Kids who photograph themselves naked are child pornographers and sex offenders in Ohio
A fifteen year old girl in Newark, OH faces being labelled a "sex offender" for sending naked cellphone photos of herself (a minor) to other minors. If convicted, she'll spend the next ten years on public registries, classed as a producer of child pornography. No word on what compensation she (as the victim of the crime) will be able to get from herself (as the perp).
According to Ohio law, 2907.323(A)(3) states anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony. The violation also might qualify the juvenile as a Tier I sexual offender, which requires annual registration for a decade.Law didn't anticipate cell phone photo caseThe section of the law the girl, who is a foster child, was charged with allows parents or guardians to take photos of their unclothed children for a list of acceptable purposes but does not provide an exemption for the child themselves.
the latest
latest episodes
I can see it now: *knock knock* "Hello?" "Hi, my name is Christy, I'm 15 and I just moved into the neighborhood. I'm a convicted sex offender and child pornographer." "Do come in..."
better burn all those snaps of your baby on a fur rug or in the tub.
I knew this one was coming. I wonder if it's a crime for a 15 year old to lift her shirt and show her boobs to another 15 year old next? And the kids who got the cell pictures? This is behavior you sit down and talk to your kids about, not ruin their lives forever. For kids doing what kids have done for years, just using technology to do so? And the quote about this being a trend of "youths committing serious adult crimes"???? What is wrong with these prosecutors?????
Once again, Life imitates Kids in the Hall.
Ack! Up until the 17th Century Children were small adults, they fought and died, married alongside "real" adults. During the Victorian times in England life expectancy for the working poor of London was 21; you got married at 13 or 14 pumped out as many offspring as possible and then died. 2008 children who would be horny and safe in any other period in history can now be put on "offenders" list, now that is progress I can believe in!
Pray tell me when you can go to jail after using a public restroom and someone sees you zip up.
You know, I like probably a goodly number of others now adult in age, spent many thrilling moments as a child doing 'stuff' which some would classify as deviant or perverted. I am a very healthy mid-life adult with a more than healthy sexual appetite (avg. roughly .8 occurences of sex per day) and I owe it to how I grew up and learned about myself and others. Hopefully my boys will be as happy and self aware as adults.
She goes to "Licking Valley High School".
'The law... allows parents or guardians to take photos of their unclothed children for a list of acceptable purposes'
O the folly of laws that proscribe everything except for pre-imagined acceptable behaviours.
*disclaimer - I know nothing
(do I have to burn the photos of myself as a naked child if I move to Ohio? I didn't take them.)
When you were 15 years old, getting nude photos from your sexy friends and classmates (or giving them to the ones you had a crush on) was exactly what you were interested in nearly all the time. Was that unhealthy? Should it be criminalized?
Child pornography laws have a classic problem of trying to blame the tool rather than the behavior. The aim is to criminalize actual abuse, right? (Which seems quite legitimate as far as law goes.) But the laws were broadened to include dissemination and depiction of media of underage people either nude or performing sexual acts. That's where the law has become, um, perverted.
It's no secret that post-pubescent humans who are also younger than the age of 18 are having sex with each other (as peers), or at least engaged in sexual behavior. And young people are stereotypically more adept at embracing and assimilating new technologies into their lives, so in any given population it will be younger people who will incorporate digital photography and video into their sex lives, statistically speaking.
I thought that state laws allow for this in their "age of consent" laws such that, basically, minors having sex with other minors get different rules than minors having sex with, uh, majors. (And even then usually there's stipulations so that a 16 year old having sex with an 18 year old does not statutory rape make.) Can't the same considerations at least be made into these child pornography laws, at least?
Zuzu is 100% right here.
I hate to cite /b/ here - but minors post pictures of their penii all the time. No prosecution there.
Unless it's your job, I suppose.
At what point in a law career do you lose your sense of rationality?
There was a case at a high school near me (Parkland High School, in Parkland, PA) where topless pictures of two underage girls and a picture of an underage couple having sex were sent around on cell phones. When the police were notified, they sent letters out to those they knew had received the pictures, and set up a day to check their phones to make sure the images were deleted. Then everybody went on with their lives, and the students were embarrassed, but not jailed or fined. Sounds like a far more fair decision to me.
