Should “sexting” be a crime for kids?
posted at 12:38 pm on April 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Everyone agrees that child molestation and child pornography are despicable exploitations of innocent children, who cannot defend themselves against their adult exploiters. But what happens when the exploited is also the exploiter? States have begun to create laws about “sexting”, or more accurately, the transmission of self-created nude pictures of teens and preteens that would make them sex offenders. The ACLU objects:
Youths should not be treated like criminals for sending nude photos over cell phones or the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.
At a Columbus news conference, lawyers from the ACLU and Ohio State University said that no Ohioan has been convicted of a felony yet, but lives could be ruined if underage youths have to register as sex offenders for sharing nude or semi-nude photos or video.
Known as “sexting,” teenagers also have been charged with pandering obscene material and other pornography crimes for transmitting or posting photos on Internet sites like Facebook or MySpace.
The ACLU of Ohio urged officials to stop prosecuting juveniles, claiming that the damage from criminal trials far outweighs the act of sexting. They sent letters Thursday to all 88 Ohio county prosecutors and members of the Ohio General Assembly, urging them not to pursue criminal charges.
In my day, “sexting” was known by a different name: Polaroid. It took a little more ingenuity and slightly more investment, but teenagers who had the inclination would take pictures of themselves, or their sex partners would do it for them. They got passed around on occasion, too, although the new technology makes that a no-cost affair and a lot easier to accomplish.
The ACLU has a point here. Taking nude pictures of underaged teens exploits them, but if they’re exploiting themselves, prosecution winds up punishing both the perp and the victim. When boyfriends and girlfriends of the same age take the picture and then disseminate them, they may be heartless cads (we had a more blunt name for them in the Polaroid Age), but it’s difficult to put them in the same category as child pornographers for the act.
On the other hand, that seems to allow a Mack Truck-sized loophole for real exploiters of children. They could conceivably have them take their own pictures and send them via cell phone to whomever they desire. Possession of child pornography is a crime, and it may be difficult to differentiate on the basis of origination and transmission type.
Surely there can be some sort of middle ground here, where really stupid teenage acts can be deterred by threat of official sanction without resulting in sticking a lifetime sex-offender label on the sexters. Perhaps the age and identity of the perpetrators can trigger misdemeanors or infractions rather than felonies, and prosecutors and judges be given latitude for discretion. We want to protect the powerless, not destroy their lives.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
There’s an easy solution, if you’re under 18 and have “child pornography” of another teenager, you don’t deserve Chris Hansen asking you to have a seat.
John_Locke on April 6, 2009 at 12:43 PM
Eliminate the the technology that allows this and the problem will revert back to Polaroids, which would be difficult at best for the teenager of today to accomplish.
Why does anyone NEED a cell phone with a camera in it anyway?
Viper1 on April 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM
the ACLU can go screw themselves… this activity comes with consequences… age of reason is usually after age 7. Have them pay the price, now does that price have to be prison?… maybe not… but fining them or the parents is totally acceptable in my mind. Stop putting kids on pedestals to protect them from consequence.
MNDavenotPC on April 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM
If the ACLU is for it, there must be good reasons for patriots to oppose it. Howsabout the possession of photographs of pubescent and post-pubescent minors, nude or partially nude, is illegal. Doesn’t matter who possesses them.
Simple, easy to understand, and surely to be opposed by the ACLU and other morons.
Akzed on April 6, 2009 at 12:45 PM
yep. it underscores the frivolous nature of most laws regarding high-tech. let them prosecute to the full extent of the law, until they realize that the way they go about assessing criminal activity and proof of guilt is backwards…i say we prosecute to the full extent. lockemup.
ernesto on April 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Yeah, it should. The threat of prosecution is sometimes the only thing that will get a teenager to pay attention. I have personal experience with this.
rockmom on April 6, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Classifying a 12 or 13 year old as a sex offender, which will follow them for life, is a touch extreme dontcha think
Viper1 on April 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM
I agree. Whatever happened to stigma?
