# Children arrested for child pornography **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691 "2009-02-13T15:25:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/1 "2009-02-13T15:25:12Z")
> **['Sexting' Teens May Face Child Porn Charges](https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6864809&page=1)** > > Six teens in Falmouth, Mass., may face felony charges after they were caught sending a semi-nude photograph of a peer on their cell phones. A vast child pornography ring has been uncovered in a small town in Massachusetts. TV news has been making a huge deal of this shocking scandal, which they have been calling “sexting.” Apparently, a 14-year-old boy convinced his 13-year-old girlfriend to pose for some semi-nude photos, which he sent to some of his friends. So the debate is, is this child pornography, or boys being boys? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/2 "2009-02-13T15:30:07Z")
Maybe and Yes, respectively. Anyway this sort of thing is mostly harmless and probably shouldn’t even lead to arrests. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/3 "2009-02-13T17:00:42Z")
Hmm, the problem is that these photos definitely fall under the legal definition of [pornography](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pornography). > [@](#): > > The representation in books, magazines, photographs, films, and other media of scenes of sexual behavior that are erotic or lewd and are designed to arouse sexual interest. They can’t argue consent, she isn’t old enough to give it. Can a case be made for personal use? Or is that gone because they got passed around? Maybe something about it being non-exploitive? I think that they shouldn’t be treated this way for what they’ve done, but the way to law exists now I don’t see a legal way out of it. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/4 "2009-02-13T17:38:19Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > So the debate is, is this child pornography, or boys being boys? Do you mean to imply that it can’t be both? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/5 "2009-02-13T17:47:26Z")
There has been a recent thread (in GQ, I think) about teen girls being prosecuted for producing child pornography because they had taken and sent nude pictures of _themselves_. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/6 "2009-02-13T17:57:49Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > There has been a recent thread (in GQ, I think) about teen girls being prosecuted for producing child pornography because they had taken and sent nude pictures of _themselves_. :eek: Their asses should be nailed to the wall for exploiting themselves like that. Won’t someone think of the children?!? This case reminds of an event some years back when a six-year-old boy got suspended for sexual harassment for kissing a classmate. ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/7 "2009-02-13T18:10:26Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > So the debate is, is this child pornography, or boys being boys? The cynical part of me says that all this hoopla is just a roundabout reason for old men (policemen & judges) to view photos of naked kids (especially underage girls) under a guise of “legitimate investigation.” Tell me a good reason why this is not the case. Yep, confiscating another cellphone and making sure the exposed body parts belong to someone over 18 is a very valuable public service. I’d like to ask everyone’s opinion on this: If there were naked photos of your 15-year old daughter on her boyfriend’s cellphone, would you want the entire police buddies looking at it? Possibly even sharing it? Adding to his private stash of “evidence?” Do you want your daughter’s “evidence” making its way up & down the legal system? ---
**Author:** ![Pixilated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/aeb1de/32.png) [@Pixilated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pixilated)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/8 "2009-02-13T18:47:49Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Maybe and Yes, respectively. Anyway this sort of thing is mostly harmless and probably shouldn’t even lead to arrests. Mostly harmless? I’m not so sure about that. I can only imagine what the girl is going through by having her pic spread around all over the place, and I can only imagine how her peers are treating her. Probably not so harmless for the boy, however, because “boys will be boys” and it’s up to the girls to know right from wrong - yes? Of course, this is psychologically speaking only. This is a tough one because of the ages of the ones involved, and the consequences as the law is today. Does the punishment fit for the age? Well, that’s another debate issue. Another thing to ponder is - how would we respond if this had been another female? Would we then perceive it more as a malicious intent, or would we pass that off as ‘girls will be girls’? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/9 "2009-02-13T19:08:31Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > There has been a recent thread (in GQ, I think) about teen girls being prosecuted for producing child pornography because they had taken and sent nude pictures of _themselves_. And they get tried as adults. