that a teacher reading a note students passed is an invasion of privacy. Its asinine. 
 


iander said:


> Second, while I agree with the idea of preventing child pornography, this was not a reasonable application.  The reasonable thing to do would have been to get the girls and guys in a room and tell them that texting nude pics of themselves to others is considered illegal and that it can be dangerous since the pics could end up on the internet and thus they need to delete the pics and never do it again.  That would be the reasonable thing to do.  To treat them like criminals, embarrass them publicly, and possibly ruin their future with criminal records is beyond ridiculous.  That is what happens when innocent sexuality is dealt with punishment rather than understanding and explanation.



That's what happens when you break the law, you might get caught.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 20, 2009)

But of course! It's more important to punish the perpetrators than it is to prevent actual harm! Think of the abused children!



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's what happens when you break the law, you might get caught.



A classic argument. The law justifies itself.



Like the jews, the gays, the blacks, the witches, the scots, the men with glasses, the women with glasses, the intellectuals, the communists, the capitalists, the christians, the muslims, the... Well theoretically i COULD go on but i assume you see the point already.


----------



## iander (Jan 20, 2009)

CTK you clearly didnt even read what I wrote.  I said schools can confiscate cell phones but that looking through them without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is invasion of privacy.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2009)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> But of course! It's more important to punish the perpetrators than it is to prevent actual harm! Think of the abused children!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's the point? Oh that's right, you're not making one. Just listing people off doesn't show any sense in this argument. 

There was a law broken here, doesn't matter who broke it. If they were old enough to traffic porn, they're old enough to have action taken against them. 



iander said:


> CTK you clearly didnt even read what I wrote.  I said schools can confiscate cell phones but that looking through them without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is invasion of privacy.



You clearly missed the part about the note passing.


----------



## -Dargor- (Jan 20, 2009)

Willaien said:


> This is what happens when law cannot keep up with the times



Thats what law is for kid.

Grow up


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 20, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> What's the point? Oh that's right, you're not making one. Just listing people off doesn't show any sense in this argument.
> 
> There was a law broken here, doesn't matter who broke it. If they were old enough to traffic porn, they're old enough to have action taken against them.



I'm making an excellent point which you're ignoring.

My comparison was essentially that everyone I listed in that original post also broke the law in one way or another and were punished for it. Thus proving that the law isn't always right.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2009)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> I'm making an excellent point which you're ignoring.
> 
> My comparison was essentially that everyone I listed in that original post also broke the law in one way or another and were punished for it. Thus proving that the law isn't always right.



I'm not ignoring your point, I'm calling it stupid. 

To try and sit here and make the point that possession of child porn is okay, means that I should be ignoring you though.


----------



## Anjali (Jan 20, 2009)

So if I'm posting nudes I get into trouble?  lol

And lol @ those stupid people...it is pretty obvious that if you do such a thing and send the pics to your classmates, the thing wont remain a secret for long 

silly kids


----------



## Nakor (Jan 20, 2009)

I know some school policies allow principles to search cell phones of students only if they have reasonable suspicion of misconduct. With what we know of this case, it doesn't seem like the principle had any reasonable suspicious of misconduct other than the student possessing the cell phone. So the principle wouldn't be allowed to search the cell phone. 

The kids were all underage and while sending nude pics on cell phones is pretty stupid, they shouldn't be charged for anything, let alone put on a sex offender list with guys who rape 6 year old kids. This is not what the law is for. This is an issue that shouldn't involve law enforcement.


----------



## Jαmes (Jan 20, 2009)

that's why you should always keep your phone away from school officials' hands... tsk3x...


----------



## "LADY KISS" (Jan 20, 2009)

Then Again.. How do you get Cougth doing such things


----------



## PrometheusZero (Jan 20, 2009)

It just weirds me out that the girls have been charged for possesion of an image of their own body. It would be like if I injured myself having a wank so badly that when the paramedics (!) turn up, they turn me over to the cops for sexual abuse!

And, CTK, while I can see you're very passionate about this story, just because I find the particulars incredulous doesn't mean I condone kiddie porn. Far from it. It is wrong. But screaming that at all who want to discuss it is not condusive to discussion!

Ne?


----------



## Dash (Jan 20, 2009)

Not surprised, I've seen students do this before.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2009)

PrometheusZero said:


> It just weirds me out that the girls have been charged for possesion of an image of their own body. It would be like if I injured myself having a wank so badly that when the paramedics (!) turn up, they turn me over to the cops for sexual abuse!
> 
> And, CTK, while I can see you're very passionate about this story, just because I find the particulars incredulous doesn't mean I condone kiddie porn. Far from it. It is wrong. But screaming that at all who want to discuss it is not condusive to discussion!
> 
> Ne?



By taking and sending the image they're basically trafficking Child Porn, whether its them or not. The simple possession of Child Porn, regardless of who holds it, is illegal.


----------



## Sima (Jan 20, 2009)

-sigh- Jeez kids are stupid, I am 16 and I would never do something as stupid as that. It seems that most girls just have no boundaries now a days, and they think if they take pics of themselves naked they'll be more popular or more wanted by the male population. But, the way I see it thats only gonna get them molested or raped.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 20, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I'm not ignoring your point, I'm calling it stupid.
> 
> To try and sit here and make the point that possession of child porn is okay, means that I should be ignoring you though.



But what the fuck?

It's a basically a fucked up catch 22

The law exists supposedly to protect children. Thus, when the law is used against children for no other reason for justification than the law itself exists (to protect children) then the use is paradoxal in itself.