Vashta.Nerada on April 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM
How about having their parents beat them senseless until they learn their lesson? That is what would have happened 20 years ago.
federale86 on April 6, 2009 at 12:47 PM
I don’t know that it should qualify as full fledged child pornography but IMO it waters down the ability to find adults guilty of child pornography. If little Susue is sending porno pics of herself to little Johnnie and he’s a cad who circulates them to a few dozen of his friends, you know someone’s going to post them where the pervs are.
Kids have no class because we allow it – there are consequences for actions.
katiejane on April 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM
The problem (as always) with our laws around “protecting” children from sexual abuse is that we are unwilling to recognize that at a certain point, biologically, chemicals flood our bodies and we become sexual beings. Emotionally we may not be ready for the difficulties of love and loss, but physically we’re mature. That point happens before the arbitrary standard of 18 for 99% of human beings and there’s this wierd middle ground between 15 (previously an acceptable marrying age) and 18. There’s a whole catagory of people, 19yo who have sex with 17yo for example who have been labelled “sex offenders” because we wilfully pretend that the difference between a 17year old and a 18 year old consenting to sex is the same as when a 7 year old and an 18 year old consents to sex.
And ONCE again, these laws take time and effort away from the solution to the number one cause of actual child molestation and abuse, close relatives/friends gaining access to children and exploiting the trust of the parents.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM
Don’t give your kids camera phones, just phone phones.
They have enough excessive and vapid gadgetism already.
Underage actors in this crude nonsense, who are only sending to their friends, should be treated as the idiots they are and make to wash bathrooms and clean up parks for punishment, not penalized for life like John Wayne Gacey types.
profitsbeard on April 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Alternatively: raise your kids better so that they don’t do this and/or don’t buy them a cell phone.
But no, we need MOAR LAWS! Your state legislature must look busy! For the children!
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Ban camera cell phones for minors… but there’s still digital camera’s and webcams… its a losing battle either way you try to fight it (allow it vs keep it illegal). Probably keep the law as is and do enforcement on a case by case basis
El_Terrible on April 6, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Juvie records go away at 18, no? Or should we just not charge any children with crimes, evah?
Akzed on April 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Um, how about taking the camera phones away? Not real sophisticated, but seems to me it would do the trick.
Or would that hurt their precious little self-esteem?
av8tr on April 6, 2009 at 12:52 PM
And ONCE again, these laws take time and effort away from the solution to the number one cause of actual child molestation and abuse, close relatives/friends gaining access to children and exploiting the trust of the parents.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 6, 2009 at 12:49 PM
What about Roger Mahoney????
RealDemocrat on April 6, 2009 at 12:53 PM
I think we are getting to a consensus here… Ban or take away camera phones right? Should it be by the parents or by more laws?
El_Terrible on April 6, 2009 at 12:54 PM
I am the mother of 4 teens. Kids do the darnedest things. Many teenagers are adults in age and in college,although they may not have adult mentalities. I say go with the under over on the existing state statutory ages. Most states have 15-18 and up are considered adults under statutory laws. Anyone over the age of 18 found in possession of sexts portraying anyone under 18 should have a possession of porn charge.Ps what are you going to do with the teenage boys who have pictures of the naked female college coeds on their phones? Um Ahem???
canditaylor68 on April 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Exactly, Viper.
Some brain-dead 13 year old ~ who ISN’T excluded from breeding, remember ~ sending off a picture of herself to all her brain-dead friends, be it because she really thinks it’s cool or because of some twisted social pressure to do so, does not deserve to have to worry about where she’s going to live (when she finally leaves home) because she’s a registered sex offender.
THAT’S obscene.
People have lost their frickin’ minds.
tree hugging sister on April 6, 2009 at 12:56 PM
I cannot help thinking that I grew up in the wrong age.
Kini on April 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM
It’s called judicial restraint, something the courts and prosecutors’ offices kind of forgot along time ago.
amkun on April 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM
No.
The laws regarding children and sexuality have become a joke, and not a funny one. They treat these matters in draconian and insane ways. This should be dealt with by parents and not by the state.
