Log in

View Full Version : Teens send nude pics to one other, face kiddie porn charges



CommieCat
10th February 2009, 05:35
I can't post the link, but here's the article:

Think twice before sending nude photos to someone electronically, always. But if you're a teenager, think thrice. Two teenage girls have been arrested and charged with disseminating child porn after they sent nude photos of themselves to two boys, who were also arrested and charged with possession of the pics.

By Jacqui Cheng | Last updated January 14, 2009 9:20

There are a number of reasons to think twice (or three times, or four times, or fifty times) before sending a nude photo of yourself to someone electronically. But, if you're under the age of 18, there's at least one big, glaring, serious reason: you and the recipient could be charged with trafficking child pornography. If you think this sounds crazy, it is exactly what happened in Greensburg, Pennsylvania after two teenage girls send nude photos to some teenage boys.

Two girls from Greensburg, who police say are "14 or 15" years old, allegedly sent nude photos to two boys who are slightly older than them (16 or 17) using their cell phones. The photos were discovered in October after one of the youngsters was caught using a cell phone during school hours—a violation of school rules—and had the phone taken away. The photos were discovered at that time—I didn't know teachers could go snooping through your cell phone, either—and turned over to police.

"It was a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude," Greensburg Police Department captain George Seranko told WPXI News. "Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it."

This might seem like a one-off story, but last month, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy released survey results that said 20 percent of all teens have sent a nude photo of themselves to someone else electronically. More than two thirds of those who have sent photos claim they sent them to a boyfriend or girlfriend, but 15 percent say they have sent them to people they only "know" from the Internet. And they're not staying private, either—a quarter of teen girls and a third of teen boys said that they've had nude images originally meant for someone else shared with them.

Though the discovery was made several months ago, the Greensburg Police Department apparently decided to arrest and charge the teenagers this week. According to the police, the two girls are being charged with manufacturing, disseminating, or possessing child pornography, while the two boys are being charged with possession of child porn.

We'll have to wait and see whether anything actually comes of this case—like cases involving underage sex and statutory rape, there's a huge and inconsistent gray area when it comes to teens dealing with other teens. One thing's for sure, though; the students at the kids' high school will probably be scared straight about sending nude photos to each other—at least until the end of the school year.

***

I thought it was 'interesting' how the guys who received the images are being charged with possession of child porn - like, could I just send someone a text image of me naked which results in them being charged with possession of child pornography?! Kinda unfair since you can't control whom you get messages off, along with these girls being charged for manufacturing/disseminating child pornography...what a joke. >_>

jake williams
10th February 2009, 06:30
Child porn laws everywhere I've heard are totally insane and need a complete overhaul. In Canada at least, child porn includes literature and cartoons. Child porn is gross, but the conflation of sexual assault of toddlers and teens sending pictures to each other is totally absurd, especially when it's all mixed together with a big dose of moral panic about Pedophiles hiding in bushes and on the internet and so on. It doesn't make any sense and it needs a lot of work. Unfortunately it's probably politically impossible to try to rationalize the system, whereas there is plenty of political capital in giving big speeches about how you're going to Protect Children.

apathy maybe
10th February 2009, 09:51
This was discussed at Slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/20/1544257

On the issue of child porn, see also http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/12/08/1515211.shtml
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/simpsonsstyle-cartoon-is-child-porn/2008/12/08/1228584707575.html
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4786351a1860.html

A Supreme Court judge in Australia has ruled that an internet cartoon in which look-a-like child characters from The Simpsons engage in sexual acts is child pornography.
One day while looking at encyclopediadramatica (something I rarely do 'cause it is shit), I found said picture. I thought about downloading it just for the lolz (you know to fuck with the law), but realised that I didn't actually want to run the risk of having to go to court for having child porn, even though said child porn is a couple of cartoon characters that don't look anything like real people...

Fucking stupid laws.

