Sarah Palin’s atheist bikini
posted at 6:04 pm on April 13, 2009 by The Other McCain
Allahpundit’s been using atheism and Sarah Palin as traffic generators, and I’m the guy that pulled 250K visits in September by titling a post “Sarah Palin bikini pics,” so why not try to start out with a bang?
Just so you don’t feel you got nothing out of this test post, however, via Hot Air Headlines comes this bizarre story from Vermont:
The Vermont Legislature is considering a bill that would legalize so-called “sexting” between teenagers.
Sexting refers to the exchange of explicit photos and videos via mobile phone. Under current laws, participants can be charged with child pornography, but lawmakers are considering a bill to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime.
Supporters told The Burlington Free Press they don’t want to condone the behavior but they don’t think teenagers should be prosecuted as sex offenders for consensual conduct.
Further thoughts on the slow slide down the slippery slope at The Other McCain.
UPDATE: Headlined! Wow, thanks. I feel as happy as Susan Boyle!
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 »
This was not the post I expected.
Repurblican on April 13, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Well, a guy’s got to try something to get people to click the link, eh? If a blog post fell in the forest . . .
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Sometimes it is impossible to understand what political folks use for brains. Of course they shouldn’t pass it. They are children. I do know that way too many parents don’t think it is much of a crime either. I am sure that unless there were some sort of eye opening penalty the parents would just shrug it off. Makes you wonder what the parents are using for brains also.
BetseyRoss on April 13, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Betsey, if you’ve studied how this happened, it began about 50 years ago when England adopted the “consenting adults” standard on sex crimes, thereby overturning many centuries of Common Law precedents. Sooner or later, it was inevitable that radicals would start saying, “Uh, what do you mean by ‘consenting’?” and “How do you define ‘adult’?”
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 6:16 PM
You’ve heard it said that you can’t legislate morality. Well, you can’t legislate intelligence either.
jimmy2shoes on April 13, 2009 at 6:26 PM
This is one of the reasons I will not be getting my children cell phones until college. If they need one while out, they will use mom’s.
deidre on April 13, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Good. The sex laws in this country are getting out of hand in trying to demonize children for the rest of their lives, and the state needs to stop trying to intervene where the parents should be taking action.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Nothing else need be said. Excellent comment.
hawkdriver on April 13, 2009 at 6:44 PM
Television, Hollywood, and The Public School System.
- The Cat
MirCat on April 13, 2009 at 7:06 PM
So you’re saying that if I beat a teenage boy into a coma for harassing my daughter, that should be legal?
(Uh, hypothetical there.)
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 7:17 PM
…it would probably be one of mine.
steveegg on April 13, 2009 at 7:21 PM
Hyperbole much? When adults assaulted kids, they were always punished. Kids weren’t given criminal records for checking out each others’ private parts. The parents should be watching what their kids are doing, NOT the state.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 7:23 PM
I believe Mad was saying the parent should be taking action on their own children.
Being the father of a 5 year old girl, I fortunately have not had to face this kind of stuff yet, but I am very fearful of when that day will come.
And while I can truly empathize with your hypothetical there, remember your right to throw a punch ends at the other man’s nose.
ArkCon on April 13, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Mr. McCain,
Do you have a link to your fairly recent blog post that included ‘I, Pencil’? It was a lengthy post that I got to via Ace’s site. It was an excellent read, and I meant to bookmark it for future reading but neglected to. I haven’t been able to locate it since. Thanks.
BadgerHawk on April 13, 2009 at 7:37 PM
Huh? A 16 year old who does something stupid (as 16 year olds are prone to) and sends a nude picture to her boyfriend deserves to be hit with a sex offender and felon? Really?
Not everything that might be deemed immoral needs to be addressed through legislation. This is simply correcting an unforseen consequence of child pornography laws designed to protect minors from sexual exploitation by adults- not a couple of stupid teenagers engaged in the modern equivalent of “playing doctor”.
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Oops- should read: “hit with a felony sex offender charge”
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I think you mean, “‘Kooks,’ Blue-State Republicans, Rick Moran, and the Messaging Problem.”
You can’t go wrong with “I, Pencil.” One of the finest little essays ever written. BTW, I was somewhat unfair to Rick Moran in that post, but it wasn’t really about Rick Moran, rather about the primacy of free-market/small-government principles in the conservative worldview.