MadisonConservative on April 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM
So, I haven’t read through the comments yet. But, as a mom with two littles, I’ve thought about how I will deal with tech when the time comes. And, here’s the score:
let’s say the technology is the same in about ten years. Not only are they docking the cell phones (if they even have them at all) when they come inside, they will know that the cell phone is MY PROPERTY. Until they leave the home and pay their own rent/college/etc., it is my possession and I reserve the right to use it and check it out at any time. It will be in my hands most the time.
If technology does move forward dramatically, I will be the parent who says, “No, Luke, we will not be implanting chips in your skin. I don’t care WHAT your friends have. “
Mommypundit on April 6, 2009 at 12:58 PM
My point is, NO MORE FREAKING LAWS. Take the phones away. Good grief. are cell phones a right now days?
Mommypundit on April 6, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Que sera sera.
We reap what we sow. Ideas have consequences.
Parents who allow their children to access adult privileges without requiring adult responsibilities get what they get. I hate that millions of children are being ruined by a lack of quality parenting — those very people who are supposed to protect and guide them. But sometimes life lessons are learned in the school of hard knocks.
Let’s not forget that these parents are products of the Woodstock generation, a couple times over by now. Cause and effect. Does no one else get this?
PrincipledPilgrim on April 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Oh dear, did you miss this HotAir headline story?
Skandia Recluse on April 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Just because your kid’s phone can’t take pictures, doesn’t mean he can’t get naked pictures via email from his friends.
rockmom on April 6, 2009 at 1:02 PM
No way should “sexting” be considered a crime, unless of course it can be proven that an inappropriate pic was surreptitiously taken and sent to multiple parties without consent/knowledge of victim…. If your kid can’t stop taking pix of his privates, smack him upside the head and take the cell phone back…lesson will be learned…
RepubChica on April 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Oh, and might I add, that the people who should be enforcing against this are called PARENTS. I know this is a term alien to the government when not associated with itself, so I’d just like to remind them that “parents” (not the self-styled ones in the federal government) are the ones who brought the children into the world and are the only ones who have any right to “protect the children” in the leftist/fascist sense.
amkun on April 6, 2009 at 1:03 PM
The police, in sanctuary cities, in California, have absolutely NO PROBLEM with 28-year-old Illegal Alien men, screwing 14-year-old Illegal Alien and Anchor Baby heinas. So it should be okay if the girl sends some pictures of herself to Paco, shouldn’t it be okay?????
RealDemocrat on April 6, 2009 at 1:04 PM
crime, yep.
Before we go off on how terrible it is to ruin a kid’s life and this is natural crap let’s remember they won’t have a thing on their records after 21 anyway. So ‘crimes” for minors is imply a way to teach a child when it’s clear the parents don’t give a shit.
BTW: Passing Polaroids around is just as bad. This is one of the real problems I have with people. Stupid is not and should never be a license for more stupid. Don’t change society to validate your stupid behavior.
Rocks on April 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Excellent point…
RepubChica on April 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM
and O’reilleys head explodes
ThackerAgency on April 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Mommypundit,
You’re on the right track. Even the ‘best” kids will submit to temptation. Like mine.
I have 8 kids, 4 teens (2 male, 2 female). Several months ago, during an impromptu check of my oldest’s phone, I found porn. Good kid, 17, heavily involved at church. I trusted him and gave him much latitude. He abused it. I busted him to a simple phone only plan, no text or internet. They all turn in their phones every day and are subjected to random examinations.
av8tr on April 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Here’s a thought- TEACH THEM TO KEEP THEIR CLOTHES ON!!!
By God- I know the Aging Commie Lawyers Union is attempting to “strike down” morality- BUT have PARENTS also done away with it??
And yes I do have children (21,20, and 11) with camera phones and I GUARANTEE you the would never take pics like this.
ExTex on April 6, 2009 at 1:05 PM
If you’re not already, you are going to make a great mother.
thomasaur on April 6, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Some really trashy blonde bimbos came along a few years ago and got famous off of home-made x-rated vids of themselves. They were admired by tweens who wanted to emulate them.
One of those blonde bimbos is still famous to this day and some *ahem* people still love her.