Imagine if a man gets angry and hits a concrete wall with his fist, upon which police arrest him for violent assault ON HIMSELF.

That's basically what it's about here. Obviously the children shouldn't be charged with anything because the law was originally designed to protect them. If YOU want the law enforced, then obviously you don't actually want to protect children at all as you want it enforced no matter what the actual outcome IS.

What the law here is doing, is figuratively speaking fucking over these children permanently... And you condone it because IT IS THE LAW.


----------



## .:Jason:. (Jan 20, 2009)

See this is why laws regarding Child Porn should be rewritten. IT should only count as child porn if the people depicted are under the legal age of concent. Same with sexual laws in general. Seriously, why is it one can have sex legaly at 16 but an 18+ year old can't have sex with a 16-17 year old? Stupid I say, stupid. Hopefully Obama will help change that.


----------



## Sasori-puppet#270 (Jan 20, 2009)

say what 

that's nawt fair. those poor kids will have those charges against them, cos they took a couple of pictures of themselves? i certainly don't agree with them, but cut them some slack. i don't see how they did anything wrong, well except morally


----------



## Boneretti (Jan 20, 2009)

All this fuss over breasts and furry, marsupial looking, parts of the female anatomy.

Why, America, why.


----------



## Lain (Jan 20, 2009)

Invasion of privacy, anyone? Since when did schools have the right to search through photos on students' cell phones?


----------



## Boneretti (Jan 20, 2009)

Lain said:


> Invasion of privacy, anyone? Since when did schools have the right to search through photos on students' cell phones?




The government has never considered itself accountable to laws pertaining to electronic surveillance being "illegal."

With the Patriot Act they can now wiretap your phone and internet without a warrant--in search of "terrorists."  Not only do "terrorists" blow things up, they also give governments an excuse to over step privacy measures.

Another reason not to be overly sad if Iran and NK nuclear weapons programs go awry with a nuclear explosion on their respective homelands.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 20, 2009)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> But what the fuck?
> 
> It's a basically a fucked up catch 22
> 
> ...



Please stop, you're just making yourself look silly. By your idea, we should be able to drive as fast as we want on vacant roads and other things because "its not hurting anyone else".

The law is the way it is because pictures on cellphones don't always stay on that phone and when they get passed around and end up online, then there's a problem. 

Take your kids civil rights crap somewhere else. 

The law is trying keep kids from having their lives ruined before they're even able to have full control over their lives. Whether they're ruining it themselves or not. 



JasonKunxx said:


> See this is why laws regarding Child Porn should be rewritten. IT should only count as child porn if the people depicted are under the legal age of concent. Same with sexual laws in general. Seriously, why is it one can have sex legaly at 16 but an 18+ year old can't have sex with a 16-17 year old? Stupid I say, stupid. Hopefully Obama will help change that.



Why would he change it? The general age of consent in the US is 18, same goes for online. If you allow the law to change from state to state, it makes it much harder to keep it from being trafficked. At least think before you say something.


----------



## Nakor (Jan 21, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The law is trying keep kids from having their lives ruined before they're even able to have full control over their lives. Whether they're ruining it themselves or not



But that is exactly what the law is doing to this kids in this instance. How are their lives ruined if one of their pictures gets on the internet? I'd say in this instance their lives are more ruined if they get put on the sex offenders list than if one of their nude pictures gets put on the internet. There is a hell of a lot of amateur porn out there and I'd seriously doubt if all their lives are ruined because their pictures/videos are on the interent, whether they wanted them there or not.



> Why would he change it? The general age of consent in the US is 18, same goes for online. If you allow the law to change from state to state, it makes it much harder to keep it from being trafficked. At least think before you say something.


First off he is talking about sex, not porn.  Google age of sexual consent and you will see that age of sexual consent varies from 14 to 18 depending on state. So there is no general age of sexual consent in the U.S. The age of consent for porn is 18.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 25, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Please stop, you're just making yourself look silly. By your idea, we should be able to drive as fast as we want on vacant roads and other things because "its not hurting anyone else".
> 
> The law is the way it is because pictures on cellphones don't always stay on that phone and when they get passed around and end up online, then there's a problem.
> 
> ...



This isn't about civil rights. It's about damage.

If you have a law whose purpose is to protect people and that law is used to hurt people, then you have to look over the law. That's essentially what's happening here. The law is used to COMPLETELY FUCK OVER TEENAGERS and potentially ruining any chances they have of ever getting a job.

This is vs what? The potential that their nude pictures appear on the net? lol that's a minor incident compared to being slapped with the sex offender label for ten years.


----------



## .:Jason:. (Jan 25, 2009)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> This isn't about civil rights. It's about damage.
> 
> If you have a law whose purpose is to protect people and that law is used to hurt people, then you have to look over the law. That's essentially what's happening here. The law is used to COMPLETELY FUCK OVER TEENAGERS and potentially ruining any chances they have of ever getting a job.
> 
> This is vs what? The potential that their nude pictures appear on the net? lol that's a minor incident compared to being slapped with the sex offender label for ten years.



Especailly when it's near impossible for them to get on the internet, if you don't e-mail em to yourself. Most of our laws regarding sex need changng if you think about it. Unfortunately the chances of that happening are low.


----------



## beads (Jan 25, 2009)

So they took the kid's phone and then went through the content of the phone? This happened at my school and the guy got expelled. He sued the school.


----------



## Hitomi_No_Ryu (Jan 25, 2009)

They should not be registered sex offenders. Especially when the registration system puts their names alongside serial child rapists!