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 8:00 PM
I’ve been a teenager for the last 7 or so years, and I’ve never received a “sext.” I think the whole controversy is ridiculous and overblown, and we should cease discussing it at all. Its absurd.
jimmy the notable on April 13, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Careful McCain , some combinations of words can bring down the internet.
the_nile on April 13, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Hollowpoint, you raise several issues that must be disentangled and examined separately. Just to start with, potential problems of Megan’s Law and sex-offender registries, on the one hand, and the wisdom of creating a special “just-between-us-kids” loophole in child pornography laws, on the other.
As a parent, I’m generally opposed to a policy of leniency with kids. While you don’t want to ruin a kid’s life over a stupid prank when they’re 15, you also can’t tolerate criminal misconduct by teenagers because “they’re just kids.” We’ve seen how inner-city drug gangs, for example, use minors in their operations.
There is no one-size-fits-all answer.
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Absolutely — if some 18 year old wants to take a dip into a 13-year old, Vermont is right at the forefront of permissiveness. The 18 year old sexts his picture over, and in return he gets… In fact, why stop at 13, for what’s the difference between a 12 year old and a 13 year old — other than a year?
And we all know that kids can be trusted not to show these photos around, right?
After all, freedom is being able to do what you want to do whenever you want to do it, no matter how old you are.
unclesmrgol on April 13, 2009 at 8:06 PM
Would have been a damn site easier to simply not prosecute kids for sexting, wouldn’t it?
It’s kind of like going off the side of the road a little bit and instead of easing back onto the road, you jerk the wheel hard left, over-correcting and frickin’ wreck.
Tim Zank on April 13, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Agreed. But my ability to watch other people’s kids is limited, and it often happens that innocent children suffer because of wrongdoing committed by the offspring of negligent parents.
Crime does not occur in a vacuum. You don’t have to go to the “root causes” excuse to see that, in an environment where minor infractions of justice carry no substantial penalty, one is likely to see an increase in major injustices. If children believe they can get away with murder, no one is safe.
As I discussed with Hollowpoint, the issue is complex, but the “what’s-a-little-porn-between-kids” loophole looks like an invitation to trouble.
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 8:12 PM
someone sure knows how to get us clicking on a headline
Drunk Report on April 13, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Good post, Mc.
blatantblue on April 13, 2009 at 8:18 PM
What is a “Vermont”?
vinman on April 13, 2009 at 8:18 PM
Horny + technology = stupidity.
One of the oldest unvarying equations in history.
profitsbeard on April 13, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Why is sexting necessarily a felony and why be placed on an offender registry? Can it still be illegal without those specific penalties attached?
ConstantSorrow on April 13, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Then you bring the issue to the other parents.
Honestly, what is galling to me is that people are acting like just because the technology has changed, that the methods of dealing with confronting it have to change somehow. They don’t. You check your kid’s phone. If they have naked pictures of someone else on there, you track down the person. If it’s a kid, you confront the kid’s parents. If it’s not a kid, call the cops.
…but if the guy was 17, then it’s just fine, right?
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 8:24 PM
One acquires blog-fu by studying at the feet of the masters, and Allah didn’t get to be Allah because he didn’t know how to sling the fu.
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 8:25 PM
That’s the one. Thanks. And don’t feel bad, you can never be too rough on Moran.
BadgerHawk on April 13, 2009 at 8:27 PM
MadCon,
By the time you find those nekkid pictures on your kid’s phone, it may be too late to protect your children from the consequences of their (adult) actions.
We may as well make it legal for kids to buy and sell porn at the corner store.
I too, am wary of people who yell “there oughtta be a law” at the first sign of trouble, yet this is a critical issue and it may require more thought than “oh well, they’re gonna do it anyway”.
ConstantSorrow on April 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM
The comparison to inner-city drug gangs was
a bitway over the top. A little common sense is in order here; hyperbole isn’t.Again- do we really need a law? As a parent you’d be OK with felony charges levelled against your kid for sending a nude cellphone picture of him/herself to someone? You don’t feel capable of dealing with this on your own without the intervention of law enforcement?
Stupid though sending nude pictures by teenagers may be, the only real victim is the perpetrator, assuming they weren’t coherced or exploited- and exploitation and/or cohersion (particularly by adults) is what the law was intended to address.