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/10 "2009-02-13T19:19:19Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > The cynical part of me says that all this hoopla is just a roundabout reason for old men (policemen & judges) to view photos of naked kids (especially underage girls) under a guise of “legitimate investigation.” > > Tell me a good reason why this is not the case. I think the burden of proof rests with you on this one. Tell us a good reason why this IS the case. > [@](#): > > I’d like to ask everyone’s opinion on this: If there were naked photos of your 15-year old daughter on her boyfriend’s cellphone, would you want the entire police buddies looking at it? Possibly even sharing it? Adding to his private stash of “evidence?” Do you want your daughter’s “evidence” making its way up & down the legal system? It always seems to come down to emotional appeals on stuff like this. “What if it’s your daughter” and so forth. What difference does it make if it’s your daughter or someone else’s daughter? They’re all someone’s daughter, right? Does it make it more or less wrong if it’s your daughter? No, it just makes it more personal for you. And again this is assuming that, along with child porn rings, there are these supposed “police child porn viewing clubs” that you seem to think exist. What evidence do you have for any of this? ---
**Author:** ![Ruminator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b9bd4f/32.png) [@Ruminator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruminator)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/11 "2009-02-13T19:47:02Z")
> [@Cuckoorex](#): > > I think the burden of proof rests with you on this one. Tell us a good reason why this IS the case. > > And again this is assuming that, along with child porn rings, there are these supposed “police child porn viewing clubs” that you seem to think exist. What evidence do you have for any of this? To be absolutely clear, I have zero evidence of this. It’s simply a hunch based on the ratio of law enforcement effort expended vs the **real** benefit to the public. Is my hunch wrong? I’m not being argumentative and I’m not challenging you for “burden of proof.” I’m asking for a discussion/opinion. Is my hunch truly unfounded? Police don’t abuse wiretaps? Police never ask women arrested in the back seat of their car for “favors?” Police have absolutely zero interest in naked kiddie pics? Is all of this misbehavior unrelated to each other? > [@Cuckoorex](#): > > “What if it’s your daughter” and so forth. What difference does it make if it’s your daughter or someone else’s daughter? I phrased it as “your daughter” because I was a polling for an opinion. Maybe the question sounded rhetorical… but I didn’t mean it to be. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/12 "2009-02-13T19:57:42Z")
This is outrageous and totally fucked up. There is no way I can consider the photo described as pornography. No way. There is no sex. It is just partial nudity. That America equates nudity with pornography is just a sign of fucked up values. You can go to many beaches in Europe and see naked underage people. This is just ridiculous. This is criminalising children being children. Of course they will be marked for life. For the stupidity of the adult society in which they live. This is the same as marking women for losing their virginity. Of course they will be marked if you make a big deal of it. Totally fucked up. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/13 "2009-02-13T20:00:36Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Hmm, the problem is that these photos definitely fall under the legal definition of [pornography](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/pornography). > > They can’t argue consent, she isn’t old enough to give it. Can a case be made for personal use? Or is that gone because they got passed around? Maybe something about it being non-exploitive? I think that they shouldn’t be treated this way for what they’ve done, but the way to law exists now I don’t see a legal way out of it. But why would she not be old enough to give consent but he’s old enough to be responsible for her inability to give consent? ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/14 "2009-02-13T20:01:10Z")
> [@Ruminator](#): > > To be absolutely clear, I have zero evidence of this. > > It’s simply a hunch based on the ratio of law enforcement effort expended vs the **real** benefit to the public. I guess I don’t get your reasoning; if there are large numbers of manpower and time expended on a particular crime, there _must_ be some evil motive behind it? If you just want a knee-jerk opinion, my opinion is that you have an irrational fear or distrust of police/authority figures, especially when you readily acknowledge you have zero evidence of the accusations. And it was you who asked someone to prove you wrong. That’s not just asking for gut opinions, and this is GD, not IMHO; if you’re going to make statements like that, you should expect someone to ask you to back it up with something more than “aren’t there people who abuse authority? How can that possibly be a coincidence?Therefore… Child porn!” (An oversimplification, yes. There’s maybe a couple more steps in your reasoning between “there are corrupt cops” and “the cops and all their buddies and the judges and lawyers are primarily motivated to pursue child porn cases because it allows them access to more and more child porn.” That is pretty much what you’re implying, isn’t it?) ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/15 "2009-02-13T20:07:17Z")