Honestly, would it hurt the country to make a tier system for registered sex offenders??


----------



## Miss Musouka (Jan 25, 2009)

Willaien said:


> This is what happens when law cannot keep up with the times, and when law-makers are too stupid to think that teens may want to willingly participate in such things.
> 
> In my state, they can have sex, but, if a nude picture is taken, it's illegal.



thats a fucking retarded law


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 25, 2009)

Hitomi_No_Ryu said:


> They should not be registered sex offenders. Especially when the resignation system puts their names alongside serial child rapists!
> 
> Honestly, would it hurt the country to make a tier system for registered sex offenders??



Serial baby rapist...guy who moons nuns, what's the difference?


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 26, 2009)

Was that a rhetorical question?


----------



## Psycho (Jan 26, 2009)

so not only they should charged with producing child pornography and keeping it, they should also be put on a list available to their neighbors and acquaintances to mis-interpret and think they went around taking pictures of naked 8 year olds an wanking to it?


----------



## Boneretti (Jan 26, 2009)

_Child Pornography_?  10-25 years in prison is a _stiff_ price to pay for sending noods.


----------



## Arcadia (Jan 26, 2009)

These people are in the same damn age range and labeling them as sex offenders is utterly ridiculous. The justice system fails again.


----------



## Naruto12805 (Jan 26, 2009)

why was the teacher going through the pics and messages in the first place?


----------



## Uhneed (Jan 26, 2009)

Naruto12805 said:


> why was the teacher going through the pics and messages in the first place?



Better yet, why wasn't the teacher arrested?


----------



## k-k-Kyle (Jan 26, 2009)

So let me get this straight. If a girl takes a nude pic of herself and sends it to your phone without your knowledge, you get sentenced?

Scenario:
*in class*
*cell phone text ring goes off*
you-"Oh shit, forgot to turn it off."
teacher-"Bring your phone up here."
you-"Shit."
teacher-"This is a nude pic of XXX. GO TO JAIL!"
you- x.x


----------



## DeterminedIdiot (Jan 26, 2009)

hey they decided to take the pictures. wasnt against their will


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 26, 2009)

People seem to forget about laws and about how things work at school. Teachers go through notebooks and other things students are meant to have...so why not phones, which they are not even supposed to have?


----------



## Nakor (Jan 26, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> People seem to forget about laws and about how things work at school. Teachers go through notebooks and other things students are meant to have...so why not phones, which they are not even supposed to have?



it depends on their policy. some school policies do not allow teachers or principals to go through cell phones unless they have a reasonable suspicion that something illegal is taking place over the phone. under that policy the principal would have no right to go through the phone in this case since there was no reasonable suspicion(which is why it was specifically mentioned in the article that the student wasn't doing anything against school policy or illegal other than having a cell phone). we'd have to know the policy for this school. 

that is neither here nor there though. while it may have been correct for the principle to call police, it is up to the police to decide whether to charge the kids. that is really what is at issue here. it's whether the law is being properly applied in this case.


----------



## Akiana (Jan 27, 2009)

Well that's really stupid.
I don't see why they should be registered as sex offenders.
And also, I don't know really know why the police were called in for this shit.
The girl took pictures of herself willingly to show them around.
I honestly think that we should have just left this alone.
If the pictures were to surface to the internet, we shouldn't give a shit.
It's her fault for taking the pictures.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 27, 2009)

Akiana said:


> Well that's really stupid.
> I don't see why they should be registered as sex offenders.
> And also, I don't know really know why the police were called in for this shit.
> *The girl took pictures of herself willingly to show them around.*
> ...



And possession of child pornography by ANYONE is illegal. How is that so fucking hard to understand?


----------



## Kenta (Jan 27, 2009)

Chris Hanson is acomin' for yee!!

Why don't you have a seat over therrre?


----------



## horsdhaleine (Jan 27, 2009)

private photos. don't we all go through this? 

stupid kids! 

1) never show your phone to elders
2) erase dirty stuff immediately after reading/seeing it.

that is the trick!


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 27, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And possession of child pornography by ANYONE is illegal. How is that so fucking hard to understand?



The issue is that this is a case where the law is ineffective and comes off as unjust. Every law has certain exceptions because there are many situations where an illegal act is justified. Murder for example is illegal, but is allowed in acts of self-defense.

The whole point of child pornography laws are to protect children. However, this situation does nothing of the sort, and actually harms the children it claims to protect. Taking nude photos of yourself is not a serious offense, and having them uploaded to the internet is hardly damaging since the internet is full of amateur porn. What IS damaging is getting labeled as a sex offender and being put on the same list as child molesters that actually cause real harm. Try getting any kind of job or maintaining any kind of relationship when word gets out that you've been labeled as a sex offender.