When something becomes acceptable in society, and even glamorized, the stigma disappears. Sad.
yellow_railroad on April 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM
We’ve lost all semblance of common sense when it comes to teens and sex.
Charging some 15 year old girl with a sex crime for sending a pic of her boobs to her boyfriend? What planet are these people on?
Stupid kids will do stupid things, as we all did. They’ll learn from their mistakes, as we all did, and adjust accordingly. I fail to see how having “sex offender” hanging over your head for decades will be conducive to healthy emotional/social development.
CTD on April 6, 2009 at 1:08 PM
It is perhaps the hardest lesson that I had to learn as a parent-the more you try to stop your child from getting to something,the harder they try to get to it. Our highschool once put up firewalls to keep the kids from certain sites on the internet,until my kid who is in the “academy” for computer programming came home and showed me something called 2 girls and a cup. OMG. He learned how to break firewalls in school. Forbidden fruit spreads a seductive scent. Lets work with parental rules and keep the government out of parenting. Just look at what a fine job the government has done parenting so far/sarc.
canditaylor68 on April 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I know I’m going to catch flack… but…
The problem with this whole thing is the unrealistic idea that pre 18 you can’t be a sexual creature, when a day later you can.
God, or Evolution (whatever you believe), programed us to become sexualy active at puberty… yet our laws and some members of our society don’t like that… and so created laws which attempt to contradict our nature… instead of acknowledging them and teaching RESPONSIBILITY.
IMO you can teach moral behaviour… but attempting to legislate it, without the teaching, is a recipie for failure.
And its NOT the Governments role, to teach Moral Behaviour.
The problem is the legal distinction between “underage” and adult, and the unrealistic artificial distinction the law makes.
Romeo13 on April 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM
They should be charged with child porn because it is child porn.
They should not have the sex offender status the rest of their lives though, that is crazy.
Joe Caps on April 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM
I cannot help thinking that I grew up in the wrong age.
Kini on April 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Console yourself with the knowledge that most of these kids have never climbed a tree…
max1 on April 6, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Roger Mahoney runs a CHILD SEX RING out of the L.A. Archdiocese, and with the approval of all racist mexican politicians and catholics in the area. These are all lousy people!!!!
RealDemocrat on April 6, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Or run through the neighborhood with the other kids until it was dark, because kids didn’t disappear in those days.
Vashta.Nerada on April 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Wow this sounds like an AP post. Perhaps you don’t lock them up and throw away the key, but you make it so consequential that other kids aren’t willing to risk stupid behavior. And normally, anything that the ACLU stands for is against the morality and heritage of our country. So tell me again, why we should side with them?
Christian Conservative on April 6, 2009 at 1:14 PM
The Obama plan will be:
Attack the cell phone companies for their reckless business practices. Fire the CEO of Motorola. The new CEO will, at the behest of the “cell czar”, eliminate all camera phones, replacing them instead with 2 product lines. 1 of cell phones, and 1 of portable web-enabled cameras. A database of all images from the web enabled cameras will be created, and the government would review all images and their recipients to ensure their uses are “fair”. Both phones and cameras will be distributed to all poor children in the US, at taxpayer expense, with a $150,000 single/$300,000 couple threshold.
That covers all the bases, doesn’t it?
hawksruleva on April 6, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Jail … Everyone!!!!
Observation on April 6, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Age of consent varies by state, and most are below 18 with many allowing an exception for short gap (15 and 17, 14 and 16, etc.).
So there are only a few states where your scenario can even be true, and that’s a problem with those states, not with what “we” pretend.
That said, I do believe there should be a difference between having sex with a 7-year-old and a 15-year-old but not just for other teens. If we’re to decide that 15-year-olds can make the decision to take a nude picture of themselves and send it to others, then that’s the law, not that they can so long as it isn’t being used by someone over 20.
Esthier on April 6, 2009 at 1:18 PM
I think you’re doing such a good job, based on this. I can’t imagine how tough it must be to have FOUR teens in this culture, all at one time! You are right about kids…it’s human nature. Doesn’t make it right, by any means, but (as a Christian) sin is sin and they will find a way just like all of us do to do it. What our charge is as parents is to be good stewards of them while they are in our care. It’s so hard to remain objective and not get too emotional about discipline though…wow.
