The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-17-2009, 02:53 AM
jessesheeran jessesheeran is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tijuana
Posts: 115
I'll show you mine, if...[Self-taken nude photos of teens and child pornography]

you show me yours. --> arrested???

Quote:
6 Pa. high school students busted after sharing nude photos via cell phones
The female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14- or 15-years-old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession, according to WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh, which published the story on its Web site on Tuesday.
I took this story from another message board. Mods can delete thread if this is a repeat

feel free to share how reading this article makes you feel,
i'm not planning to post in this thread, other than to say right now that this is so ridiculous and I spent a lot of time trying to see if I was on a spoof msnbc website, because this story
could not be real.
but as far as general questions, I have three:

1. Can you you manufacture child pornography by yourself?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, what other kinds of defenses will we see here?
3. Is the prosecution going to even try to win this case? or are there times when charges are filed, but only to send a message to the community etc..??
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 01-17-2009, 04:12 AM
Hail Ants Hail Ants is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NY USA
Posts: 5,517
Being that anyone between the ages of say 6 to 17 can most certainly operate a digital camera's self timer and therefore take nude pictures of themselves, then yes, what meets the legal definition of kiddie porn can be made by themselves.

Its an example of the myriad problems that occur if you try to have a strict, zero-tolerance policy in regards to child pornography. Remember when they tried to make even simulated kidde porn a crime? Because Kate Winslet was playing a 17-year-old then her sex scenes in Titanic could have been considered illegal!

Hopefully the Feds won't even get involved in this case, and the local DA will just use the threat of kiddie porn charges as a scare tactic to discourage kids from doing this kind of thing. On one hand its just teenagers being teenagers, but on the other, we didn't exchange nude photos of each other when I was a kid and its would still be a very very bad thing to become a trendy fad amongst them now.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-17-2009, 05:01 AM
R. P. McMurphy R. P. McMurphy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 3,743
I thought that nudity of minors is not necessarily pornographic. Of course, I haven't seen the photos but by the description in the article this case could get awfully flimsy.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-17-2009, 05:11 AM
brujaja brujaja is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
I suppose the grownups involved would rather the kids had seen each other naked in person?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-17-2009, 06:48 AM
jessesheeran jessesheeran is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tijuana
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by brujaja View Post
I suppose the grownups involved would rather the kids had seen each other naked in person?
i respect respect the tone and thoughtfulness that Hail Ants wrote. but i agree with brujaja, it doesn't seem that bad to me, probably a lot healthier than most of the things i was thinking about at that age.

there are a lot ruder ways to rephrase this post, and i am glad i have stayed out of the gutter. but i have to attempt humor.



Is is legal for a 17 year old male to insert his 15 year old girlfriend's telephone into her vagina (sexual intercourse), but illegal to use said phone to share sexy photos with each other? and, you know, just think about sex?

Last edited by jessesheeran; 01-17-2009 at 06:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-17-2009, 11:06 AM
Colibri Colibri is offline
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 26,265
Edited title to indicate subject.


Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-17-2009, 11:17 AM
Cuckoorex Cuckoorex is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessesheeran View Post
i respect respect the tone and thoughtfulness that Hail Ants wrote. but i agree with brujaja, it doesn't seem that bad to me, probably a lot healthier than most of the things i was thinking about at that age.

there are a lot ruder ways to rephrase this post, and i am glad i have stayed out of the gutter. but i have to attempt humor.



Is is legal for a 17 year old male to insert his 15 year old girlfriend's telephone into her vagina (sexual intercourse), but illegal to use said phone to share sexy photos with each other? and, you know, just think about sex?
It is kind of a weird situation where the age of consent for sexual activity can be lower (in some cases much lower) than the age of consent for being filmed in a "pornographic" manner. I think if the laws regarding age of consent (for example, in some places people younger than a certain age are OK to have sex with someone a specified number of years older, but not no older than X years older) were taken into consideration when it comes to images like this.

On the other hand, I can understand the rationale behind banning such material; somehow this stuff always seems to end up on the internet, and pedophiles will seek it out. I guess it's another argument entirely if it's better to keep a pedophile stocked up with something like "virtual" child porn rather than frustrate them to the point that they would rape a child. I don't know enough about the topic to form an educated position on this, so my instincts tell me that banning the underage photos is a case of "better safe than sorry".
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-17-2009, 11:22 AM
Little Nemo Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 59,705
Quote:
Remember when they tried to make even simulated kidde porn a crime? Because Kate Winslet was playing a 17-year-old then her sex scenes in Titanic could have been considered illegal!
It's worse than that. I remember when they were cracking down on cartoons and comic books that had underage characters having sex. These were drawings!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-17-2009, 11:25 AM
Cuckoorex Cuckoorex is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
It's worse than that. I remember when they were cracking down on cartoons and comic books that had underage characters having sex. These were drawings!
You might want to be careful looking at these pictures, in case they change the laws...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-17-2009, 11:53 AM
MissMossie MissMossie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
I have an anecdote that quasi fits into this conversation. I used to work at a Girl Scout camp. We had campers as young as six years old come to the camp. During my first year on staff, 2002, we got a phone call from parents of a six year old who recently attended for a weekend. They had dropped the disposable camera that their daughter had taken to camp with her at the drug store and were later visited by the police for producing child pornography. The child, along with her three tent mates, had decided to have a photo shoot with camera.