Yes it's important to protect children, but if a law is causing several innocents to be charged as well, then it needs to change. Rational human beings shouldn't just sit around and let it all happen because "OMG ITS TEH LAW". Child pornography laws need to include separate clauses when it comes to cases like these. The teenagers took photos of themselves, meaning that it's 100% consensual. Is taking naked photos in good taste? No, but last time I checked we don't arrest people for having bad taste.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Jan 27, 2009)

so why make them register as sex offenders? 

overkill imo.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 27, 2009)

HolyHands said:


> The issue is that this is a case where the law is ineffective and comes off as unjust. Every law has certain exceptions because there are many situations where an illegal act is justified. Murder for example is illegal, but is allowed in acts of self-defense.
> 
> The whole point of child pornography laws are to protect children. However, this situation does nothing of the sort, and actually harms the children it claims to protect. Taking nude photos of yourself is not a serious offense, and having them uploaded to the internet is hardly damaging since the internet is full of amateur porn. What IS damaging is getting labeled as a sex offender and being put on the same list as child molesters that actually cause real harm. Try getting any kind of job or maintaining any kind of relationship when word gets out that you've been labeled as a sex offender.
> 
> Yes it's important to protect children, but if a law is causing several innocents to be charged as well, then it needs to change. Rational human beings shouldn't just sit around and let it all happen because "OMG ITS TEH LAW". Child pornography laws need to include separate clauses when it comes to cases like these. The teenagers took photos of themselves, meaning that it's 100% consensual. Is taking naked photos in good taste? No, but last time I checked we don't arrest people for having bad taste.



If they were peddling child porn, they're not innocents. Also the law has a responsibility to not even allow this stuff to flow freely from person to person, its not just to protect children, its to keep this shit out of the hands of those out there who stock pile and distribute the stuff.


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 27, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> If they were peddling child porn, they're not innocents. Also the law has a responsibility to not even allow this stuff to flow freely from person to person, its not just to protect children, its to keep this shit out of the hands of those out there who stock pile and distribute the stuff.



Okay, but WHY does the law try to prevent child pornography? That's something you need to ask yourself. The lawmakers didn't just pull a note out of a hat and ban child pornography based on that.

The whole reason why we ban it is because child porn is often the result of sick perverts who take nude pictures of children and share it with other people without their consent. Said children are also often being abused as well. A child cannot give consent because a child does not understand what sex is and does not have the mental maturity to grasp the concept. It's basically manipulation of children for pedophiles' own personal enjoyment, and the child has absolutely no control over it. THAT'S why we make it illegal.

The whole "sexting" issue however is not related to the above at all. These are not innocent children, but teenagers who are fully aware what sex is and are mature enough to make their own decisions. Consent isn't an issue either. The teenage girls took pictures of themselves, and were not forced into it by anyone. Ignorance of sex isn't an issue. Consent isn't an issue. So why should they be charged with child pornography?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 27, 2009)

HolyHands said:


> Okay, but WHY does the law try to prevent child pornography? That's something you need to ask yourself. The lawmakers didn't just pull a note out of a hat and ban child pornography based on that.
> 
> The whole reason why we ban it is because child porn is often the result of sick perverts who take nude pictures of children and share it with other people without their consent. Said children are also often being abused as well. A child cannot give consent because a child does not understand what sex is and does not have the mental maturity to grasp the concept. It's basically manipulation of children for pedophiles' own personal enjoyment, and the child has absolutely no control over it. THAT'S why we make it illegal.
> 
> The whole "sexting" issue however is not related to the above at all. *These are not innocent children, but teenagers who are fully aware what sex is and are mature enough to make their own decisions*. Consent isn't an issue either. The teenage girls took pictures of themselves, and were not forced into it by anyone. Ignorance of sex isn't an issue. Consent isn't an issue. So why should they be charged with child pornography?



Not in the eyes of the law they're not. They're too young to consent to this kind of thing, but they're not too young to get tried for sexual crimes. As seen other places.


----------



## HolyHands (Jan 27, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not in the eyes of the law they're not. They're too young to consent to this kind of thing, but they're not too young to get tried for sexual crimes. As seen other places.



_Currently_ the law says that they can't do these things, but then again teenagers can have sex and get away with it scott-free, so there is obviously some inconsistency here. But again, the argument isn't whether what they did was illegal or not, because we all know it was illegal. The question is SHOULD it be illegal, and should it be charged as child pornography.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 27, 2009)

HolyHands said:


> _Currently_ the law says that they can't do these things, but then again teenagers can have sex and get away with it scott-free, so there is obviously some inconsistency here. But again, the argument isn't whether what they did was illegal or not, because we all know it was illegal. The question is SHOULD it be illegal, and should it be charged as child pornography.



Teens can have sex with other minors yes...but that's it. In some states there is a grace period but that's all written into the law. And yes, it should be child pornography still.


----------



## Sephero (Jan 27, 2009)

dummy plug said:


> kids nowadays



Yeah, right... FACEPALM...

...even though your signature and avatar are covered in photos of yourself that are actually gif sideshow albums in disguise. 

The only difference between their whoring and your whoring is you aren't naked.


----------



## Lain (Jan 27, 2009)

Boneretti said:


> The government has never considered itself accountable to laws pertaining to electronic surveillance being "illegal."
> 
> With the Patriot Act they can now wiretap your phone and internet without a warrant--in search of "terrorists."  Not only do "terrorists" blow things up, they also give governments an excuse to over step privacy measures.
> 
> Another reason not to be overly sad if Iran and NK nuclear weapons programs go awry with a nuclear explosion on their respective homelands.



Uhh... I do believe it was a public school going through the kid's phone, not the government. Public schools aren't the government. They have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.


----------



## Nakor (Jan 27, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not in the eyes of the law they're not. They're too young to consent to this kind of thing, but they're not too young to get tried for sexual crimes. As seen other places.



it is a sexual crime on themselves though.

also, any possible child porn has to be reported to the police. whether or not the principle was allowed to view the contents of the phone, the fact is he saw an underage girl naked on the phone. he HAS to report it to the police. I believe it is the police who made the mistake in actually charging the kids in this instance.


