Hacker News Reader

Comment by mustpax | Hacker News Reader

OK let's take a step back and examine the core issue here: are minors capable enough of making sound decisions to be held legally liable for the outcomes?

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?

View on HN

Minors are not capable of making sound decisions, which is why they should be treated differently (and usually are). But, I disagree that this is the core issue. I believe that this is not a crime. At all. Not even a little bit. The idea that it is illegal for those under 18 to do anything sexual is wrong. It moves to preposterous when you start calling them sex offenders. Why? Because it is a natural and normal part of growing up. The body secrets huge amounts of testosterone/estrogen during puberty. Humans are designed/programmed/whatever to start thinking about sex at this point. Finally, because kids are actually people too. They do get to make decisions. Small ones at first, but bigger ones later. A 17-year-old that is going out with an 18-year-old should not have to break up with their significant other simply because of the magical 18th birthday.

great post!

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)

Apparently him leaving the inbox open wasn't what spread them she sent those same pictures to other guys.

They should code into law the divide by 2 and add 14 rule :-)

Aside that viewpoint, "Child Porn" in many statutes include fully clothed youngsters doing what is 'not the norm for that age group'.

Pretty much any image of people under 18 can be considered Child Porn if that jury thinks so.

Actually not at all: well, definitely not in the UK.

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.

Yes, the American way is essentially "I'll know it when I see it, so gimme more to look at!"

Sigh.

The justification for banning possession of child pornography was that you could draw a straight line from the images to an act of exploitation. The reason for the laws is not primarily to prevent the spread of the images; it's to prevent the exploitation of a child that lead to their production. When you have teenagers voluntarily snapping pictures of themselves, there is no act of exploitation. Sure, it's not something that should be encouraged, but it's not something that should destroy your life, either.

> The justification for banning possession of child pornography was that you could draw a straight line from the images to an act of exploitation

This was always transparently moronic. It has never been illegal to possess a picture of a murder, no matter how brutal.

However, I take it almost no murders have ever been committed for the purpose of distributing pictures of them.

But I take it that most statutory rape happens less for economic reasons than most authorities/politicians would like us to believe. Most people that abuse/rape children do so because it has happened to them, not because they find it to be a way to make quick money.

No, we just don't like our kids thinking about and having sex. It makes as feel as though the casual absolute control we have over them is slipping.

Which reminds me of pg's essay "Lies We Tell Kids": http://paulgraham.com/lies.html .

I would say casual absolute control has been gone for decades.

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.

I had the same treatment: but it worked less well for me (mostly due to not being drip fed choices).

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

> It makes as feel as though the casual absolute control we have over them is slipping

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.rape/msg/2db5c83cb619b1b...

Your argument is more of a logical gambit than anything. I like it.

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.

Certainly is here in Australia.

Practically mandatory in Holland.

This is just a traditional legal system struggling because it refuses to recognize changes in culture and technology. I don't think anyone is specifically out to get kids, it's just that these people (lawyers, judges, sheriffs, etc.) simply don't understand what's taking place.

Not necessarily. I've seen some of the decisions and they don't really make sense. One of the decisions was to 'protect' the children because it was possible for someone to hack their computer, steal the images, and then distribute them -- even though no such distribution had taken place, and the only reason that images came to light is because one of their cellphones was confiscated for an unrelated reason at school. The child was 'protected' against having these images distributed by being convicted of a sex crime and having to register as a sex offender... Sometimes the lack of logic makes you want to rip your hair out. The judge with the dissenting opinion said everything that I wanted to say to the majority judges. I almost want to find him and take him out for a few beers just for performing his job reasonably.

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.

Also parents. You forget the parents. The parents are nutso control freaks.

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.

Don't try to paint everyone with such a broad brush. I posit that in America too many people are apathetic of the legal system so only the hardcore wackos get any sort of political support on social issues such as this.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com