This isn't really new...it happened in Florida in January as well.
http://news.cnet.com/Police-blotter-Teens-prosecuted-for-racy-photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html
That story is slightly different...but the crux of the argument is basically the same. How can anyone with an IQ over 6 figure that a person can be both the criminal AND the victim in the SAME CASE. This is illogical. It doesn't make sense.
In fact, IANAL, but I wonder if there would be some way to get this thrown out of court on a technicality. IE...since you have the right to face your accuser in court...and since there is only ONE of you (both accuser AND accused) you can't really have a 'fair' trial.
Yeah, good luck on getting the 'victim' to testify.
The fifth amendment: "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
Trying to prove this case should be enought to make the prosecutor's head explode.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Ok, point number one is this girl should not be put on a sex offender registry--anyone with an ounce of common sense should realize that. All she needs is a strict talking to about the appropriateness of such things. This isn't why I'm posting though.
This part is:
"The section of the law the girl, who is a foster child, was charged with allows parents or guardians to take photos of their unclothed children for a list of acceptable purposes"
What-the-heck!? What POSSIBLE reasons could they be allowing foster parents and guardians to be taking pictures of their naked children? I mean does this allow for things beyond the obligatory embarrassing picture of you naked in the bath as a kid photo that gets taken out and shown to your girlfriend/boyfriend years later? What kind of things are Ohioans up to?
"When you were 15 years old, getting nude photos from your sexy friends and classmates"
Wow... I only wish we had digital cameras widely available when I was 15.
I woulda sent pictures of my wang to all sorts of girls.
Growing up in the '80s who knew you'd have a camera on your phone that fits IN YOUR POCKET that you can take pictures of your cock/vagina/boobs/ass and send them to all your friends in hopes of receiving the same back.
Technology is awesome!
TjaTja 14: What-the-heck!? What POSSIBLE reasons could they be allowing foster parents and guardians to be taking pictures of their naked children?
"To document bruises inflicted by a foster child's natural parents" springs to mind. Just for one.
Cory, your headline implies precedent. Even your summary makes it clear that if convicted she MIGHT be made to register. The law allows for it, but from what I can tell, that has never actually been the case. What's unique about this case is that a state rep (and a Republican at that!) is trying to ensure she doesn't have to register, because the punishment doesn't fit the offense.
*chortle*
If I had to guess, that law probably allow such provisions to cover cases of older minors with illicit pictures of much younger kids. Now, that IS a problem. A 15-17 year old could reasonably be considered a pedophile if they are preying upon pre-teens.
*snicker*
...when I read there were "20 [other] cases involving questionable cell phone pictures" that were dropped in favor of counseling, it makes me think there is something else going on. Like, maybe she was selling the pictures or something else that shows real intent.
*snerk...*
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm sorry... This just had to happen at "Licking Valley High School"... that's just too classic!
Headed for Fark in 3.... 2....
"anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony"
Does your own body qualify? I think Ohio is in trouble. OMG, mirrors everywhere!
This is funny, (and maybe this makes me a pervert for even dreaming this up) but...
I was wondering just yesterday, what would happen if you had been an extremely attractive young gay boy of 15, and in your later years, you found yourself to be attracted to young men of 15. You used images of yourself as a child as some sort of pornographic material -- having sufficiently detached yourself psychologically from the fact that that young man in the picture was you at T1...If you are taking your prior self as object, is it still child porn? Or just self-pleasure?
I remember a case a couple years ago where two teens who were dating took pictures of themselves together on their cellphones, and both were tried for child pornography - as adults...
Also, does this mean that if I move to Ohio, I will have to get rid of my Sally Mann books?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Mann
Oh shit, I have naked pics of my baby,,, !
Secret_Life_Of_Plants, slow down cowboy... the vast majority of men are still trying to reconcile whether trying to suck their own dicks "makes them gay" or if it's just masturbation.
-- Bill HicksPics or it didn't happen.
It's a really pathetic world we live in where a 16 year old couple could get married (with parental permission) make a sex tape and go to jail as child porn producers.
almost as if the fundamentalist religious police ran the government...