----------



## Draffut (Jan 27, 2009)

I'll need to see the photo's in question before I can make an accurate judgement call on this.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 27, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Not in the eyes of the law they're not. They're too young to consent to this kind of thing, but they're not too young to get tried for sexual crimes. As seen other places.



_A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises._

I saw your signature so I found it a particularily fitting summary of your alignment. Blind obedience to law with no regard to the suffering of those who get caught in it.


----------



## Chee (Jan 27, 2009)

It's a big thing in my school.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 27, 2009)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> _A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises._
> 
> I saw your signature so I found it a particularily fitting summary of your alignment. Blind obedience to law with no regard to the suffering of those who get caught in it.



Its a particularly bad example too, especially considering that these people are having they're punishment handed out for breaking the law. No one is having anything taken from them that has value to anyone else. They're being punished for breaking a law. 

Your stupid and baseless example changes nothing but my perception of your intelligence.


----------



## Nakor (Jan 27, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> They're being punished for breaking a law.



That is the point he was making I think, but in a lighthearted way. A lawful alignment would be someone who follows the law to the T and will not question the law. Which you are not doing in this case. A lawful evil alignment is someone who follows the law to the T without any mercy or compassion for those suffering under the laws(whether the laws are just or not doesn't matter). By saying these kids deserve to suffer under a law that is actually in place to protect them is sort of following along the lines of lawful evil. What he was saying has nothing to do with anything being taken from these kids that has value to anyone else. Even then, many choices these kids could have in the next 10 years could be taken away from them because of being labeled a sex offender. 

*I hope I got my D&D alignment descriptions correct, it's been awhile since I've played haha.*


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 28, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Its a particularly bad example too, especially considering that these people are having they're punishment handed out for breaking the law. No one is having anything taken from them that has value to anyone else. They're being punished for breaking a law.
> 
> Your stupid and baseless example changes nothing but my perception of your intelligence.



What have you shown so far? Blind devotion to a law that is used to punish people who have done nothing wrong to others. People who are innocent of anything any sensible person would consider a crime.

It was not intended as an insult. It was intended to demonstrate blind faith in moral abstract moral standards.


----------



## kisachi (Jan 28, 2009)

well you get whatcha get when messin around with underage  *child porn* that's just disgusting and so wrong


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> What have you shown so far? Blind devotion to a law that is used to punish people who have done nothing wrong to others. People who are innocent of anything any sensible person would consider a crime.
> 
> It was not intended as an insult. It was intended to demonstrate blind faith in moral abstract moral standards.



And you've shown a lack of D&D knowledge and a general lack for understanding of the law. Good job there.


----------



## 64palms (Jan 28, 2009)

kisachi said:


> well you get whatcha get when messin around with underage  *child porn* that's just disgusting and so wrong


Well let's see. There's all sorts of things to take into account here.

These are underage kids. Who took pictures of their own consent of themselves. Who is being protected here.
We're not supposed to be prosecuting people under the laws that were originally meant to protect them.

This sort of thing is becoming no different for blasphemy laws when you can throw someone in the slammer for doing something considered by 70% of society as "so wrong".

/stalking friends online and disagreeing with them.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

64palms said:


> Well let's see. There's all sorts of things to take into account here.
> 
> These are underage kids. Who took pictures of their own consent of themselves. Who is being protected here.
> We're not supposed to be prosecuting people under the laws that were originally meant to protect them.
> ...



Kids don't have consent to take pictures of even themselves naked, that's how the law works. If that were the case then what would be the difference if they took nude pictures and just posted them online? The number of people who saw them? The age of the people who saw them? Neither of those things changes the status of the pictures, and that's illegal.

A La Liga legend is back; Valeron!!!!!




> *18 U.S.C. 1466A ? OBSCENE VISUAL REPRESENTATIONS OF          THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN**It is forbidden to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess            with the intent to distribute, a visual depiction of any kind, including            a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, that *
> 
> 
> depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene,              or
> ...


----------



## 64palms (Jan 28, 2009)

I'm not arguing what's the law, I'm arguing what makes sense.
That's like saying a child who masturbates is raping themselves.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

64palms said:


> I'm not arguing what's the law, I'm arguing what makes sense.
> That's like saying a child who masturbates is raping themselves.



No its not, in fact what you're saying makes no sense. The law works to cut down on the amount of child porn floating around out there. There's absolutely no reason a child has to photograph themselves nude...

Even if you try and argue that its "art" there's a place for that in the law. 

Masturbation literally can't be a crime alone, because its you doing the action. So unless you're masturbating in public or in front of an underaged person, there's never any harm done.

The only thing wrong here is that people seem to just wish things weren't this way. Judging by the number of pedophiles in this place I can't say I'm too shocked. But the fact of the matter is the law makes perfect sense, just because you wish it wasn't so doesn't make a difference.


----------



## .:Jason:. (Jan 28, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The only thing wrong here is that people seem to just wish things weren't this way. Judging by the number of pedophiles in this place I can't say I'm too shocked. But the fact of the matter is the law makes perfect sense, just because you wish it wasn't so doesn't make a difference.



No, it doesn't. It says engaging in sexual acts. Last I checked, nude pictures do not count as sexual acts. Think it over for a moment, why don't you?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

JasonKunxx said:


> No, it doesn't. It says engaging in sexual acts. Last I checked, nude pictures do not count as sexual acts. Think it over for a moment, why don't you?



It says sexually explicit conduct, which can be taken to mean nude pictures. Why don't you think? Like I said you've got fuckall to stand on, don't get so cocky.