I was a first year staffer who wasn't directly involved in the situation (I wasn't the campers' counselor), so all of my information came second hand. I know that the camp director had to make a statement to the police, but the situation was pretty easily worked out. The photos weren't too explicit, just had the girls in their underwear and apparently it was pretty obvious that the photos were created by children being children, and not a secret Girl Scout camp porn ring. I wonder if the situation would have been cleared up as easily now, just seven years later.

FWIW, the council the camp is in now has a policy requiring campers to leave cameras in the counselors care when there isn't adult supervision around.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-17-2009, 11:56 AM
Tuckerfan Tuckerfan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
There was a case, a few years back (I'll let someone else dig up the threads about it), where a teenaged girl had made movies of her masturbating, and when the authorities discovered the movies (which the girl had uploaded to the internet), they charged her with molesting herself! I don't know how the case resolved itself, and clearly there were some emotional problems with the girl, related to the circumstances in which the videos were made/uploaded (she apparently sought out adult males to give the videos to, rather than sending them to one of her peers), but the conscensus here was that the charges were more harmful than good.
__________________
***Don't ask me, I don't post here any more, and I'm probably not even reading this now.***
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-21-2009, 10:46 AM
Hail Ants Hail Ants is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NY USA
Posts: 5,517
Its clear that none of these things comes close to what, IMO anyway, is the true intended definition of 'child pornography'. That is, photographs or videos, made by adults, of children engaging in sexual acts, for the obvious and implicit purpose of sexual gratification.

Problem is, in a free society its all in the details and 'intended definition' can't really be written into law...
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-21-2009, 10:51 AM
Ethilrist Ethilrist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
I was going to ask jessesheehan why he wouldn't be responding to anything in this thread, but then I saw he had, and that he's been banned, so never mind.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-21-2009, 11:21 AM
hotflungwok hotflungwok is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessesheeran View Post
1. Can you you manufacture child pornography by yourself?
2. If the answer to #1 is yes, what other kinds of defenses will we see here?
3. Is the prosecution going to even try to win this case? or are there times when charges are filed, but only to send a message to the community etc..??
1. Yes, absolutely.
Quote:
A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self and posting them on the Internet, police said.

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.
2. I don't know what kind of defenses they can try. How sexually explicit were the pics? If they're obviously sexual, there isn't a lot they can do.
3. They will, child porn is high profile, and anything that sets a precedent will be pursued.

Last edited by hotflungwok; 01-21-2009 at 11:22 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-21-2009, 11:51 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 23,034
Here's a link:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...ol.html?cat=15
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-21-2009, 12:11 PM
JRDelirious JRDelirious is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: San Juan, PR
Posts: 10,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hail Ants View Post
Its clear that none of these things comes close to what, IMO anyway, is the true intended definition of 'child pornography'. That is, photographs or videos, made by adults, of children engaging in sexual acts, for the obvious and implicit purpose of sexual gratification.

Problem is, in a free society its all in the details and 'intended definition' can't really be written into law...
Right -- you strike "made by adults", and between "children" and "engaging" add: "posing in a lewd manner or", and you have the legislated definition of "child pornography". Add to this, the creation, possession and distribution thereof has been made into a "strict liability" offense, no flexibility.

From the quotes published in these and other cases, the authorities very, very strongly want to send a message to the youths of DON'T DO THIS and they'll use every means possible up to and including accusing them of a heinous crime. The teens probably thought that at most they were incurring in indecent exposure and the authorities would say , "oh, kids will be kids". Joke's on them, I guess .

Last edited by JRDelirious; 01-21-2009 at 12:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-21-2009, 12:24 PM
Chief Pedant Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Out of curiosity, is a confiscator of a cell phone permitted to peruse its content? That just smells like evidence which would get tossed out to me.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-21-2009, 12:53 PM
Windwalker Windwalker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Sigh, why are we so bloody uptight about sex, nudity and all things related to both?

While I respect what child pornography laws set out to do, why aren't there reasonable exemptions built into law? Photos/vids taken by yourself should obviously be exempt. Photos taken by another minor with your consent should be exempt.

Child nudity in general is such a big no-no, but what's the big deal? Yes, maybe a few pedophiles will get off on it, but as long as they're not stalking or hurting the kids or taking pictures without consent, who really gives a fuck? Pedos will get off on pictures/vids of kids period, and they can get all the bikini/swimsuit pictures of kids they want legally anyway.