Also consider that two teenagers getting naked for each other in person is legal, but the moment one takes a picture, it’s a felony. Which would you rather have your kid involved in? Sending / recieving a nude picture of a friend, or catching them naked in a room together?
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 8:31 PM
posted at 6:04 pm on April 13, 2009 by The Other McCain
There is no need to mislead readers with a false headline
People visit subjects they are interested in.
Hits lose credibility if too many are supplied by the moderator
The subject I was interested was the name ‘McCain’
I satisfied my interest completely
entagor on April 13, 2009 at 8:42 PM
A “critical issue”? Really? How many of us weren’t “exposed” (almost always by choice) to some form of pornography or scenes of nudity before the age of 18? You can bet that my first glimpse of Playboy magazine came well before I was 18, a time well before the Internet era.
Two 16 year olds having sex when their parents aren’t home? Legal.
Same two 16 year olds send each other a nude picture of themselves? Felony.
Does that make any sense to you at all? Note that under the proposed law, distributing the photo to others remains illegal.
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 8:46 PM
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 8:46 PM
I’m not sure that you have read all of the posts on this thread, but I asked the question earlier,
If you wish to insist that I only address this specific state law, I must admit that I have not read the existing law or the proposed law. I kinda wanted to speak to the big-picture issue as opposed to the minutae.
ConstantSorrow on April 13, 2009 at 8:53 PM
That’s called “life” and “learning a lesson”. You can’t protect your kids from everything, and you’re not supposed to, unless you plan to have them grow up to be sheltered hermits, unready to deal with the world. The answer is to do the best YOU can, and not to have the government step in and take over.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Welcome! I’ve read some of your stuff elsewhere, and look forward to seeing what you have to say here.
cs89 on April 13, 2009 at 8:59 PM
And yes, the felony is over the top, but as others have noted the answer is parental supervision and less extreme legal remedies.
cs89 on April 13, 2009 at 9:00 PM
MadCon,
You make a good point, we can’t shelter our children from every danger.
ConstantSorrow on April 13, 2009 at 9:04 PM
Hey, no one ever said the law was supposed to be fair. Actually, I don’t care if it’s fair. I just like the idea of people’s horrible annoying children being thrown in jail for decades. Look, if it makes you feel better, give them conjugal visits and send those around via cell phone.
austinnelly on April 13, 2009 at 9:12 PM
Well said. There certainly should be a penalty to it in order to discourage it. But it’s not right to ruin a 14-year old’s life over a moment of stupidity.
Thinking (well typing) out loud here – keep the current sex offender laws on the books but add non-felony laws against sexting for minors. Allow for some discretion for prosecutors so they can take it relatively easy on juvenile mistakes but still come down hard on creeps who try to exploit this new fad.
P.S. The Other McCain – I just had to click the headline!
beancounter on April 13, 2009 at 9:12 PM
I suppose you could make it illegal but reduce the penalty to that of misdemeanor… but why a law at all?
What else need be made illegal if this is to be consistant or relevant? Two teens seeing each other naked in person? A teen seeing porn on the Internet? A teen seeing a nude painting in an art museum? Where do you stop with legislating morality?
And who exactly is the victim in such a scenario? The same person you’d see arrested?
Simple solution: Parents, pay attention to what your kids are doing. If someone else (a teacher for instance) comes across an inappropriate cellphone pic, call the parents. We don’t need a law to address every percieved slight against the ambiguous rules of morality.
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM
It’s been said that the best selling novels have either “Lincoln”, “doctor” or “dog” in the title. So someone wrote a book called “Lincoln’s Doctor’s Dog.”
Crusty on April 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM
What means are available to me to punish this behavior? How do family-services agencies in Vermont deal with parents who beat their kids? It’s a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t situation, where parents are prohibited from employing the most obvious form of discipline, yet the state refuses to provide effective substitute protection.
This is one of those is/ought questions that would take a 4,000-word essay to address properly.
The Other McCain on April 13, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Dude…
As a parent you’ve not figured out a way to discipline your children short of beating them or hauling them off to jail? Those are the only two options? Seriously?
Hollowpoint on April 13, 2009 at 9:20 PM
Truth Commissions……..
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 9:36 PM
Blast! I’ve just been Rickrolled.
bour3 on April 13, 2009 at 10:00 PM
Couldn’t have said it better. That’s a disturbingly defeatist attitude towards being a parent.
MadisonConservative on April 13, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »