A 15-year-old Ohio girl was arrested on felony child pornography charges for allegedly sending nude cell phone pictures of herself to classmates. Authorities are considering charging some of the students who received the photos as well. The unnamed student from Licking Valley High School in Newark, Ohio was arrested Friday after school officials discovered the materials and notified police. She spent the weekend in juvenile detention and entered a plea of "deny" on Monday. Charges include illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material and possession of criminal tools. If convicted, the girl could be forced to register as a sexual offender for 20 years. Read on…
On a school called “Licking Valley High School”? What the fuck did they expect!? But seriously… we will face similar cases in Germany due to our new laws made by these apparently brainsick assholes in our government.
Es ist übrigens bald wieder Wahl… [via]
No Child. No Porn. No Enforcement. No Victim.
Still a crime in the US and Germany.
Because you have abused yourself.
Makes perfect sense, right?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/chi-talk-scarymomoct08,0,531384.story
“It’s not a fact pattern we normally come up against.” Just another report about how folks get weirder and weirder. You’re brightly analyzing and commenting, Josh. Keep on going!
If you assume that acts are criminalised because they harm people, then yes, this makes no sense. But the child pornography laws are not (only? at all?) about protection. They are a means of control and part of the system by which “the authorities” legitimise their interference in the “sexual health” of its citizens (both young and old; the young – well, we want them to grow up and be normal; and the old? well we want to lock them up if they aren’t normal).
Could such a thing happen in Germany? I don’t know; I do know that European Union countries are obliged to standardise their “sexual regulatory system” on the European Council Framework Decision on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. That defines children as being under 18. But I don’t know enough about German law to know whether a child could be prosecuted for creating, possessing, etc, photos of himherself.
In England, however, it would seem to be the case that that child should not be prosecuted. It is an established principle of English law that, where there is a law specifically intended to protect a certain class of people, members of that class should not be charged under that law. The extent of this principle is, however, difficult to predict. Child porn laws are said to exist in order to protect children. Thus, it would seem that no one under 18 should be convicted under child porn laws in England…. at alll, for anything – including possession. But if a 17 year old was found with photos of a 14 yr old, I’m sure the authorities would “intervene”, and if a 13 yr old child was found with photos of younger children, I’m sure heshe would be considered to be an adolescent sex offender and “treated”.
About the case in Chicago Tribune that Chapeau links to: If it wasn’t for the CP aspect, the case would make sense. Seems a clear case of “intimidation and harassment” to me. An example of how CP hysteria makes a case less serious and more laughable, which doesn’t exactly benefit the poor boy who received 12302 sms’s from the woman who demanded he get back together with her daughter.
Are there any more photos where the one above came from >:-)
“A student later notified an adult of the nude cell phone pictures, and the adult in turn contacted school officials.” Why is there always one holier than the rest, asshole, who ruins it for the majority?
The United States has slowly sunk into a religious, neo-conservative hell hole. The amount of hatred and vile things being hurled at Obama makes me think we aren’t going to pull ourselves out of it for quite a while.
More interesting question is…
Why the fuck is the picture named “captainpicard.jpg”?
If there’s a story behind that, I’d like to hear it.
Inquiring minds need to know ^^
On a more serious note: I very much doubt a similar case would have the same results in Germany. There is politics and then there is law. Most judges/lawyers have a small piece of common sense left. How they use the new laws is up to them. There is wide range for interpretation for all these new laws. Normally not particularly a good thing, but if they think it makes no sense to prosecute, they can act on that.
CP laws are based on the idea that the child is harmed in the process. If you say they did it out of free will and nobody was harmed in any way, there is always the point of “Oh, but they’re young, they’re harmed and just don’t recognize it yet.” We deny teenagers the right to act responsible and be able to live with the consequences of their actions. Many shades of gray in that assumption.
Trying to curb a growing cell phone problem. Boy A asks girl B for sex. Girl B says “no”. Boy A says “Hey, give me somethin’, I’m desperate here”. Girl B sends boy A semi-nude picture of self via cell phone camera. Girl B and boy A break up. Boy A gets pissed off and publishes picture on the internet. Girl A’s life is ruined.
The odd solution seems to be to make everyone scared to death of ever doing such a thing.
