We had similar photos when we were kids, I was sad to delete them on my 18th birthday; but I was avoiding this very situation.

So everytime they look into the mirror, they're viewing child pornography...

I would like the law to explain to me how a 16yo teenager viewing another 17 year old teenager is perverse and detrimental to society to the point where these teens need to go to prison.

Legislating against teen sex again eh.
Any literary or historically inclined Farkers remember King Canute?

One more time, kids: Never put anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to see projected on a 5' x 8' screen in a court of law.

Which way should I turn on this? Let's see:

1) Consensual crime is the worst idea ever in the long, sad history of bad ideas.
2) To top that off, there was no criminal intent. However,
3) Stupid should hurt.

OK. Overturn the conviction, but embarrass the hell out of 'em.

Angels and Ministers of Grace defend us, the New Victorian Prudery now has the support of the courts.

fark the evangelical movement. JESUS GOD how did we let these statists get so much market penetration.

.

TTIWWOP

/there, I said it
//joking
///kinda...

pvd021

So everytime they look into the mirror, they're viewing child pornography...

I would like the law to explain to me how a 16yo teenager viewing another 17 year old teenager is perverse and detrimental to society to the point where these teens need to go to prison.

It's not. They're violating a law based on emotional outcry rather then common sense and we're only now starting to see the fallout from it. Since America is so intent on legislating morality in accordance with a make-believe fairy tale, things will only get worse before they get better. Pretty soon I'll get arrested for child pornography because a 16-year old HS student mooned me on the highway.

If it's 2 dudes...that's sick.

But if it's 2 teen girls...it's totally the hottest thing ever.

I have several traumatic memories as a child of our family physician touching me in a number of inappropriate and uncomfortable ways. He also took a number of photographs of my most private body parts, which for all I know could now be wank material for pedophiles with internal organ fetishes.

I demand justice and millions of dollars in compensation.

I think wer're alone now.
There doesn't seem to be anyone else around now.

Mr. Xhin: If it's 2 dudes...that's sick.

I disagree.

vudukungfu: I think wer're alone now.
There doesn't seem to be anyone else around now.

Damn you, damn you for getting that stuck in my head for the second time today.

Turings_Other_Machine: One more time, kids: Never put anything on the internet that you wouldn't want to see projected on a 5' x 8' screen in a court of law.

good call, but rtfa next time, they never put the pics online. The parents probably found them.

Sorry, but it seems like a smart 7th grader wrote that article.

Just sayin,
Yogi

When I look at my own naked body in the mirror, I'm conducting black-on-black crime.

2007-02-20 06:27:47 PM mialynneb

...Can't a judge look at this and say, "This is not what the law was intended for." Why the hell don't they fix SNAFUs like this? ..

IMHO, they will chalk this up as a "proof that it works". Or maybe, "the law needs to be applied equally"." Either way your right, logic should prevail.

/Don't hold your breath

So they're too young to take naked pictures of themselves, but old enough to be charged under a child pornography statute.

Makes sense to me.

I was hoping it was gonna be two female teens, 16 and 17, sending naked pictures to each other. Sadly I am disappointed yet again.

/reality bites

I blame the cameras. We really should keep the cameras out of underage teens hands.

/hey, it works for gun control.

Here's what I find squirrelly;

"Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved.

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos."

So I don't guess being convicted of a sex offense is psychologically damaging or having negative implications....come on.

Teenagers have been f*cking for millennia.

Purple Sheeple Eater

I was harking back to the previous story - it mentioned that they had e-mailed them, IIRC. E-mail isn't secure.

If the parents found them, why didn't they do the parental thing instead of calling Johnny Law? Where were the farking parents in all this?

If that was my son, I'd be in jail for knocking him into the middle of next week. If that was my daughter, she'd lose her computer and wouldn't leave the house again until she was 21 - and I'd still be in jail for knocking the boy into the middle of next week.