Oh and there's this: 




> *18 U.S.C. 2256 – “CHILD PORNOGRAPHY” DEFINED* Child pornography is defined as any visual depiction, including            any photograph, film, video, or computer or computer-generated image            or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other            means, of sexually explicit conduct, where
> 
> 
> the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor              engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
> ...


----------



## 64palms (Jan 28, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No its not, in fact what you're saying makes no sense.


That waits to be proven.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The law works to cut down on the amount of child porn floating around out there.


Nudity should not be considered child porn. Heck clothes themselves in warm weather are unnatural.

Laws of such were originally meant to protect children. If there's no reason to the law that to shield the world from the existence of the nude under age of consent body, then the law serves no justifiable purpose.


Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> There's absolutely no reason a child has to photograph themselves nude...


There's absolutely no reason a person has to listen to music. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to do it.




Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Masturbation literally can't be a crime alone, because its you doing the action.


If a child is taking pictures of themselves nude, I believe it is them taking the action.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The only thing wrong here is that people seem to just wish things weren't this way. Judging by the number of pedophiles in this place I can't say I'm too shocked. But the fact of the matter is the law makes perfect sense, just because you wish it wasn't so doesn't make a difference.


This doesn't address anything. You're just arguing by emotion and saying "you're a bunch of sick fucks" in more words.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

64palms said:


> That waits to be proven.
> 
> Nudity should not be considered child porn. Heck clothes themselves in warm weather are unnatural.



That's where I stopped reading...you really should just go live in another country if you believe that. Because the law requires a certain amount of clothes be worn here...end of story. And did you see the pictures? Do you know what they were doing? 

So you can't be sure how explicit they were.


----------



## .:Jason:. (Jan 28, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> It says sexually explicit conduct, which can be taken to mean nude pictures. Why don't you think? Like I said you've got fuckall to stand on, don't get so cocky.



Yes, and since when do pictures count as sexually explicit conduct? Newsflash, they don't.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

JasonKunxx said:


> Yes, and since when do pictures count as sexually explicit conduct? Newsflash, they don't.



Then go on dude, post some nude pictures here, let's see how fast you get fucking banned. I dare you.


----------



## Franky (Jan 28, 2009)

I was busy reading the comments and I ended up thinking 'fuck this'
Sometimes I think the law is attacking random people out of their humane lust for punishing others.
bull shit.

now where's my coffe?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

Franky said:


> I was busy reading the comments and I ended up thinking 'fuck this'
> Sometimes I think the law is attacking random people out of their humane lust for punishing others.
> bull shit.
> 
> now where's my coffe?



Random people...who get caught breaking the law.

*waits for JasonKunxx to post these non-explicit nudes*


----------



## 64palms (Jan 28, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's where I stopped reading...you really should just go live in another country if you believe that.


Just because I don't like everything about this country, doesn't mean I should move.
Japan has a lot of things I like better, but I hear it's racist as fuck.
You think they want some weeaboo like me.:heehee



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Because the law requires a certain amount of clothes be worn here...end of story.


I'm saying whether I agree with something or not. End of story.

Oh look, I can say end of story too.:teehee



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And did you see the pictures? Do you know what they were doing?


 
So you can't be sure how explicit they were. [/QUOTE]
Hey, just because I disagree with the law, doesn't mean I'm going to break it. It would to me like it was implied that no more than nudity existed. Show me where I'm wrong to assume it was no more than nudity, thank you.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

I could dig up a legal definition of explicit image, but that's just the thing, its semi-subjective and the like. 

But you want to see how illegal it is?


----------



## .:Jason:. (Jan 28, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Then go on dude, post some nude pictures here, let's see how fast you get fucking banned. I dare you.



No, I don't think I will. Why don't you stop acting like you know everything?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

JasonKunxx said:


> No, I don't think I will. Why don't you stop acting like you know everything?



Riveting come back, but you've yet to give any evidence to this not being explicit material and you've yet to prove in any way that these teens did anything other than break a law and get the standard punishment. 

You can be put to death at 16 or 17 I am pretty sure, you can be tried as an adult I think as early as 14...so how come these kids can't get tried like any other sex offenders would?


----------



## Nakor (Jan 28, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can be put to death at 16 or 17  am pretty sure, you can be tried as an adult I think as early as 14...so how come these kids can't get tried like any other sex offenders would?



Being put to death when you are under 18 is likely never to happen only under the most extreme circumstances. Minors(first time offenders) being tried as adults typcially only happens for capital offenses such a first degree murder(especially for children under 16). Because of the circumstances surrounding the case, they will go to juvenile court. IMO they will maybe get community service and be required to go to counseling for a bit or they will get no punishment. There may already be a precedent set from a previous ruling for these circumstances. 

They are certainly not going to get tried like a child rapist would.


----------



## 64palms (Jan 28, 2009)

These children will need the counseling after all the sexual harm such an ordeal will have put them through. I really feel sorry for these poor, disgustingly violated children.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

fireball said:


> Being put to death when you are under 18 is likely never to happen only under the most extreme circumstances. Minors(first time offenders) being tried as adults typcially only happens for capital offenses such a first degree murder(especially for children under 16). Because of the circumstances surrounding the case, they will go to juvenile court. IMO they will maybe get community service and be required to go to counseling for a bit or they will get no punishment. There may already be a precedent set from a previous ruling for these circumstances.
> 
> They are certainly not going to get tried like a child rapist would.



You can only be put to Death in capital cases...