@17--
"pTjaTja 14: What-the-heck!? What POSSIBLE reasons could they be allowing foster parents and guardians to be taking pictures of their naked children?
"To document bruises inflicted by a foster child's natural parents" springs to mind. Just for one.
Generally, children who are thought to have come from an abusive home are given an exam before being brought to a foster family. And in the case of having had a visit with a/the birth parent/s, I think you'd find that responsible foster parents would inform social services of any injuries immediately, and they would be the ones taking any photographs.
"anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony"
I'm gonna call the cops on my mom.
Sorry but there is something wrong here. The first question that came to my mind was "Who sexualized this child?" What this girl did shouldn't be criminalized but it isn't healthy behavior either. This is a red flag, there is something else going on.
"anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony" I'm gonna call the cops on my mom.
Fortunately, my nude high school pics are etched in mammoth poo with a sabertooth.
#6 CREESTO,
I am a very healthy mid-life adult with a more than healthy sexual appetite (avg. roughly .8 occurences of sex per day)....
Maybe not too healthy: that many years of coitus interuptus can't be good for you.
Goes to show how inconceivable it was to them that one of those "anyones" would be a minor showing off photos of herself to her friends.
It's constantly horrifying to people that we have to thoroughly define words like "anyone" - and incidents like this prove that I think. We're all resisting it on some level.
The first question that came to my mind was "Who sexualized this child?"
So my first question is, what odd sort of 15 year old were you?
Legally she's a minor, but unless she has a hormone disorder she's certainly past the age of puberty -- when evolutionary biology announces that we're ready for sexual reproduction. "Nature" has long since sexualized her... literally with secondary sexual characteristics and functions.
Adolescence is a relatively recent social construction, and that requires some serious criticism before we can honestly refer to her as a child. Perhaps "teenager" or "young adult", but "child" is counter-factual at the very least.
Besides, 15 or 16 is de rigeuer for losing virginity, though some of us gave it up a few years earlier and still grew to be healthy and rational.
I'm genuinely unnerved by your socialization agenda, Noen. Way more than that "radical right-wing" AIP guy and his lame "traditional family" opinion.
@ Buddy66
Oh damn, I totally missed that decimal point. Good thing it wasn't a medication error instead! :p
The first question that came to my mind was "Who sexualized this child?"
His name is Puberty, and he comes wickedly in the night.
Tenn-chan, irrashai!
Yeah, most 15-year-old girls are quite capable of sexualizing themselves without help from anyone but Mother Nature. I know whereof I speak — from progressive experience as boyfriend, father, and grandfather.
The red flags should go up when pre-pubescent girls start acting out adult sexual behavior.
perfectly normal teens have taken private photos of themselves for a long time now, they don't necessarily have to have been "sexualized" to be coaxed by a peer into doing it, or even to originate the idea themselves. the problem is that the internet & digital imaging have made it alot easier for kids to do this, and i'm sure most kids get the idea from other kids in school or online before hearing about it from their parents (if the parents ever even bring up the behavior & its dangers). and it is dangerous, because this material ends up in the hands of unintended recipients, including sex predators.
so this law won't stop everyone's kids from getting molested. just some of them.
Better do some research...
already happened in Utah (no surprise there), and while I didn't pay close attention, I "believe" all of them went to court.
Thing that sticks in my mind is comments about the law (Federal) REQUIRING the to be registered as so-called "sex offenders".
Possibly State law also.
Danke, Tak-san!
All my friends were super sexualized around the age of 15-16 and then we all calmed down. One time a friend of mine said hey wanna see an anime pic and BAMF, my male best friend's penis.
I keep telling my friends not to make porn of themselves, they fail to listen. A while back Buddy got his phone taken up and almost got charged because he was taking pictures of his girlfriend's pregnant belly. On school property.
Your kids are statistically most likely to be molested by a parent or "creepy uncle", if ever (which is still exceedingly rare).
let the children run with the children and the elders guard them,such is the natural order of things.
Does this mean that a minor masturbating is considered statutory rape?