Nyan doubts that a similar case would have the same results in Germany. I would hope this is true. But it is also the case in England that the police have a wide discretion when it comes to applying the law. The discretion narrows as the matter proceeds through the system – once it gets to court, the strictly legal aspects of such a case are not at the discretion of the judge. However, a judge (theoretically) has a wide discretion when it comes to sentencing. A child, having taken photos of himherself, who has been investigated, charged and convicted, might be treated leniently – the judge might give a suspended sentence, or grant an absolute discharge, or whatever.
But, once we allow these processes to even begin, the system is liable to be manipulated by zealots. I know of at least one case in England where children were investigated over photos of themselves/their friends. As it happens, it didn’t go anywhere, but it might have done. At least one boy might have ended up branded as a “sex offender” and I suspect that that fact would have shown up on any extended criminal records check performed when he applied for jobs etc later on in life. It might be that good sense prevailed, or it might be that the police had insufficient evidence on which to base a case. But imagine the case of a child taking photos (or camming) and sending them to older “friends”. One justifcation of “child porn” laws in England is that they help prevent adults acquiring a sexual interest in children, and in this way protect unidentifiable (and possibly not-yet-existing) children from harm. So a “child protection crusader” might wage a campaign to have all children protected from future “harm” created by self-created child porn and propagandise against any judge who had the “good sense” to say that no real punishment was required in such a case.
It is not good enough to say that the police and the courts etc are people of good intent with good sense, the very existence of such laws means that such events WILL happen at some time.
I can understand the girl being punished, but why the students who received the photo? Perhaps they didn’t delete it quick enough? Perhaps they hadn’t checked their cell-phones in a while and didn’t know it was there?
Note to Alan: this has nothing to do with “holier than thou”. It’s more “cover your ass”. If the adult who blew the whistle hadn’t, he/she would be charged with some sort of infraction. And only a small percent of anti-Obama people are hurling insults. It’s mostly media hype designed to strengthen his poll numbers. BTW I can’t tolerate either one. I’m voting Libertarian. Again.
And didn’t Reverend Jesse Jackson say he wanted to cut off Obama’s nuts?
Maybe Doug can understand why the girl is being punished, but I cannot. What will she need punishing for (and protecting from!) next, looking at herself in a mirror?
And those who received the images – what if they showed them to their friends or parents, or sent them on to other people? Those pictures might be (in the idiotic words of the cursaders) “available on the internet for ever”! Does anything change?
Mark, I think you’re making the mistake of wanting CP laws to be logical. That stance will drive you crazy, trust me…
@Nyan
The Captain Picard thing:
CP and the Star Trek Character above have the same abbreviation, that’s why Captan Picard has been used as codeword for Child Pr0n.
I do want the child porn laws to be logical – I want all laws to be logical. If “they” don’t have to justify and ground their laws in something rational, I don’t want to be put at jeopardy by their laws. The “liberals” used to like immigrants, and it was only the “crusty reactionaries” who opposed multiculturalism. Well, those crusty reactionaries didn’t die out, and their political influence remained as strong as ever, just simmering away in the background. Now, anti-immigrant sentiment is not only acceptable again – the political elites are pandering to the one-time reactionaries to the extent that immigration policy is basically anti-immigrant policy. Gay kids sent back to Iran where they will face the death penalty? Uhm, sure. And that links us back to policy on homosexuality. In 1967 England decriminalised sexual acts between adult men in private. In 2000 they lowered the age of consent for homos to be the same as that for hets. Then in 2004 we got civil partnerships. We can’t marry (that’s special and for the hets) but we get our own little state-issued certificate to say that we can live together and chose for ourselves what happens to our assets. For now, the “liberals” have their hand on sexuality policy. But simmering away in the background we have anti-homo sentiments everywhere. How many gay boys are able to come out at school? to their parents? to their friends? How many gay boys remain “closeted” because they see how the boy who did come out got treated and feel they couldn’t deal with it? What will happen to all those people who make that “closeting” possible? Will they change their views? Maybe some will; a lot of them are, after all, just kids, and hence almost by nature very conservative – as they get older they might well become more “tolerant”. But many won’t. What happens if/when the “reactionaries” get sick of homos? Will they recriminalise homosexual acts? But we have human rights laws to prevent that… but who hasn’t heard the complaints that the human rights system prevents real action being taken on serious matters? Those human rights laws can be repealed or can pass into disuse just like any other law.