----------



## Nakor (Jan 28, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can only be put to Death in capital cases...



By saying extreme circumstances I was going beyond just a capital offense like one count of first degree murder. Prosecutors are not going to go for the death penalty in a case where a 14 year old who murders another boy with intent. It is more likely prosecutors may try for the death penalty if a 14 year old boy goes on a killing spree with intent and understanding of what he is doing and kills 40 people. That would be an extreme circumstance. I apologize for not being 100% clear.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 28, 2009)

fireball said:


> By saying extreme circumstances I was going beyond just a capital offense like one count of first degree murder. Prosecutors are not going to go for the death penalty in a case where a 14 year old who murders another boy with intent. It is more likely prosecutors may try for the death penalty if a 14 year old boy goes on a killing spree with intent and understanding of what he is doing and kills 40 people. That would be an extreme circumstance. I apologize for not being 100% clear.



With Texas its a little more simple. 




> In Texas, the district courts have original jurisdiction for all criminal felony cases. If an individual is convicted of a capital felony, he or she may be subject to punishment by death, if the State sought such punishment. A capital felony is one in which an individual "intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual," under special circumstances. In particular, the:
> 
> 
> murder of a public safety officer or firefighter in the line of duty
> ...




1

Each state is different though...


----------



## Nakor (Jan 29, 2009)

the example i used still fits in under texas law. a 14 year old boy killing another boy not under the age of 6 would not be tried as a death penalty case. but a boy commiting 40 murders could be if the prosecution wanted it to be. 

we are getting off topic...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 29, 2009)

fireball said:


> the example i used still fits in under texas law. a 14 year old boy killing another boy not under the age of 6 would not be tried as a death penalty case. but a boy commiting 40 murders could be if the prosecution wanted it to be.
> 
> we are getting off topic...



My only point in bringing this up really was to show that the law is harsh on minors too.


----------



## Nakor (Jan 29, 2009)

Only very rarely is it. I don't see how your point applies in this case though. The circumstances here are not at all related to extreme capital crimes. Minors are almost always given lighter sentences than adults, especially since most of them are tried in juvenille court.


----------



## Grangan (Jan 29, 2009)

this seems kinda rediculous imo, at worst i think they otts get a slap  on the wrist, they should be able to do what they want.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 29, 2009)

Grangan said:


> this seems kinda rediculous imo, at worst i think they otts get a slap  on the wrist,* they should be able to do what they want.*



Yeah that's how the law works...


----------



## king nothing (Jan 29, 2009)

This is fucking ridiculous....Anyone notice how controlling that fucking sounds?? When I was that age I was getting naked pics from girls all the damn time. (no brag) WTF is this shit?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 29, 2009)

king nothing said:


> This is fucking ridiculous....Anyone notice how controlling that fucking sounds?? When I was that age I was getting naked pics from girls all the damn time. (no brag) WTF is this shit?



The law is controlling...?

Who knew? It's like illegal music downloads, if you get caught you get caught. But hardly anyone does. 

But the law, as posted is very clear on the matter. It's not like its some secret.


----------



## king nothing (Jan 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The law is controlling...?
> 
> Who knew? It's like illegal music downloads, if you get caught you get caught. But hardly anyone does.
> 
> But the law, as posted is very clear on the matter. It's not like its some secret.



You must hold the law high & mighty.......Yea there needs to be a form of it but some of these laws are downright ridiculous.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 29, 2009)

king nothing said:


> You must hold the law high & mighty.......Yea there needs to be a form of it but some of these laws are downright ridiculous.



Actually I don't, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with the child pornography law.


----------



## king nothing (Jan 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Actually I don't, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with the child pornography law.



I don't either but when it comes down to teens being teens and looking at each other naked that's just a little retarded....I remember being 14-15 and it felt like yesterday. So I was breaking the law when I was checking out chics MY OWN AGE naked?


----------



## 64palms (Jan 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The law is controlling...?
> 
> Who knew? It's like illegal music downloads, if you get caught you get caught. But hardly anyone does.


Less prosecutions doesn't make the laws any less draconian.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> But the law, as posted is very clear on the matter.


And very clearly stupid.



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Actually I don't, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with the child pornography law.


Explain to me what is not wrong with it.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jan 29, 2009)

king nothing said:


> I don't either but when it comes down to teens being teens and looking at each other naked that's just a little retarded....I remember being 14-15 and it felt like yesterday. So I was breaking the law when I was checking out chics MY OWN AGE naked?



Just producing the images is illegal so obviously...



64palms said:


> Explain to me what is not wrong with it.




Um there's nothing wrong with it. Even in states like Texas and Oklahoma where the age of consent for sex is lower, pictures of nude children are still considering under eighteen. 

Obviously this is to stop the flow of child pornography. We've seen it on this site before how these things can spread (happened about a year ago)


----------



## 64palms (Jan 29, 2009)

That's nice, you haven't answered my question still.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jan 29, 2009)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Actually I don't, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with the child pornography law.



Let us take the law against murder as an example.

The law is just because it punishes murder.

Now assume that for some reason a person who has not committed murder is charged with having committed murder.

Should this person be punished as a murderer?

You will say that the "criminals" in the case the original post is about are criminals, but the law is clearly being used to punish something which was not the original intent of the law. In fact the laws on this subject have been continously expanded to be more and more draconian, but I digress.

There is a chain of events here that must be taken into consideration. Child porn is illegal because supposedly it results in abuse. The law, when created, assumed that no children would willingly take pictures of themselves. Thus paradoxal situations like this occur.