It's things like these that make me wish someone in TV land made an American version of Monkey Dust. The Paedofinder General would fit in perfectly in this country.
We had a big case about this not too long ago in Indiana, where some 18 year old guy had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend and her parents found out, didn't like him, and turned it into a police thing.
We've since amended the law here so that you aren't put on to the sexual offenders list if you're within 4 years of age of the person you're doing the act to.
As always I am only here to give kudos to ZUZU, TAKUAN, and TENN who are, as 90% of the time, right on target. Cheers.
Noen- She's 15. 150 years ago she'd already be married an having kids. ALL teenagers think about sex, unless there's something seriously, medically wrong with them.
Back to the case... doesn't she have to press charges? Can't she ask to have them dismissed, as the victim?
I guess this means all the high school kids on porn sites are molesting themselves. Lock 'em up!
It was inevitable that this would come up. This was nudity, but if a 15 year old films him or herself masturbating? There its not just nudity, which is not illegal no matter what Ohio says, but now a focus on just the sexual organs, is that 15 year old a producer of child pornography? And if yes, could they then be tried as an adult? You bet they could for the ultimate in irony. It will eventually happen, watch for it here.
zuzu
Child? That's a stretch.
Yes, child, juvenile, whatever. Not an adult and possessing an immature adolescent brain. Brain research has shown that adolescent minds are profoundly different than those of adults. They lack judgment and are incapable of understanding the consequences of their behavior. This girl clearly does not understand what she has done. I feel sorry for her.
"Nature has long since sexualized her."
"150 years ago she'd already be married an having kids."
"His name is Puberty."
Children who have been sexually abused in some way are said to have been sexualized and that is how I was using the word. Their behavior is sexually precocious, abnormal. It's different than normal sex play. Call me crazy if you like but I think that passing sexual photos of yourself around to all your friends, at 15, is not normal. And if it's becoming a statistical norm it's not healthy. Cameras have been around a long time. This isn't normal. Trust me on this, there is more going on here than we know. Any forensic psychologist would think: "foster child, sexually acting out, hmmmm... I'd like to speak to her."
About Ohio's Megan's Law:
"What we're aiming at was a growing problem that we were seeing amongst juveniles and that was they were committing some very serious adult-like crimes,"
The law was clearly badly written but it is in response a very real problem. I also have this growing sense that "the kids aren't alright". Part of my response springs from that. It would be interesting to know what those adult-like crimes are. I bet a lot of those giggling here would change their tune if they knew.
You know, you can breed any animal when it reaches sexual maturity. I think that as humans we should expect a bit more of ourselves.
Uncle_Max @12: "When the police were notified, they sent letters out to those they knew had received the pictures...."
I realize I'm not getting the full story here, but the idea of the police having a list of people they knew had received the pictures just sets off a major red flag for me.
they would have beaten the information out of the various involved as they went. By no means a complete list.
Cameras have been around a long time. This isn't normal.
Camera have been around a long time but until 10 years ago (maybe less) taking a picture of your penis or boobs meant that, unless you had a darkroom and the ability to process color film, a third person would look at your penis or boobs.
Now you can do all by yourself.
(And by the way, at 15 I had a very clear understanding of the mechanicals of sex and I was more than able to appreciate a naked female body. It is true that, alas, it was only theoretical knowledge but I was very willing to address this deficiency as soon as possible.)
@Noen:
Don't be silly.
That being said, I suspect she might be a little strange in the head. She is, after all, a foster kid. But we don't know, and therefore have to give the benefit of the doubt.
As for "not understanding consequences," I'm right there with you. I feel physically ill EVERY TIME a minor is charged as an adult. They just plain never thought about what was going to happen. In this case, however, why in Ah-Pook's sweet name would she EVER expect there to be CRIMINAL consequences for taking pictures... OF HERSELF?
This is truly preposterous.
I get more and more criminal every day. I took pictures of my 16-year-old girlfriend naked 20 years ago (I was 17). Of course, I worked at a photo lab, so I developed them myself and didn't show them to anyone. But based on this law, I was a criminal. We used condoms AND the pill, and after we broke up I destroyed the pictures instead of using them against her.