Good job, though!
(For the record, my parents raised me well and in church, etc., and I rebelled greatly. I’m back, though! By God’s grace!)
Mommypundit on April 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Wait wait, if a teen is taking pictures and sends it to someone over 18, then they need to be charged. The law enforcement people would automatically, no ifs, ands, or buts. If they do get caught with a teen’s self-portrait, they are going to jail. So if that is the case, then the girl needs to go up for just as long if not longer.
I’m tired of double standards in society.
When I was a teacher, an employ at the school had let a student use their computer. The student DLed a few naked photos he took of his GF to the computer. The employee didn’t even know the pictures were on there. When they were discovered he was immediately fired and the police contacted. I was out of teaching before the issue was resolved, but the issue was that the kid got a slap on the wrist for the pictures. He was given 2 days in-school suspension for what was legally child pornography.
Either open it up to anyone having the free-will/self-portrait defense or enforce it for all, even the children.
Tim Burton on April 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM
My momma always told me- “Do NOT embarass your family by behaving stupidly in PUBLIC”
The old “don’t do or say anything” that you don’t want your Daddy seein’ on the front page of the newspaper” works REAL well when your children KNOW that you mean it. My child would have LOST his phone- completely.
But then, I only allow ONE computer in my home and it’s RIGHT OUT IN THE OPEN. If my kids changed the screen in any way when I entered the room- They were grounded- no explanations allowed. They got real good at throwin’ their hands in the air when they heard me coming- just to avoid accidents.
I also don’t believe that a child has a “right to privacy” in my home. Sorry son- it’s my job to know all there is to know about you and what you’re doin’. Everything in my house belongs to me and is under my supervision.
Were my kids perfect- hell, no. And they always handled punishment like pros. But “actions have consequences” is HUGE in my house.
That is how I was raised and I’m grateful for it. My older children have thanked me many times for bein’ the tough parent and both said they intend to raise their kids the same way.
ExTex on April 6, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Keep in mind, Mark Leno, along with the ACLU, advocate felony pedophiles have a constututional right to keep up to 5000 images of child pornography on their computers. To see who Mark Leno is, watch the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z337gAQ0Adk
RealDemocrat on April 6, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Can we please have more class than the Loonies on the Left? I’m no PC cop, but come on, those girls are 10 and 7 respectively…that’s not right.
RepubChica on April 6, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Exactly, and Stossel points out that there are people who’s lives are ruined by the AoC.
Tim Burton on April 6, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Kids who don’t want these pictures ARE victims.
True Story: My 14 year-old daughter has two best friends. They have all been friends since they were babies. Her two friends fight with each other not so much with her. They fight over my daughter sometimes.
Friend 1 had a birthday party. Friend 2 was mad at her and didn’t want to go to the party so she told my daughter to tell her she wouldn’t be there. At the party Friend 1 was very hurt and sent a mean text (from my daughter’s phone for some reason) to Friend 2 saying that.
Friend 1 who was with another wilder group of friends that night sent a “Birthday present” to Friend 1 on my daughter’s phone.
It was naked pictures of a boy at school that they all knew, but not well. One was a close-up of the boy’s genitals. My daughter opened the pictures and was shocked and embarrassed, she quickly erased them (no evidence).
Friend 1 was devastated on her birthday… They first told Friend 1′s older sister (20 years old) The sister tried to talk to Friend 2s mother… Of course it blew up into huge fight… accusations, no proof…
It really did feel like an assault of some kind. Those pictures were meant as a mean act. It seems very much like flashing. And that is against the law.
I don’t know if laws are what is needed or what. But the way things are is a bad situation.
petunia on April 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Please leave Obama’s daughters out of this discussion. This has nothing to do with them, or him either, for that matter.
Ed Morrissey on April 6, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Can we please have more class than the Loonies on the Left? I’m no PC cop, but come on, those girls are 10 and 7 respectively…that’s not right.