We should not allow laws that do not make sense to pave the way for other laws that make even less sense.
off topic; i think we’re all bisexual! The whole fuckin humanity and whats a gender anyway? Like u say u dont wanna fuck me cuz “the car I ride in” (where “I” refers to my MIND) isn’t the same fucking god given (joke) natures best shit whatever gender beautiful or anyhow appealing BODY =D Or do YOU prefer female plants over male ones? Male plants dont wear flowers? Make ma laugh, alright, do it, hhihihihuahahha Good Job now lets ****
I find it sad that the sort of harmless self exposure in which, as far as I know youngsters have indulged in from time immemorial, becomes contentious simply because of the involvement of electronic gadgetry. I find it sad because it brings into disrepute the efforts of those with a genune and mature desire to really protect vulnerable children from the real monsters who actually do exist out there. But asking for maturity in country where a not very bright, and very bigoted woman has been chosen as a vice presidential candidate is perhaps asking too much. But then they elected GWB!!! (just)
JOSH – your title is correct – this bullshit makes
I was really tired when I wrote my original post on this thread, so here’s an EDIT that’s more along the lines of what I wanted to say:
Tony Duvert pretty much laid out what children and ALL adults are up against in his book “Good Sex Illustrated”. No wonder we are still “Growing Up Absurd” RE: Paul Goodman. Check out Paul and Tony. Hopefully one of these days Tony’s works will be more broadly translated.
Lukas
PS: I sure did enjoy reading all the posts up above and my where do those skinny girly boys get such big …? L
Doug, I wasn’t speaking of the adult. I was referring to the student who ratted out the girl. I thought Libertarians were for getting the government out of our personal lives.
This is a matter for the parents, not the courts. The teenagers involved did something stupid certainly but as they took the pictures of there own free will, they did not do something criminal and should not be treated as criminals. Grounding and removal of cellphones is the proper punishment for this not a verdict that will marginalise both teenagers for 20 years.
I agree with Craig. What we are doing here in the states is codifying to a point where parents are no longer responsible to raise their children. We wouldn’t need metal detectors in our schools if parents would spend time raising the children instead of insisting on having two careers and 3 cars and a big screen tv and cable and satellite &tc…
The role of raising children falls on individuals and communities and not by the courts. The more we legislate those responsibilities the more those roles will disappear.
Similarly when you don’t educate children about the dangers of say, posting naked pics of yourself or sending them in emails, and just try to “abolish” or criminalize such activity the more naive the children become and are likely to fall into the next latest technology craze. When I was growing up there was no internet or way to be in communication with the big scary world. That has all changed and children are vulnerable now. Children today may be more savvy technically then the generation before, but they are just as naive as I was at age 14 and 15–and eager ;]
However legislation is not the solution to solving this problem. Its education. Technology is moving so fast that legislation will never be able to keep up with the latest trends. And the more we try to build walls to protect ourselves and our children from the big scary world, the more its going to hurt when the bad guys do get through to us.
controversial topic.
:x
hot pic though.
:)
I don’t think the girl exposed herself to any danger by taking photos of herself, other than giving the sex police grounds to f*ck her life over. I don’t think there is a problem. Once you accept “their” claim that there is a problem, you set them on their way to f*cking people’s lives over for no good reason.
The issue is best illustrated by what Mark said: “Maybe Doug can understand why the girl is being punished, but I cannot. What will she need punishing for (and protecting from!) next, looking at herself in a mirror?” That is EXACTLY what she CAN be punished for. It is not a matter of logic however but power. Politics is power and the that means the enforceable ability to do this or that versus having to do someone else’s something else. And the lack of power is why some are in jail for “feeling sexually” and “being sexually interested” in boy photos despite the photos not being “sexually revealing”. Etcetera.
Habe ich das richtig gelesen? “Gesetzeswidriger (illegaler) Gebrauch eines Spiegels”???
Ich kann mir kaum vorstellen, dass in Amiland der staatstragende Gebrauch eines jeden Knopflochs gesetzlich vorgeschrieben ist.
Absurd!
no, it don’t make any sense.
When u’r 15 years old, u know exactly what u’r doing.
If someone wants to show the own body……….
why not?
we live in a free country…….(8)