So, yeah, somehow when you turn 18 you suddenly become more mature and responsible. I've never heard of anyone over 18 having a child out of wedlock or doing anything inappropriate with nude photos of themselves or anyone else. I say throw her in a cell with Max Hardcore to teach her a lesson!
THIS LAW IS DUMB POORLY WRITTEN AND PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE CHANGED
@NOEN
Have you been around children now days some pregnant at 12-13 years old. Hollywood sexualized these kids shows like the real world movies on HBO Showtime but then again puberty and sexuality go hand in hand. By the way I was 15 when I lost my virginity so what's wrong with this picture is not who sexualized this child puberty did society did. So the question is what's wrong with the law and our government. These children see this on television and are emulating what they see.
You can also tell me all you want that cameras haves been around for a long time but you had to have the photos developed when I was young you couldn't just take and send a photo there was another person in the loop who could report the photos or not develop them. this is a different time and loose morals on television mainly MTV show these kids its alright to sleep around its alright to do these things. But in reality its the parents who don't watch what their kids watch.
I blame society and parents but mostly MTV
Similarly:
A 13 year old boy is in facing felony charges in Texas after a classmate of his took a picture of herself in the nude and sent it to him. Apparently, she sent nude pictures to many of the boys at her school.
http://www.khou.com/news/state/stories/khou081008_ar_porntext.f31234e3.html
The law needs to better distinguish between dumb behavior and criminal behavior among children.
If she's labeled a sex offender, in Ohio and many other states, she won't be able to hand out candy or decorate her home on Halloween (and probably not go trick-or-treating either). See
http://tinyurl.com/HalloweenSexOffenderLaws
Crash- ummm learn sentence structure a bit before posting. That looked only slightly more comprehensible than a William Burroughs Cut- up.
Not understanding the consequences? probably true. But As has been said, being charged criminally for taking photos of yourself wasn't likely on her mind.
And the fact of digital cameras is definitely a factor. Hence the recent proliferation of amateur porn sites. That stuff wasn't there five years ago... hey around the time that digital cameras took over from film! (ever tried to buy a film camera lately? Not a throw- away?)
@#51 Noen, et al:
Curiously, why do you seem to think that teenagers are going to understand the consequences of their actions any less than adults would in a similar situation? I've seen, and heard of, lots of adults doing stupid things when they're horny or drunk that they regret later — the only difference there is that the adults have already probably made the same mistakes once or twice, and still keep doing it anyway.
Personally, I don't see this sort of behaviour as any worse than, say, sneaking out of the house at night to go to an R-rated movie with some friends. Is it dumb? Yes. Will there be consequences? Probably (like getting grounded). Should the person be arrested and have their life ruined? No! This is no more someone that should be prosecuted than a first-time curfew breaker — the humiliation, I am certain, is more than enough punishment.
Frankly, this wouldn't even be an issue if people weren't so pious and afraid of sex. The only reason we're even having this discussion right now is because so many adults in this country (and increasingly elsewhere) seem to have the idea stuck in their heads that their precious little (12, 15, 18, 20-year-old) children are pure and free of sin and must be protected from everything "bad" at any cost until the end of time, and they couldn't possibly be violent or sexual or act in any way human. But, surprise! Humans are sexual, and they are curious; pubescent teenagers, doubly so. Trying to claim that it's somehow wrong or against the natural order of things flies in the face of basic human instinct. You can try to make a claim that we should be somehow "above" these instincts, but that's like saying that a penguin should be able to fly because it has wings — it's not the natural order of things.
Kyle
why in Ah-Pook's sweet name would she EVER expect there to be CRIMINAL consequences for taking pictures... OF HERSELF?
I don't believe she should suffer criminal consequences. I never said any such thing. Did you really think that what I meant? I objected to the blasé attitude of some towards what is a serious problem. That doesn't mean I think she ought to have gone to jail.
cameras haves been around for a long time but you had to have the photos developed
Nonsense, the Polaroid SX-70 was invented in '72 and widely available. While I'm sure some very few kids did secretly photograph themselves it wasn't like this. 11 and 12 year olds didn't get pregnant either, not like today. Nor was the media as hypersexualized as it is today. Our culture is not healthy, there is a great deal of dysfunction out there.
