I think this is another sad trend in society that wants to make everything a police issue. I suppose you can blame parents that don’t take an active role in the discipline of their children. When I was that age, I wouldn’t have dreamed of passing around naked pictures of my 13 year old girlfriend. If my Dad didn’t beat my ass, then her Dad would kill me. Perhaps the absence of strong fathers have an affect as well? (Another issue)
But I read in the news how kids on the playground are being arrested for assault when they fight, and theft when they steal small things from the teacher. It seems as if we have abdicated our social responsibilities and just said to hell with it, let the police and the justice system deal with it…
I guess the absolutist application of the statute is in part an artifact of their being written as strict-liability offences allowing NO grey-area interpretation for such purposes as preempting the possibility of real CP’ers using underage patsies in order to produce and circulate the material. Because from a LE perspective, anything that provides some flexibility is a loophole to be abused.
What we need for these cases is a very careful drafting of statutes to apply to various categories of behavior that translate to “stupid, irresponsible, and requiring the parties to face real consequences, but not truly criminal”. But good luck explaining that to the parents and talk show hosts, though, and good luck in the primary against the candidate promising that anyone who even looks too long at the children’s clothes section of the Sears catalog will spend 5 years in PMITA prison.
Like jtgain mentions, the trend in recent times is to take ALL behavior we want to discourage or that even looks like the behavior to be discouraged, and turn it into a crime or a tort. But OTOH part of the problem is that by now a large segment of our society does not take mere social censure or scandal to be reason enough to be sorry they (or their kid) did something stupid and irresponsible, you almost HAVE to sue or prosecute someone in court for them to “get” it.
I agree one hundred thousand percent. This is a case wherein the law is obscene. They’re punishing children for perfectly natural and harmless acts. And anyone who speaks out against it will no doubt be branded a child-molesting monster. I’m fucking outraged.
I’ve read this five times trying to make sure that you’re really saying what it looks like you’re saying. Are you really arguing that this 13 year old girl is NOT a victim because she foolishly believed the photos would be kept private? I could see some sense in arguing the opposite, that she fully understood what she was getting herself into and thus was not being taken advantage of, but if you really think she trusted her boyfriend to keep the photos to himself then it’s pretty cold to say that she got what she deserved by having them spread around the whole school.
I don’t think “she got what she deserved” (if ever there was a loaded statement to make into a sexist, it’s that). But the idea that cell phone pictures are private is idiotic, and the fact that the girl didn’t realize that before she played Traci Lords for her boyfriend is sad. But it doesn’t change that she wasn’t forced to pose “semi-clothed” for said boyfriend. It’s a damn shame that the boyfriend was a fuckhead and passed around pictures of his girlfriend to his buddies, but it’s not child porn and it’s not something that deserves any kind of criminal punishment for any of the involved parties.
No, he’s saying that if a model is too young to give consent to appear in pornographic images then a photographer under 18 is too young to consent to creating pornographic images.
If both parties are underage and one is too young to understand their actions, the other party (which is the same age) cannot understand their actions without it being a double standard.
Do you know that? I can believe this girl was persuaded to pose without being threatened or coerced, but the linked article doesn’t indicate that it is known that she was not.
But that wasn’t my point anyway. You said the girl wasn’t a victim because she didn’t realize the photos would be distributed, and I don’t see how that makes any sense at all. If the photos were distributed without her knowledge or consent then that makes her more, not less, of a victim. If she did pose willingly, whatever harm she may have suffered was due more to the photos being shared than their being taken in the first place.
*I don’t think the boys involved should be held to the same standard of responsibility as adults, but they’re old enough to bear some responsibility for their actions. So is the girl, but at least she wasn’t hurting anyone else when she agreed to pose for the photos.
If she was being forced to pose, the article would have said it and it wouldn’t have described the picture as “a girl lifting her shirt exposing one breast.”
Beyond that, I knew girls in my high school that did shit like this voluntarily when digital cameras were new. To assume that teens today are less sexually adventurous is denying the reality of the way teens treat technology.
I basically posted this before, but I will repeat it with slightly different wording. If you are too stupid to realize that a picture on a cell phone can be easily sent to dozens of people in seconds and still pose for said picture, it’s your own dumb fault if it gets passed around.