BobKKKindle$
10th February 2009, 12:08
This is yet another example of the capitalist state carrying out attacks against the right of young people to express themselves sexually and engage in consensual sex relations with each other, and should be understood as part of a general trend whereby conservative forces are attempting to clamp down on sexual freedom and impose a puritanical morality. This is also an example of consensual sex between teenagers being conflated with pedophilia in order to promote the notion that teenagers possess the same critical faculties as young children and are therefore unable to make their own decisions, and need to be subject to the moral guidance of the state as well as other paternalistic institutions, ignoring the fact that teenagers are perfectly capable of expressing consent and understand the consequences of their decisions. The only cases in which state intervention could ever be justified is when having sex involves the imposition of harm on those who cannot give informed consent, especially children, but even in cases where harm can be shown to exist there is no reason to assume that the correct response must always be state intervention, as community pressure also has a role to play in safeguarding against the sexual abuse of children and other forms of sexual misconduct, and is arguably more effective than people being subject to state coercion and sent to prison.

jake williams
12th February 2009, 07:27
This is yet another example of the capitalist state carrying out attacks against the right of young people to express themselves sexually and engage in consensual sex relations with each other, and should be understood as part of a general trend whereby conservative forces are attempting to clamp down on sexual freedom and impose a puritanical morality.
Why do you think this happens?


as community pressure also has a role to play in safeguarding against the sexual abuse of children and other forms of sexual misconduct, and is arguably more effective than people being subject to state coercion and sent to prison.
The trouble with this is that so much sexual abuse of children is I think built into the patriarchal structure itself, that is to say you'd have to change the community and the culture to actually start to deal with the problem, even though I agree in general.

cleef
12th February 2009, 13:10
lol how would they have been caught?
Apart from some perv at the phone network eyein up the pics?

Verde
12th February 2009, 13:31
Of course, allowing this to go ahead would leave a huge legal loophole: Child porn is okay, provided the child him/her self is distributing.

I agree that it's stupid and normally I'm very cynical, but on this occasion I think that there were overall good intentions behind the decision -- preventing people from exploiting children, knowing they'll be fine so long as they can make it seem that the photos have been distributed by the children.

Hopefully none of the affected parties will be punished for this.

apathy maybe
12th February 2009, 15:17
lol how would they have been caught?
Apart from some perv at the phone network eyein up the pics?

The phones were taken by school staff (because you aren't allowed to have phones in the school or something), and then when the staff member was looking at them, they found the pictures.

hugsandmarxism
12th February 2009, 15:26
I'm sure the school staff was boppin' the baloney over those pics before handing the slightly-sticky cellphone to the police.

And yeah, this is absurd.

CommieCat
13th February 2009, 01:25
Of course, allowing this to go ahead would leave a huge legal loophole: Child porn is okay, provided the child him/her self is distributing.

Personally, I think that it is a bigger 'legal loophole' when a law which was (apparently!) designed to protect children is used to prosecute them.

Nevertheless, (1) You think that this is CHILD pornography? The girls were 14 and 15 years old respectively, that's not a 'child' in my book. (2) Is this even pornography – a simple topless photo? What differentiates a naked photo of a child taken by a parent from real child pornography? Intent. The former is intended just as a 'cute' photo of the child for a parent's sentimental purpose, the latter is for sexually arousing people... Why should 20% of teens be potentially liable for prosecution?. Let's not get into semantics: these teenagers aren't children, nor were the photos taken to show to seedy old men. They were taken to give to teenagers slightly older than themselves, which is a pretty stupid decision imo, but one which doesn't entitle jail-time.


I'm very cynical, but on this occasion I think that there were overall good intentions behind the decision -- preventing people from exploiting children, knowing they'll be fine so long as they can make it seem that the photos have been distributed by the children.

There is the world of a difference between a teenager willingly taking a naked photo of themselves to share with whomever they please versus an adult making a child distribute pornography to avoid prosecution via some hypothetical legal loophole. I think the law is far more dynamic than that. Their intentions were only puritanical/moralistic.

Schrödinger's Cat
13th February 2009, 02:18
I'm gonna need proof before I serve on the jury.

Killfacer
13th February 2009, 10:18
I'm gonna need proof before I serve on the jury.

I'm gonna need hard copies to take home and study.

CommieCat
13th February 2009, 10:26
I'm going to need a moderator to trash your juvenile posts.

Schrödinger's Cat
13th February 2009, 19:45
Undoubtedly.