@Noen
This statement is s ncrdbly arrogant. There's nothing "clear" about that except in your own sclly cnsrvtv / prdsh head.You're also belittling the cognitive ability that young people do have; you're infantilizing them. Go read some John Holt or John Taylor Gatto.
Our culture has problems... such as jingoism, willingness to follow leaders, cognitive dissonance, and the praise of ignorance. But "hypersexualization" is not one of them; if anything a long-standing problem has been prds lk y shaming or condemning people against exploring their sexuality. Y'r crzy. Nudie pictures / "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" should precede actual fcking by a few years, and normal people lose their virginity by 15.Furthermore, media is not the issue... I'm quite skeptical that people actually emulate media, but rather that media is the mirror of society, and where we need to look for the causes of that ugly reflection are far more likely from other social institutions: the state, the schools, the church, and the heredity of parenting -- the places where we actually receive interactive feedback and more importantly the imposition of social control on our behavior.
If we're sick, it's because of how we were raised by our parents, our teachers, our religious leaders, and by anyone wearing a uniform.
c.f. R. D. Laing's The Politics of Experience
all that's changed is photography.
@Noen: Nonsense, the Polaroid SX-70 was invented in '72 and widely available. While I'm sure some very few kids did secretly photograph themselves it wasn't like this.
You're kidding! Polaroid! You couldn't easily create copies of the pictures or send them to others, every picture had a perceptible cost, not to mention that the Polaroid market penetration was never even of the same order of magnitude of the digital cameras, and digital cameras are not the only thing you can use to take pictures.
just wait for HomeKloneKits.
jackie31337 @52: Basically what Takuan said at 53. The police know who the people in the pictures were, asked who they sent them to, and continued to go along until the trail ran out. There's no way they'd EVER have a full list, but they at least had to verify that they ones they could be sure of had been deleted.
And NEON, apparently you've missed the amazing revolution in cell phone cameras. If you honestly think it's just as easy to take a polaroid and give it to somebody as it is to take a picture with a cell phone and IM it to a few people, then you must have a terrible old phone. I can guarantee most of these cases are impulsive acts of somebody showing off for their girlfriend or boyfriend, rather than a result of abuse.
@ #48 ZUZU
I'm totally off topic now but when someone quotes my hero Peter Chung I just have to go w00t
@ JasonClock
Yeah, he's fucking brilliant. I kinda wish academia could be as fanboy about him as they are about people like Slavoj Žižek.
Even with his intentional coyness -- allowing viewers to arrive at their own interpretations of his work -- what he does reveal in the commentary tracks of the remastered Aeon Flux DVDs are by themselves worth the price.
noen @51: "Children who have been sexually abused in some way are said to have been sexualized and that is how I was using the word. Their behavior is sexually precocious, abnormal."
That is by no means universally true. Sexual abuse definitely results in all kinds of psychological fallout, but there is no one predictable pattern to it. I was molested by an older boy in my neighborhood when I was 9. I can assure you, my sexual behavior was anything BUT precocious as a result of that. When my body started to mature and boys started noticing me, I starved myself in an attempt to keep my little girl body. I was not only not interested in boys or sex, I was AFRAID of them. At 15, I had never had a boyfriend or kissed a boy. It took me another 5 years after that to get to the point where I acknowledged and accepted my sexuality. THAT is abnormal.
Normal teens have a sex drive, and these days they also have access to digital technology. Taking nude pictures of yourself and sharing them with some of your friends is probably not a very bright thing to do, but I would hardly call it abnormal.
Zuzu
You're also belittling the cognitive ability that young people do have; you're infantilizing them.
Brain research absolutely verifies what I've said about the adolescent mind. Particularly the inability to form judgements about the consequences of their behavior. I would be saying the exact same thing for the same reasons if we were talking about giving 14 or 15 year olds general drivers licenses. There is a reason that children younger than 16 or 17 should not be allowed to drive, and for those same reasons they should not be sexually active.
Go read some John Holt or John Taylor Gatto.