/has 16-y/o daughter

rattchett: So they're too young to take naked pictures of themselves, but old enough to be charged under a child pornography statute.

Makes sense to me.

It makes perfect sense when you remind yourself of the fact that justice and law are not inherently linked, and haven't been practically linked in any U.S. federal or state court in well over two centuries, if they ever were.

Lawyers on any side of a legal dispute are not paid to put forward the correct argument, they are paid to put forward the winning argument, no matter how logically ridiculous that argument is.

Turings_Other_Machine:
If that was my son, I'd be in jail for knocking him into the middle of next week. If that was my daughter, she'd lose her computer and wouldn't leave the house again until she was 21 - and I'd still be in jail for knocking the boy into the middle of next week.

Don't hurt your primary typing hand while you're beating up all those imaginary kids for doing their perfectly natural imaginary things while your imaginary parenting isn't keeping tabs on them.

vudukungfu

I think we're alone now
the beating of our hearts is the only sound...

Marcus Aurelius: When I was a kid the only thing available was a B&W Polaroid. It worked great.

Sears catalog. Bra section.

Can't a judge look at this and say, "This is not what the law was intended for." Why the hell don't they fix SNAFUs like this?

Our judicial system is so farked up.

Sex offenders are the new rage, didn't you get the memo? We must get to ALL of them NOW before they harm someone else! EVERYBODY PANIC! There are people on the sex offender registries who have never been convicted of a crime. That's right--in some places, mere accusation can land you on the registry. "Innocent until proven guilty" is now an old-fashioned fairy tale.

What's that you say? You're not a sex offender so you don't care? S'all good--the public DUI/DWI, drug abuse, and domestic violence registries are in the pipeline. And where there's a registry, there's a good chance a chest-thumping politician will figure a way to wriggle GPS requirements into it. Never mind that someone's served his or her sentence and been released back into society--for the good and safety of the people, they must be monitored!

How many innocent lives will be ruined before people stand up and cry foul about this sort of thing?

I swear, I think Congress wipes its collective feet on the Constitution every morning, whether they're in session or not.

I asked this in the other thread but it died before it took off so here it is again;

If my friend has pictures of a girl he dated when she was 17, can he get in trouble now that she is over 18?

Lumber Jack Off:

Christians fault? Really? All of them? Wouldn't it have something to do with oh.... I don't know maybe elected officials who write the law?

/I think most x-tians understand that kids will be kids.
//were they really convicted? DRTFA

This thread would be useful to get us all thrown in the clink with pics.

this thread is useless without photos

Pseudonymphish: I swear, I think Congress wipes its collective feet on the Constitution every morning, whether they're in session or not.

Well, it is just a goddamned piece of paper.

vudukungfu

And what would they say
if they ever knew
what we're doin'...

EJ, yes...see traci lords.

Pseudonymphish: Never mind that someone's served his or her sentence and been released back into society--for the good and safety of the people, they must be monitored!

True sex offenders have a tendency to not rehabilitate well (not that the U.S. cares about that sort of thing since it would hurt the profits of our precious prison system). I always figure the sex offender registry was nothing more than a way to create a "legal" means to mercilessly harrass people without any justifiable reason since the intelligent response would be to extend prison sentences for actual sex offenders.

I always liked the story about the fellow who killed himself because the neighbors put up signs all over saying he was a rapist after they found out he was on the sex offender registry.

Difficulty: he was mentally disabled by a childhood disease and functioned on a preteen level. Oh, and he never raped anyone, he "exposed himself" to a young girl.

But, hey, whatever, that dangerous criminal who never actually hurt anyone and probably didn't even understand what he did got exactly what he deserved, right?

That'll learn them!

They're violating a law based on emotional outcry rather then common sense and we're only now starting to see the fallout from it. Since America is so intent on legislating morality in accordance with a make-believe fairy tale, things will only get worse before they get better.

