Common sense dies when adults catch teenagers "sexting" each other
reason.com
reason.com
If they are, then they should also be allowed to "sext" similar peers. If not they are not capable of making such decisions, then they should not be arrested for receiving such messages.
To say that teenagers are both culpable and incapable of sound reasoning is not a consistent position. But then, are we really trying to be sensible?
And to follow up on your point, my parents heavily controlled content I was allowed to consume, and slowly introduced me to making my own choices as I showed sound judgment and responsibility to handle it.
This system worked out incredibly well, a system I want to emulate for my own children.
When I left home for university (first time on my own) I had a break down within 6 months, simply couldnt cope.
I'm not sure I agree (though I know I am heavily biased) anything beyond a casual control is workable. People will naturally test boundaries - and the stricter you make them the more "underground" the response is. Im a big fan of keeping it casual so that what goes on is easy to spot - and if it goes too far stepping in heavily has more impact :)
But then, each to their own! I dont have kids yet so this could change :P
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.rape/msg/2db5c83cb619b1b...
Pretty much any image of people under 18 can be considered Child Porn if that jury thinks so.
Here we use the Copine scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale)
It's important to note the ONLY classification that images of clothed children can fall into is #1 (the least "worst" case). However to actually qualify the poses would have to be very sexually sxplicit. Child underwear models, for example, wouldnt normally get categorised there (obviously if there is more extreme indecent material they WOULD be appended as "relevant" images).
Your right the jury will be shown an image and if it has a child in it they will cry "OMG CP" but fortunately experts analyse all of the data first and ensure only real indecent images make it to the trial :)
I cant say 100% for the US but I believe things work in the same way.
EDIT; a colleague pointed me at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test). Apparently in the US you lot are completely unable to make use of a simpel classification scale (I jest, I jest) so things are less cut and dried. In which case I guess your point stands.
I prefer our way.
Sigh.
I think the kid puts it best (and ironically in an extremely mature way) when he talks about how a split second decision screwed it all up. We talk about underage and minors because we are a lot older - but forget that to them that age divide is non-existant. At home with the guys, testosterone going, recieve a text from a girl that sounds a bit sexy - hey we've all done it. Difference is where it's "allowed" for us - for them it, apprently, isnt. Leaving the images on screen or w/e is, obviously, very thick but I struggle to see a serious crime. The boy's parents approach seemed the best of the lot......
Yes, nail whoever actually posted them publicly online (and perhaps lightly reprimand the guy for leaving his inbox open). That is the real crime - regardless of the age of the victim.
(ps sorry about spamming this topic: strong opinions here :D shout if it's too much)
Another logical gambit is the observation that it's totally legal, in most states, to look at a naked 16 year old in person. Or to actually have intercourse with her.
This was always transparently moronic. It has never been illegal to possess a picture of a murder, no matter how brutal.
Americans hate their kids to have even the slightest whiff of sexuality (unless we do it them ourselves in the name of pageantry, or new boobs for sweet 16), and as Americans, our favorite reaction to things we don't like is first, war, and if that's not available, jail, and if that's not available, shooting.
But things like 'save the children' seem to me to be a modern day form of McCarthyism. If I don't support stripping sexuality from children, then I must be a pedophile and just looking to make it legal for me to have sex with children. Or else I "just don't understand" because I'm not a parent myself and all of my views are therefore discounted as if I am not really a part of the same society or even a human being at all.
I see this as most judges using this as a way to 'make an example' of these children so that others will think twice before engaging in such action. I also believe that they are purposefully misinterpreting the laws to do so. Or maybe they just don't want to be painted politically as not 'caring about the children' or some such nonesense that other politicians/media would paint them in such a light.
- 14 year-old girl sends topless pics to multiple teenage peers.
- One of the recipients leaves his inbox open and his friend posts the images online.
- That same recipient gets arrested.
It seems like of those three people (the girl, the recipient, and the poster), the most-innocent one was the one that got arrested. That's bass-ackwards.
The perils of living in a puritanical country....
I have no other comment to make about the underlying issue here, and I am specifically not making a stand. I'm just saying, it's not a minor issue.
And that's the key here, isn't it? She wasn't coerced into these pictures. She may have been peer-pressured, but the article doesn't cover whether this is the norm in this school or not. I suspect not. She did it, she distributed the picture. What did she think it was going to happen?
Her father's quote is laughable: "This country has laws in place to protect children. Those laws need to be enforced, and parents need to pursue those laws to the fullest extent to protect their children." What the hell does he think happened here?
Much of the failing, if there is one, seems to lie with her parent here.
He's an incompetent parent who doesn't want to admit his daughter has turned into an eSlut sending multiple pornographic images and videos to multiple people at the same time. I'm sorry, but sending nude pics to your boyfriend is acceptable, sending it to a non-boyfriend is trashy, but 4 guys at the same time is just slutty.
I just want to say thank you. That was the funniest thing I've read in a long time.
Maybe, maybe not; we might be moving toward a world in which this is closer to the norm than the exception.
Even if it isn't, I would observe that your daughter is an autonomous person with a will of her own: that others should be punished for her own voluntary acts seems ignorant at best and extraordinarily cruel at worst.
"I am specifically not making a stand."
Maybe not, but your first sentence implies otherwise.
“This country has laws in place to protect children. Those laws need to be enforced, and parents need to pursue those laws to the fullest extent to protect their children.”