Hly crp wht cpl f ntcss! Rlly!? Ths s th bst y gt? Ths flmmng kks? Srsly Zz, yr ds r wyyyy t f mnstrm nd nt xtrmst trrtry. BTW thr s n nf n "Jsn Clck". Lt m gss, ScF wrtr?
Our culture has problems [...] But "hypersexualization" is not one of them
You don't know much about advertizers and how they target children do you?
I'm quite skeptical that people actually emulate media, but rather that media is the mirror of society
Then what are all those mirror neurons for? The way we monkeys learn is by watching and then copying. Every parent knows, or ought to know, that the way you teach children how to behave is by modeling the behavior. Not through rules and words, those are ineffective. We humans are not born into this world automatically knowing how to fit in. We have to be installed into the semantic structure. Relying on TV and our consumerist culture to do our job for us has been a very bad mistake. Just ask Brittney Spears how well being sexually promiscious too young and having no rules plays itself out. Didn't work out too well for her did it?
Nudie pictures / "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" should precede actual fucking by a few years
You are equating things that I don't think should be equal. The reasons why should be pretty obvious.
Uncle Max
I can guarantee most of these cases are impulsive acts of somebody showing off for their girlfriend or boyfriend,
Ummm, dh.... That's what I've been saying, poor impulse control combined with very bad judgment. Digital media is forever. Innocent sexual exploration is not. The differences between the two are enormous.
jackie31337
That is by no means universally true. Sexual abuse definitely results in all kinds of psychological fallout, but there is no one predictable pattern to it.
Of course, of course. I have been very careful not to universalize and have put qualifiers in my sentences. Like I said, this behavior is a red flag.
Th prblm s tht sm ppl dn't lk t hr th wrd n. 'v sd n twc ltly. N t brtl sdstc f*ck wh dsrvs t brn n th lwst rngs f hll nd n t 15 yr lds pssng rnd nd pcs f thmslvs wth n thgh f hw tht wll mpct thm n th ftr.
while it is indeed true that fifteen year olds sharing nude photographs may socially regret that choice later, it remains that fifteen years olds in their own moment and space are innocent, normal and clean. It is our observation that defiles their innocence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBfItJAFUQU&feature=related
I probably shouldn't admit this, but once when I was a child I saw myself naked.
if you gouge out your eyes and castrate yourself, we'll overlook it.
there is nothing wrong with nudity. it is legal to be nude on the beach in more counties than i dare count. this is silly american prudishness at its worse. grow up and see the world people or at least watch at$t commercials about beaches in spain.
"State Rep. Jay Hottinger, R-Newark, wrote the state's Megan's Law bill, the predecessor of the Adam Walsh Act, and said this case was not something the legislature envisioned."
Perhaps first legal logic-bomb, definitely not the last.
nothing like nudity to cure an obsession with nudity. Most first visits to nude beaches result in disappointment and the same goes for sex clubs and orgies. Physical attractiveness,like intelligence, is on a curve.
investigation into the incident remains open, including exploring whether charges will be filed against the minors who received the photos.
So you could be guilty without doing anything at all? Suppose I send these kinds of photos to Bush?
How to get your rival in jail in 7 easy steps.
1) get his/her phone number
2) buy prepaid handphone
3) get child porn
4) tip off police
5) stake out rival's house
6) when the police knocks on the door, send the photos
7) celebrate
The First Amendment generally protects all forms of expression ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...").
Some of the exceptions (to "no law") are considered valid because they protect victims of the creation of the free expression. That is, by making child pornography illegal, children are protected from exploitation by the producers of the child pornography.
When a 16-year-old wants to engage in First Amendment protected speech, such as by taking a photograph of herself, it is hard to see how the First Amendment could possibly be avoided. It is almost a truism that the First Amendment can never be voided using the argument that allowing a person to engage in free expression by taking a photograph of themselves doing something legal (i.e. it is legal to be unclothed in private) would result in self-victimization.
In any event, there is a fascinating First Amendment issue here.
I have an ongoing debate with my father (a lawyer.) I believe that the primary job of the politicians is the creation and maintenance of the law. When they write stupid or unenforceable laws, they should have to pay a fine for it. My father feels that the average tax-payer should have to bankrupt himself (and enrich lawyers) to have the courts determine the "nuances" and what the laws really mean.