> [@Pixilated](#): > > Mostly harmless? I’m not so sure about that. I can only imagine what the girl is going through by having her pic spread around all over the place, Had this taken place in an earlier time, the boy would have shown the photo to a few of his buddies. In this age of technology – well, how many people now have a copy of it? It may be circulating on the Internet for years. One thing I heard on the evening news (and so, no cite) is that the police knew that this was going to happen before it did. They let this happen so that they could catch these boys. Wouldn’t it have been better if they’d prevented it in the first place? ---
**Author:** ![Vox\_Imperatoris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Vox\_Imperatoris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Vox_Imperatoris)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/16 "2009-02-13T20:18:46Z")
I think they should be punished, but relatively leniently, given the circumstances. There is no excuse for a fourteen-year-old boy sending nude pictures of someone who is supposedly his “girlfriend” around to all of his friends (and not much excuse for the girl, either). Valete, Vox Imperatoris ---
**Author:** ![Justin\_Bailey](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/justin_bailey/32/8792_2.png) [@Justin\_Bailey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Justin_Bailey)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/17 "2009-02-13T20:23:28Z")
> [@Pixilated](#): > > Mostly harmless? I’m not so sure about that. I can only imagine what the girl is going through by having her pic spread around all over the place, and I can only imagine how her peers are treating her. Probably not so harmless for the boy, however, because “boys will be boys” and it’s up to the girls to know right from wrong - yes? Of course, this is psychologically speaking only. Considering the fact that the boys are being arrested and labeled “child pornographers”, I’m not sure you can argue that they got off light. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/18 "2009-02-14T01:03:40Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > There has been a recent thread (in GQ, I think) about teen girls being prosecuted for producing child pornography because they had taken and sent nude pictures of _themselves_. That’s what I immediately thought of too. That, and the case of the teenage boy convicted for having pictures of his GF, which he didn’t even share with anyone else (can’t remember enough specifics to search for it - maybe someone else can?) If she wasn’t OK with the picture being shared (which I’d guess is likely), then it’s bullying, harrassment, something like that - definitely not something you’d want to condone, but it’s not the same as child pornography. If the law cant cope with the difference between a teenager showing a couple of friends a picture of his GF flashing a boob, and a grown man hunting out said pictures, then the law needs refining. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/19 "2009-02-14T01:29:24Z")
This has rapidly spun out of control to the point they are making info-mercials about it. Kids are just dumbern’ fuck to begin with and don’t need to be branded for life for that obvious fact. IMO, the charge of child pornography is based around the idea of adults exploiting children. At the most, this should be a charge of pornography since both people involved are children and there is no obvious manipulation by an older person involved. At the least it should be charged like any other invasion of privacy and should resemble the established prosecution of up-skirt pictures. From a mathematical perspective this is just Stupid X 2. Unless the boy is pimping his girlfriend (money for the pictures) then I don’t see the need for anything on his record beyond the age of 18. ---
**Author:** ![Cuckoorex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ad7895/32.png) [@Cuckoorex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cuckoorex)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691/20 "2009-02-14T01:39:36Z")
Has anyone legally defined “semi-nude” in these cases? I mean, many people described the Miley Cyrus [photoshoot](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24342953/) with dear ol’ dad as “semi-nude” as well, but I wouldn’t count that as porn. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/children-arrested-for-child-pornography/485691.md?page=2)