The idea that destroying the rest of a young man's life because his daughter sent him a naked picture is just twisted. Being labeled as a sex offender is no small matter. It's much worse morally than going and beating the shit out of the kid (assuming no long-term damage). If convicted the kid's life is ruined.
Furthermore, if the law is going to protect his daughter (assuming some harm to her), then the proper application would be to prosecute his own daughter and send her to jail. Of course that's ridiculous too, but not as ridiculous as prosecuting the boy.
Now I understand the guy is upset and I don't totally blame him for acting irrationally, but the legal system needs to step in and set some precedents here.
What if there had been nude pics of Obama on the internet, would they have hurt his chances for becoming president?
I think it depends on the job - not all women become secretaries.
Probably less then 20 years ago, and even less in 10 years. But yes, this is one possible consequence. Actions do have consequences, and it's parent's job to make sure they're not too grave.
But still, having some difficulty being elected into office isn't really a problem for 99% of all people. I was afraid someone would point out something serious I had overlooked, but if this is the worst of it, it means having your naked picture on the net isn't so big anymore.
End of the story was: she didn't get elected, but then she was unlikely to be elected anyway. And eventually she produced evidence that the photos were fake (by releasing a photo taken around the same date which showed her with a different haircut), and the papers had to retract the story and officially apologise, which they of course did after the election.
What I am saying here is that you don't need digital cameras and the internet to get nude photos circulated, and that I think it will become the norm for just about everyone to have embarassing photos lurking under the closet, and will become a non-issue for employment, politics and more. As long as it is plain-vanilla pics in your underwear, I doubt it would cause any long term effects.
Hell, I seem to remember seeing Arnold naked in the Terminator movies and he still got himself elected Governor of California.
Interestingly, those other things are not illegal.
If nothing else she is likely yo be inundated with lewd emails/messages/IM.
It wont be pleasant - but, then, in this case perhaps it is a life lesson she needs.....
She doesn't need nude pictures on a 'child porn network' for something like that to happen. Plain-clothes pictures of herself on a Facebook/MySpace page the is public could be enough. So I hardly see how this makes it an offense worth destroying the rest of someone's life over.
This makes it sound like the tubes were leaky that day and because the files were "digital," they just spread out over the Internet like an oil slick. Um, no. Files do not spread simply by virtue of being on a computer.
there is a tech angle to this story - and its about how we need solutions to stop unauthorized propagation of private content. DRM systems as already built into Windows and other systems would work perfect - it just needs to be standardized and rolled out across mobile and web platforms (most of it is based on open protocols)
It's a shame because we have the technology, it is just currently being applied in the wrong places
And that's without even getting into the slippery slope aspects of DRM technology.
it is very possible to implement encryption and signing without having the user go through key generation etc. make it all transparent and give them a lock to click on if they want to make the message and attachments secure. PGP already has a similar product, and hushmail is pretty easy to use.
The image needs to be displayed on the receiving end. From that point the cat is out the bag, no matter how many locks you put on the bag.
its pretty standard, and working with e-commerce for a while now.
In what area of "e-commerce" is that standard and working? I don't know of any but I know at least one where DRM was tried and failed miserably (music distribution).
Moreover I can only repeat that DRM is technically infeasible for images because the images need to be displayed on the clients screen. When your eyes can see it then the lens of your digicam can also see it. Get it?
And "child porn" brings in a lot of emotional baggage. We all think of Mr 40 year old kiddie diddling with a 9 or 10 year old. That's just gross. So politicians made laws to handle that. Of course, the young boy looking at porn was completely ignored. However, the other fact that was ignored completely is simple biology. We all know about 'adolescents' and their 'hormones', yet the laws ignored any idea of following biology. Instead these politicians follow the most puritanical belief set they can find.
And tell me: What politician wants to give up that much power, or "Let Those Evil Men Have Sex With Your Young Child" ?
Yes, Im cynical, only because I've seen this 'game' in many other areas of government. Alcohol, seat belts, Smoking, university funding, Roads... you name it.
We've already got a serious problem with over-escalation here. All this will do is make the people most able to deal with the problem too afraid even to acknowledge it.
Don't look, don't think, just call the Miniluv.
Get in with the police force (in all liklihood they would welcome his connection to the pupils) and provide suppor through that medium; that seems a more logical approach (what he did sounds like a half cocked investigation of his own - which is a bad idea full stop anyway :D).
As it is he will almost certainly be let off with a caution (provided nothing else is found) - but siezing it is all but mandatory. If nothing else to ensure the images are correctly destroyed.
Such is the sad but true we now find ourselves in.
There seems to be a common attitude among school administrators that anything involving students is their business. It is not.
You also complained about getting downmodded, which is why you're at 0 here.
On top of it, the distribution wasn't intentional by the boyfriend. Why not go after those that did distribute it ie- his friends? May be hard to prove the computer was left open and "person x" did it.
Yes, it's horrible this happened, and I'd be pissed if I was a dad. I'd also try to be rational. Like Chris Rock said "Youve done a good job if you keep your daughter off the pole". Seems like this Dad is about to fail.
Honestly though, there's probably a fine line somewhere. I think you can say that it might not be the best idea for your daughter at 14 to be sending around naked photos and stripteasing.
This could easily become a long argument and no one is wrong or right. Maybe it's more of a case of would rather and would rather not. Most people would probably agree that they would rather not have their 14 year old daughter sending around some naked photos and videos.