Common sense, unfortunately, is no longer common.
One of the details which mess it up is that it is a foster child. It certainly shouldn't have gone public--public information has been perverted into this kind of mess. A private meeting with a magistrate is in order (because of the foster status of the child). Possibly a transfer to a private girl's school is in order as well. She labelled herself a slut--something which is not overcome in high school.
On a related note, PROTECT Act used to prosecute manga collector
"PROTECT" stands for Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today
Yes, clearly that's crazy talk. Children must remain in the Skinner box of the education system, to be socialized for the Common Good, right? ::sarcasm::
Jason Clock is Jason Clockpolk, according to the profile.Did you mean Peter Chung? He's the guy who created Aeon Flux (the one that was on MTV's Liquid Television, not the one with Charlize Theron), and did character designs for Phantom 2040 and Alexander Senki.
uhm.. i dont even think there should be any serious punishment.. ok.. she must have some problem as she is 'flooding' around with nude pictures of herself, but thats more a problem of education her parents gave her one would expect :/
i mean.. what went wrong in case someone is throwing away this what some would call "self-respect" :/
the lawsuit however ist redicouless ;)
People who worry about the sexualizing of fifteen year olds should worry instead about the criminalizing of them. One of these things is clearly worse than the other; there are priorities in need of adjusting here.
When I was a teenager, it would never have occurred to me to take nude photos of myself, much less circulate them. It's the latter I'd have found appalling; once they're out there, you have no control.
Zuzu, Noen: you're free to get up each other's noses, but I want you both to tone down the language in which you're doing it.
Buddy66 @33, the twist in logic took me by surprise, and made me I laugh so hard I nearly did myself an injury.
Crash1105 @61, please don't use all-caps.
#83 Takuan:
nothing like nudity to cure an obsession with nudity.
That's the damn truth. After spending much of a summer at a nude beach I even lost interest in myself.
http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~rejs/carmlyr.html#track15
I always liked the In taberna quando sumus section.
figures (hic!)
if nothing else good comes of this thread, let just the remonstration be to parents to educate and train their children in the wise of net-self and meat-self. It is a new time and new ways are needed.
Folk ways taught the power of True Names and the need to burn hair clippings and nail parings lest they fall in the hands of hostile shamans. Nothing has changed.
goodnight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt7htnE1s4o&feature=related
Perhaps the victim of the crime can plead for leniency on the part of the perpetrator.
Late to the party as usual...
I grew up in the sixties and seventies. All known sexually transmitted diseases were trivially curable (until Hong Kong Mary came back from Viet Nam). Condoms could be purchased from vending machines in all-night diners but were unpopular because The Pill was available from your family doctor (if your mother agreed, or from the local Dr. Feelgood if not).
If you're upset that a 15 year old would take nude pictures of herself (in an age where food processing has lowered the onset of puberty to around 9 years old) you really, really, really don't want to know what 15 year old kids were getting up to in 1975.
--Charlie
This law reminds me of the Perry Bible Fellowship comic "Kitty Photographer" http://pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF215-Kitty_Photographer.jpg
(
@68 zuzu
no, 15 isn;t a normal age
Just because you're proud of losing your virginity at a young age doesn't make it normal. Sort it out for yourself instead of trying to project your feelings on someone else's reality. I detect some repressed shame in your constant revisiting this event in your life.
I am a big Aeon Flux fan, having seen all of the LTV shorts as well as the standalone series. No, they are not normal people. And they do not have normal sex lives (except by your own whimsical interpretation of "normal", which is also not normal according to DSM-IV (not my opinion))
Actually, Bob, in Canada the average age of loss of virginity is 16.5. Not so far off of 15, no?
See: http://www.sexualityandu.ca/teachers/data-1.aspx
Also 21% of kids in Grade 9 (aged 14) have had sex at least once.
(I believe in the US the average age is 14.9, regardless of abstinence-only education, but I couldn't find a reference.)
does this remind anyone of the Star Simpson debacle? A perhaps not-very-wise action on the part of a young woman who gets stomped on by all the powers of the law?