RepubChica on April 6, 2009 at 1:23 PM
They deserve the same treatment that TOTUS decreed towards the Palin kids, and they’re gonna get it, no matter how much it angers the effeminate sissy-boy POTUS. Fair enough?
RealDemocrat on April 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I wonder about your obsession with these two innocent children? You’re scum, but that’s allowed around these parts.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Idiot
DarkCurrent on April 6, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Yes, this should be illegal. Think about the bigger picture. This is not about what some kid can or can’t do with their body, this is about the prevention of future exploitation of children.
If a child can send out nude pictures of themselves without it being a crime, then soon the peddlers of child porn will exploit this loop hole. The same way drug dealers used to use children as their drug “mules” because frisking a kid was frowned upon as too invasive.
Child porn peddlers will get kids to send images of themselves to others and will face no punishment for doing so. A kid to distributes or possesses these pictures is holding child porn and a 0 tolerance policy must be taken with this.
We don’t let kids drink, smoke, work or in some areas stay out past a certain time. In some school districts dodgeball is banned and junk food is confiscated, so why not their own personal child porn?
If a teen is caught hacking into a website, he loses his computer rights. A similar measure should be taken here where they lose their rights to a cell phone.
Daemonocracy on April 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM
What you say here is truly profound and insightful. A female under 18 can get an abortion without parental consent, the government says its her body…
canditaylor68 on April 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM
Some of these comments are ridiculous. A lot of people wonder why social conservatives are caricaturized as only caring about what goes on in other peoples’ bedrooms. Apparently, it’s true.
Some of you guys are talking about classifying kids as sex offenders because they took a photo of themselves. Then you complain that the federal government takes over banks and fires CEOs, never minding that a society that gives up parental control of its kids over to the government is in a whole lot deeper than a state-owned economy. Ridiculous.
amkun on April 6, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Gets even scarier when you realize that you may have no idea how old the person in that picture is…
17? 18? 20? Heck, some of my now 18 year old daughters friends looked and dressed like they were in their mid 20s (makeup can do weird things…).
Heck, the Girls Gone Wild guy got sued even after he made them sign Forms stating they were all over 18! And they WON.
Romeo13 on April 6, 2009 at 1:32 PM
It’s only her body in regard to reproduction rights, not merchandizing rights.
katiejane on April 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM
You say that like it’s sensible. It’s not. It’s the state taking away, piece by piece, the role of parents in upbringing their children. Your children.
MadisonConservative on April 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM
Don’t argue with the guy who runs the site. Shut the hell up with your demented crap.
MadisonConservative on April 6, 2009 at 1:34 PM
“Possession” of child pornography was coined before the digital age. Anyone can send me an email or a picture to my mobile phone. Sorry, that is not possession, prosecutor dude. If I can tell who sent it I may alert the authorities, but probably not due to the holier-than-thou government prosecutors who would come after me for “possession”. If I decide to send it on to someone then that is another issue. Simple!
yubley on April 6, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Oh, hey, you’re DfDeportation under a new name after getting banned. Buh-bye.
Ed Morrissey on April 6, 2009 at 1:37 PM
This is where parenting comes in. You don’t have to use criminal penalties to scare your kids, the notion of a 50 year old sicko (make reference to grandpa even) masturbating to their picture is enough to make young folks think twice (it would’ve worked on me). But ultimately I’m a little bit concerned about us also going the route of criminalizing jerking off.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 6, 2009 at 1:37 PM
What defines child porn? I mean if an 18 year old has images of a sixteen year old… that might not be so bad in that context.
However if someone say… 35… has images of a 16 year old, that would be bad. Perhaps their should be an exclusion for high school kids. As a senior, having a picture of a freshman isn’t a big deal, but the day you graduate or go to college, it becomes a crime.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM
ExTex,
I hear ya. Mommy, too. It’s a journey, huh?
So often I hear my dad when I speak. Maybe because he was right so often. But it’s all learning for us all – 24/7. Any parent who thinks they’ve got it all going on is only fooling themselves. They sure aren’t fooling their kids.