We're thus dealing with a law that itself is not a problem, but it is applied to a situation that was not being considered when the law was written and by applying the law as intended in this case would cause more harm than not doing it.


----------



## 64palms (Jan 29, 2009)

Well well, it looks like we've got an intelligent post on our hands.
I couldn't have said it better m'self probably. Pos reps to you.

Cardboard Tube Knight, this is exactly what I've been waiting for you to address.


----------



## cypherpunk (Jun 17, 2011)

Cardboard Tube Knight, you seem to be letting your moral views get in the way of reason, and your posts basically summarize the kinds of misuderstandings that I've seen far too often in these debates.  Sorry for bumping up this thread, but I think a few things need to be said.

First of all, you seem to fail to grasp that the statute contemplates two persons, one person who is the exploiter, and a minor who is exploited.  As one federal judge recently stated explicitly when faced with this law, "the person who is exploited is not the person to be punished".

Secondly, you're forgetting the First Amendment.  



> Child Porn is illegal



Not in the way your think.  Child pornography is considered unprotected speech, but the key is how it is defined, and the Supreme Court of the U.S. has several times reiterated that the definition, in the context of constitutional law, hinges on how it is PRODUCED, not its content.  Specifically, in Ashcroft v. F.S.C, the Court stated outright that "where the speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the protection of the First Amendment".  In other words, a teenager who willingly takes a nonobscene photograph of herself should be able to successfully assert a First Amendment defense, as it is not the product of sexual abuse.



> No matter the state or the age of consent



Wrong again.  Again, it comes down to how child pornography was defined when the Supreme Court ruled it to be unprotected speech back in N.Y. v. Ferber and how that definition differs to the category of speech proscribed by the current federal statute.  Specifically, the New York statute in question at the time proscribed only images depicting persons aged under 16, with 16 being the age of consent in that state.  In other words, there is absolutely nothing proving the constitutionality of the current federal statute, or placing images of persons over the age of consent outside the realms of First Amendment protection.  In fact, there's much to suggest that if the current statute was challenged, it would be deemed unconstitutional on its face.  The age limit was only raised to 18 in 1984 because it apparently made it easier to identify people under 16 (no joke), and the government essentially suppressed a category of previously lawful speech as a means of helping them suppress unlawful speech.  In Ashcroft v. F.S.C. the Supreme Court explicitly rejected such an attempt, which the unambiguous statement that "the Government may not suppress lawful speech as the means to suppress unlawful speech

As for the rest of your argument...



> It's bad because its child porn



X is bad because it's X. Circular reasoning.



> It's bad because . . . possession and distribution of child porn are illegal



Ditto.



> And normal doesn't make something right.



Well said.  But along the same line of reasoning, being wrong according to your personal moral views doesn't make something illegal.



> It's bad because . . . those same pictures sometimes make it online





> The law is the way it is because pictures on cellphones don't always stay on that phone and when they get passed around and end up online, then there's a problem.



No, cellphones and the Internet didn't even exist when these laws were passed.  And your interpretation is not in line with the Supreme Court's; "[the prohibition of] child pornography was based upon how it was made, not what is communicated".



> I don't care who's doing the sending or receiving, Child Porn is illegal.



Half wrong. "The production of the work, not its content, was the target of the statute"; it has nothing to do with who recieves it, but everything to do with who is producing and sending it.



> the law has a responsibility to not even allow this stuff to flow freely from person to person, its not just to protect children, its to keep this shit out of the hands of those out there who stock pile and distribute the stuff.



Once again, completely wrong.  The Supreme Court has stated time and time again that the PRODUCTION of these images was the harm that the law seeks to prevent, and the outlawing possession was an acceptable way of reducing production.  You've somehow gone and inverted the two, saying that nonharmful production should be prevented because of some harm apparently inherent to possessing it; no such harm has ever been recognized by a court.  I suggest reading Osborne v. Ohio to get a better understanding of the way the possession offense came into being.



> kids exploiting themselves



To exploit, as applied to a person, means "to use selfishly for one's own ends"; the word becomes complete nonsensical if the subject and object are the same person.



> They're too young to consent to this kind of thing, but they're not too young to get tried for sexual crimes



True, but you're ignoring the special nature of this supposed offense, i.e. the direct link between consenting to being filmed and responsibility for filming oneself.  If you can't give consent to be filmed, it follows that you cannot be held responsible for filming yourself, since that would require your consent, which you cannot give.  On the other hand, were you to be responsible for filming yourself, it would follow that your had given consent, meaning there would be no reason for a court to reject the consent defense.  Any other possibility would imply that you were at the same time able to give consent and not able to give consent, which would result in the clearest type of logical absurdity ("if X not X") and would be rejected by the court.



> We'll see how you feel when you have a daughter and catch her doing this stuff



I am to understand from this comment that you would want your own daughter locked away and treated as a p*d*p**** for an action that hurt only her?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 17, 2011)

Erm, ok. Well prepared argument. Took you nearly 3 years but ok.


----------



## Headless (Jun 17, 2011)

Wha...? This would never get attention in Sweden, happens alot. 

I love me some sexting from time to time.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Jun 17, 2011)

Thread necromancy.


----------



## Punpun (Jun 17, 2011)

Not really. He added something interesting to the conversation at hand.


----------



## Nihonjin (Jun 17, 2011)

What's next? Registering masturbating teens as sex offenders for indecent acts with a minor?


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 17, 2011)

Nihonjin said:


> What's next? Registering masturbating teens as sex offenders for indecent acts with a minor?



There's no law that dictates masturbating restriction at a certain age.


----------