Why wasn’t she? Shouldn’t she know that you’re not supposed to take nude pictures of teens? Wouldn’t she realize that if her boyfriend is caught with the picture he’d get branded a kiddie porn peddler and she’d get told how she’s scarred for life and it’s not her fault?
Teeagers doing something mildly dumb should not involve the police and it should definitely not be classified as some crazy new epidemic known as “sexting.”
How would the author of the article know exactly what circumstances surrounded the photos being taken? She wasn’t there, and since the police haven’t publicly identified the girl then the reporter can’t have interviewed her. And it’s the father of one of the boys in possession of the photo, not the police or even the journalist, who is quoted as having given that description of it.
Like I said, it is not difficult for me to believe that the girl was willing, but there’s nothing in the article to indicate that this is a known fact.
*“One that is tricked or duped” is one of the definitions of the word “victim”. Stupid people are victimized all the time, and I don’t think a 13 year old can fairly be blamed for being naive.
*Shouldn’t he? I’m surprised you don’t consider it his “own dumb fault” for getting into trouble doing something he should have known was illegal. As far as I know the girl wasn’t committing a criminal act by agreeing to pose.
*If the girl believed her boyfriend was going to keep the photos private then she had no reason to fear he’d ever suffer any punishment for it. He could very easily have kept the whole matter to himself. It was his decision not to that got him into trouble. Because of his age I don’t think he should suffer the same penalties as an adult, but I don’t see how you can say it’s the girl’s “own dumb fault” that the photos got passed around and the boy got busted.
How exactly do you know the photo was not taken on the planet Krypton? It’s not difficult for me to believe it was taken on Earth, but there’s nothing in the article to indicate that this is a known fact.
Look, the obviously correct response to this situation is for the girl’s father to explain to the boy why he should not have taken those photos … with his fists. The real problem is that this remedy is not legally available.
The sexually repressed puritanical bullshit I have to hear at my job “North Slope Oil Fields” reminds me of this stuff. Spreading this stuff all over the news is the crime.
Look, I’m not the one who wants to make a big deal about the circumstances under which the photos were taken. I’ve indicated, repeatedly, that I am perfectly willing to believe that the girl was uncoerced. But I’ve heard no evidence either way, the linked article doesn’t say anything about the subject, and none of us here know enough to be sure exactly how those photos came to be taken.
This was intended as a fairly minor point and has little to do with the rest of my argument here, so I’m not sure why you’ve chosen to harp on it. If you don’t want to debate in good faith then that’s your business, but you’ll have to do it with someone else.
The point is, you have no more reason to believe the girl was coerced than to believe she is a centurion in Caesar’s army, and you’re the one who keeps bringing it up. If the photos were taken by force, it wouldn’t be part of the story, it would be the story.
However, it’s a single semi-nude drop in an ocean of images. The number of people who see it, remember it, and connect it to her is probably still small.
Not really. This is the 21st century, and we need to understand that it is not in any way appropriate for a father to protect his daughter’s purity with violence against any male person who has done semi-clothed activities with her under any circumstances.
It is not his place to determine whether or not those activities were welcome, whether or not he should be protecting her purity, or how to punish someone who has assaulted her. It is her choice as to whether or not her ‘purity’ needs protecting, or whether there is any worth to ‘purity’ at all. If she has been assaulted, or did not consent to the photos being taken, we have a justice system to deal with those things.
If the girl wanted the boy to take those photos, then the boy didn’t do anything wrong. And if the girl didn’t want the boy to take those photos, then the boy can be dealt with in a court of law. Either way it is up to the girl, not her father, to say whether or not she consented to taking those photos. Teenage girls know what cameras are. They know what cell phones are. They know what picture messages are.
To pretend that she is automatically a victim is asinine.
Fuck purity. Any beatdown delivered by a father or a brother or a mother or an older sister would be delivered because of the common sense belief that you do not share half naked pictures of your girlfriend with your buddies. Unless the girlfriend is into that.
It has nothing to do with purity or women as property or any of that antiquated feminist crap that matters not in 2009. It is because some people just deserve a beatdown. And I guarantee that if something like this had happened to my sister (if cell phone had existed when she was 13) I would have had no shortage of volunteers to help me deliver said beatdown.
So cameras should be illegal for people 18 and under?