I think that our kids want to listen, to obey, and to have some structure, some boundaries. When we parents don’t define those things, our kids will help teach us where they are, by searching for them. We can’t know them all.
Technology has changed a lot of things regarding what our jobs as parents are now, compared to what our parents dealt with. ExTex, you’re right on the money. There have to be consequences. And while schools are having a difficult time teaching them, we must. They’re our kids. We are the ones with so much invested in them and nobody – nobody - will love them like we do. Simple as that.
Laws, or no laws, we need to do the policing ourselves. We need to be our kids parents before we’re their friends.
av8tr on April 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM
What you say is true but the line becomes blurred. The quickness and carelessness in which the laws are passed leave the defining regulatory language in question. This becomes a loophole that can be used to force legislation from the bench…
Nothing done by the government is ever done on a small scale.
canditaylor68 on April 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM
If it wasn’t for the lifelong sex offernder registry for child porn offenses, I wouldn’t be so against charging a 14 year old for being stupid, but it shouldn’t follow him/her for life just because they were stupid and made use of a camera phone.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 6, 2009 at 1:40 PM
This is a great argument for that strange, obscure term known as prosecutorial discretion. What kind of cold hearted b@st@rd nails a 16 year old for nude pictures they took of themselves? At 16 years of age, depending on the charge, many if not most serious felonies are tried in adult court, and receive adults sentences. So these kids are going to spend the rest of their lives being unable to visit their kids’ graduation ceremonies, first communion, soccer games, recitals, etc. They’ll forever be marked with the same vile brush that is used by NAMBLA types and other child molesting bottom feeding pieces of excrement.
john bono on April 6, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Im of the thinking that young teens do not need cell phones…nor do kids younger than 10. I didnt buy mine one…she bought her own when she got a job.
I dont agree with charging them like this but I do think parents need to supervise their children. Mine had time limits on the pc and I checked up on any online blog she had. She complained and her friends teased her, but 1 time I found a pic on her myspace of her in her bra, she was 17. I made her delete the page and lectured her about the dangers of posting pics online. Why arent other parents doing that?
becki51758 on April 6, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Applause!
canditaylor68 on April 6, 2009 at 1:43 PM
BTW, think about it this way,
If a 16 year old kid holds up a liquor store, steals a car, or deals crystal meth, the consequences will be less severe than taking a nude picture of themselves.
john bono on April 6, 2009 at 1:44 PM
If your children are taking photos of their genitalia and sending them to others, you have a much bigger problem than camera phones. Limiting access to camera phones will not restore morality to those who never learned it.
Again we focus on the tool rather than the problem.
SKYFOX on April 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Cell phone companies should offer software that blocks the sending or uploading pictures without a parental password. That way the parent can prevent their children’s compromising pictures making to the Internet.
Christina_M on April 6, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Or worse, receiving an unrequested photo, and not deleting it fast enough.
Vashta.Nerada on April 6, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Not necessarily. Just because it’s a nude picture of an underage girl/boy doesn’t make it child porn. That’s why you can go in most bookstores today and pick up books that contain nude pics of children.
These sex laws are a joke for the most part anyway. Little Susie the 15 year old can let the football team pull a train on her Friday night after the game, but if she has sex with her 19 year old boyfriend on Saturday night, he can go to prison for exploiting this poor, innocent little girl, lol. It’s a joke, and not a very funny one.
xblade on April 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Maybe its time to rethink these registries. I’m pretty sure that one of the things that defines our criminal justice system is that we don’t have life imprisonment for all crime. The notion is that an (arbitrarily) determined time behind bars is your “debt” to society and once you pay it your allowed out. Then we started stripping away rights from felons, made it impossible for them to find a job and made it so much harder to meet the conditions of probation/parole in order to keep folks in the system longer. The sex offender registry is merely the end point of these kinds of policies meant to ensure that criminals receive perpetual punishment without the cost of keeping them behind bars. It’s easy to cheer and rah rah the sex offender registry at first, no one likes sex offenders. But all kinds of people get put on the list that shouldnt be including anyone who’s got an indecent exposure charge for streaking, or statutory rape or some other questionably marginal offense. It’s really not right.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 6, 2009 at 1:47 PM
The problem is that people are inherantly stupid. You can stop a hormone driven teen from sending nude pictures of themselves any more than you can stop an a smoker from smoking.