Obviously laws are in place to avoid sexploitation of kids, but America's way too paranoid about this stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-21-2009, 01:33 PM
gaffa gaffa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
This is insanity! At the very least there should be a "Romeo & Juliet" excemption for underage people when there are no adults or coercion involved. An accusation of child pornography carries the harshest penalty, and even if you are tried and found innocent, your life can be ruined.

When I was a kid, my family had a cabin at a nudist camp. By current standards, our vacation films would be considered child porn and my parents, and all the parents at the camp child molesters! This country is monumentally screwed up!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-21-2009, 01:35 PM
Will Repair Will Repair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windwalker View Post
... why aren't there reasonable exemptions built into law? ...
If they don't prosecute the kids couldn't some adult, who was caught with copies, be free from prosecution for possession?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 01-21-2009, 02:29 PM
HeyHomie HeyHomie is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Viburnum, MO
Posts: 8,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuckoorex View Post
You might want to be careful looking at these pictures, in case they change the laws...
Are those SFW?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-21-2009, 02:38 PM
Cuckoorex Cuckoorex is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyHomie View Post
Are those SFW?
So far, yes, unless your boss objects to glorified stick figures. I made them in response to a FARK listing about somebody getting busted for having cartoons that depicted fictional underage characters engaging in sexual activity, and the joke was that the images I made can only be interpreted as pornographic in nature if the viewer does a lot of "filling in the blanks." There are no representational depictions of anything in those images.

Last edited by Cuckoorex; 01-21-2009 at 02:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-21-2009, 03:06 PM
tumbleddown tumbleddown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
I'm still working on the concept that a school administrator has a right to go through the data on a confiscated phone. Confiscate it, turn it off, give it back at the end of the day/week/month/semester or had it over to a parent, whatever the policy is. But being a student in school should not make whatever is contained within their private property subject to being viewed by anyone and certainly not to be turned over to police.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-21-2009, 03:27 PM
CC CC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: not elsewhere
Posts: 3,875
This girl who took pictures of herself, suppose she looked at herself in a mirror - could she be arrested for voyeurism? And if she told her friend how she looked, would that constitute transmitting pornography? When people apply laws in unfair, illogical, and inappropriate ways, it causes a disrespect for the rule of law. I'm wondering how these kids are going to come to view the legal system in years to come.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-21-2009, 03:39 PM
Tuckerfan Tuckerfan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by tumbleddown View Post
I'm still working on the concept that a school administrator has a right to go through the data on a confiscated phone. Confiscate it, turn it off, give it back at the end of the day/week/month/semester or had it over to a parent, whatever the policy is. But being a student in school should not make whatever is contained within their private property subject to being viewed by anyone and certainly not to be turned over to police.
The US courts have ruled a number of times in the past that children do not have many of the basic rights which adults take for granted.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-21-2009, 04:19 PM
tumbleddown tumbleddown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuckerfan View Post
The US courts have ruled a number of times in the past that children do not have many of the basic rights which adults take for granted.
Which I'm well aware of, and find to be numerous kinds of garbage.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-21-2009, 05:23 PM
Critical1 Critical1 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Repair View Post
If they don't prosecute the kids couldn't some adult, who was caught with copies, be free from prosecution for possession?
if you are over 18 I would have to say that possession of any kind of underage nude pics is likely to get you into trouble but that is very different than a girl taking a pic of herself to send to some guy she likes whos her own age.

busting teens for being teens is moronic at best, and way over the top no matter what.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-21-2009, 06:05 PM
hotflungwok hotflungwok is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Critical1 View Post
if you are over 18 I would have to say that possession of any kind of underage nude pics is likely to get you into trouble but that is very different than a girl taking a pic of herself to send to some guy she likes whos her own age.

busting teens for being teens is moronic at best, and way over the top no matter what.
Suppose a girl takes pics of herself underage and gives them to her equally underage boyfriend. Years pass. These two people are now not underage. Are the pictures now kiddy porn? Were they kiddy porn before? At what point did they become not ok anymore?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-21-2009, 06:19 PM
Will Repair Will Repair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Critical1, but if you're over 18 and on trial for possession wouldn't your defense in this case be that since the DA, who knew where it came from, didn't prosecute for manufacturing then it isn't really illegal?

As an analogy, if the cops don't consider some goods that you came into possession of to have been stolen then they can't say you have stolen goods. For instance, someone takes donated clothes from outside a charity box in a shopping center and gives them to you.. The DA cannot prosecute you for receiving stolen goods unless he also persecutes the person who took the clothes.

The DA in this case has to prosecute the girls or he can't prosecute the receivers of the pictures. See, if underage girls decide to sell pictures of themselves on the Internet with the DA doing nothing then he also can't do anything about customers who buy them.

Last edited by Will Repair; 01-21-2009 at 06:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.