Two words--jury nullification

Yay criminalization of the populace! Easier to tell who is guilty of something when more things are illegal....

I don't particularly like the method of sex offender registration. There should be circumstance and documentation on ALL released paraphernalia to allow people to determine the risk. I mean if a serial rapist moves next door I wanna know. Sure go ahead and tell me if my new neighbor had sex with his girlfriend who was 2 years younger than him, but let me know what he did so I won't squint at him through the blinds every time he's outside.

So, farking is OK if you are 18, unless you take pictures?

TTIWWOP.

/hey im only 20.
//That's still good.
///I think.

Ha ha! You american 'tards elected some like-minded 'tards into office -- and now you're paying the price.

They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison,
They're trying to build a prison, (for you and me to live in)
Another prison system,
Another prison system,
Another prison system. (for you and me to live in)

Gannon's Remorse

I'll summarize:

1. The law should not have gotten involved.
2. The idea of consensual crime is ludicrous.
3. I don't give a flying squat if their behavior was perfectly natural or not. This whole "it's a natural thing, how dare you put limits around it, blah blah blah" is a load of horseshiyat. We all have limits on our behavior in some way, shape, manner, or form; society couldn't exist without them. Deal with it. Good judgment involves knowing your limits, and I expect my kids to use good judgment without having to call the cops. Not using good judgment is stupid.
4. These kids did a stupid thing, and stupid should hurt.

aureliawestlake: Here's a hypothetical.

A teen boy and girl are at a party. Neither one really knows the other, and at some point, a forcible rape occurs when the boy corners a girl in a room alone. Knowing that her story might not be believed, and wanting to document who the perp was, the girl snaps a surreptitious photo with her cell cam as the guy leaves the room.

Could the rape victim be charged as a child pornographer?


Only if the photo showed him with a stiffy.

This is a perfect example of why by-the-book convictions are stupid.

The whole point of taking a case to court is to ascertain what the circumstances of each situation are so as to ensure a fair and reasonable punishment. When you just apply a black-and-white definition of a crime to a situation, farked up crap like this happens, where two teenagers are coming to grips with their sexuality.

If this were a 19 year old and a 16 year old, then that's something entirely different, and it should be judged based on ITS circumstances, but to ruin these kids' lives because they're doing what comes naturally to kids at a certain point of their life is entirely asinine.

Laws should be based on ethics, not morals.

I have a relative in Idaho who nearly had his life ruined when his parents found out he was playing doctor with a cousin at a young age. They felt that the law was the best way to handle that situation...

/I hate Idaho...
//Farking Mormons

horrified
Your map is inaccurate.

Kansas and Nebraska were free states. Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Montana, and the Dakotas weren't states and slavery was illegal in those territories.

Most abolitionists were Christian.

Thanks for playing; enjoy the lovely parting gifts.

Innocent until proven guilty has long been dead. As is the fourth Amendment. And now the fifth. The Supreme Court has farked the 9th up the ass many times. The others they just sell for drug money.

I hope someday honest Republicans and Libertarians wake up to the Amendments with numbers greater than 2 and less than 11.

And since jury nullification has been mentioned - many judges and lawyers, particularly conservative ones, don't recognize the principle these days. That said, if you ever feel the need for it, insist on it and refuse to declare guilty. Refuse to even consider it. They can - and probably will - piss and moan and scream and even threaten you. But you can still force a mistrial or hung jury and there ain't a thing they can do to stop it.

Just stick to your guns: "Your honor, I must vote not guilty by reason of this being the stupidest application of law I've ever heard of. I refuse to entertain any speculation as to whether the defendant would be guilty under the law, if it were valid, because it ain't."

If that doesn't shut them up, go on to: "How can someone be guilty of something that doesn't make any sense? You don't make any sense. Does that make you guilty? Counsel doesn't make any sense. The jury doesn't make any sense. Your honor, this whole court doesn't make any sense!"