Kids do stupid things, drunk kids do even stupider things.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on April 6, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Kids have always been curious about each others bodies. The schools and parents should police through existing disciplinary tools.
Law enforcement should only get involved when someone is the victim of a crime against them. The law should take into account age differences, and whether the photos were taken without consent.
Otherwise, as Andy Warhol almost said “In the future everyone will be naked on the Internet for 15 minutes”.
dedalus on April 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Should it be illegal? Yes. However, I do believe there is a distinction when you post your own photos. Should still be illegal, though.
Blake on April 6, 2009 at 1:52 PM
It amazes me how many tech toys kids are allowed to have, just because they exist. I am getting my 14 year old a phone and it will have no camera. It’s a way for him to get ahold of me when he’s not with me. Period.
More parents need to demand phone-only cell phones. Kids shouldn’t be given more than they can handle responsibly. I am sick of all the parents in my community being more concerned with their kids having the latest gadgets than with getting them age appropriate tools.
CTpatriotgirl on April 6, 2009 at 1:53 PM
The viral ability of porn pictures is enormous. My guess is there are many picts that a girl sent to a boyfriend who sent it to his friends and they to their friends and so on and so on and… Kids should be required to wear clothes in public. Including the public air waves. Kids don’t have the judgement to protect themselves.
petunia on April 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Hush, you! We don’t have time for common sense solutions! What are you, some kind of cold-hearted conservative or something? We need more laws and we need them NOW! Only the Government knows what’s good for us. All hail the Almighty Government!
/sarc
Vic on April 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM
A nation of porn-addicted youths has been created…God help us.
joepub on April 6, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Christ, let the kid pop a bone every now and then. Though I guess this kind of parenting is good for the rest of us who meet guys like this later in life and (once they get over it) are kinky as hell post massive repression and wierdness in younger life. If everyone were TOO healthy sexually then sex wouldn’t be as illicit and fun, still I’m glad I didn’t have to go through that.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 6, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Once you send out a picture it then belongs to the world.
petunia on April 6, 2009 at 1:56 PM
“My name’s not Shirley”
right2bright on April 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM
What about a wrong number? I have received text sent to the wrong number; does this make me guilty if this type of message is sent to me by mistake? How about using this to frame someone?
mad scientist on April 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Simple and excellent idea!
DarkCurrent on April 6, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Ummmm, who allows the children to have these phones?
This is what I mean by allowing children to have too much freedom — giving them adult privileges without adult responsibilities. They do make phones without cameras if you feel they absolutely need it. You can also withhold access to phones and lend it out when it is needed. Children do not NEED to carry phones with them all day, every day.
Parents, wake up… be responsible!
PrincipledPilgrim on April 6, 2009 at 1:58 PM
A registry is to warn other people that you are a potential danger, not a punishment.
If you change addresses you have 10 days to go down to your local police station and inform them. Not that hard to do. And as previously stated, it is for the protection of others, not the punishment of the sex offender.
Oh, yawn. There are ways to get off the registry. And, I recently learned, that if you are a lefty and connected you can get a slap on the hand sentence, have your probation terminated early, have your 5 felony convictions for sex with minors reduced to misdemeanors and dismissed,i.e., having the effect that they never occurred, have your name removed from the sex registry, and [drumroll] be readmitted to the state bar.
Blake on April 6, 2009 at 1:58 PM
So if my 17 year son gets drunk and runs over your spouse, both you and the police are going to just say “Kids do the dumbest things”
katiejane on April 6, 2009 at 1:58 PM
I can easily foresee an underage entrepreneur passing out underage pictures for money often with the free teaser. The kid coud have a stable of pics. And it would seem tough to craft a law allowing for the stupid kid to get away with “I’ll show you mine…” while the bad kid still gets charged. Don’t adult drug dealer use kids to sell drugs for similar reasons?
AnotherOpinion on April 6, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »