Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Berkshire Eagle)   Massachusetts DA warns school children that he will turn them into unemployable, ostracized sex offenders if they get caught sexting   (berkshireeagle.com) divider line 134
    More: PSA, Massachusetts DA, sex offenders, child pornography, Computer Crime  
•       •       •

6028 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2013 at 3:18 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-02-17 12:16:47 PM  
assets.nydailynews.com
I wonder if the Berkshire Eagle is delivered in New York State?
 
2013-02-17 12:20:07 PM  
Robert W. Kinzer III; staunch defender of decency and morality

/guy needs a mask and a kung fu chauffeur
 
2013-02-17 12:27:28 PM  
Mass DA?

Fifty bucks says he will be indicted on bribery charges and various corruption charges sexting inappropriate pictures to a young woman.
 
2013-02-17 12:37:23 PM  
Sure makes me glad we didn't have smartphones when I was in high school.
 
2013-02-17 12:46:01 PM  

doyner: Sure makes me glad we didn't have smartphones when I was in high school.


meh, we just used Polaroids....

As for that DA: Yes, threaten young adults and make what they're doing even more exciting and naughty.  That should work out great for you.
 
2013-02-17 12:46:49 PM  
because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?
 
2013-02-17 12:48:56 PM  

Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?


The whole notion of there being a juvenile court system where kids who make dumb mistakes can be punished in a way that still gives them a chance later when they grow up is being completely dismantled.

When I have on my tinfoil hat, I connect that to the growing for-profit prison industry, but lately I'm thinking that more often when I don't have it on as well.
 
2013-02-17 12:55:06 PM  

jake_lex: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The whole notion of there being a juvenile court system where kids who make dumb mistakes can be punished in a way that still gives them a chance later when they grow up is being completely dismantled.

When I have on my tinfoil hat, I connect that to the growing for-profit prison industry, but lately I'm thinking that more often when I don't have it on as well.


Reminded me of this.

Nothing to see here, move along...
 
2013-02-17 01:26:01 PM  

Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?


In a perfect world, no.
This isn't a perfect world though, and plenty of assholes exist that WOULD hold the stupid mistakes of youth against people years later.
 
2013-02-17 01:28:06 PM  
Okay, who let this Pennsyltucky asshat into the Commonwealth?
 
2013-02-17 01:31:18 PM  

jake_lex: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The whole notion of there being a juvenile court system where kids who make dumb mistakes can be punished in a way that still gives them a chance later when they grow up is being completely dismantled.

When I have on my tinfoil hat, I connect that to the growing for-profit prison industry, but lately I'm thinking that more often when I don't have it on as well.


http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/school-prison-pipeline

It really exists. I've been teaching for 15 years and I can attest personally that putting police officers in schools and having for-profit prisons has ruined many, many lives.

We used to get suspended for a stupid fist fight. These kids get arrested, charged with assault, and then tried as adults. It's disgusting, it truly is.
 
2013-02-17 01:52:38 PM  

Kimothy: jake_lex: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The whole notion of there being a juvenile court system where kids who make dumb mistakes can be punished in a way that still gives them a chance later when they grow up is being completely dismantled.

When I have on my tinfoil hat, I connect that to the growing for-profit prison industry, but lately I'm thinking that more often when I don't have it on as well.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/school-prison-pipeline

It really exists. I've been teaching for 15 years and I can attest personally that putting police officers in schools and having for-profit prisons has ruined many, many lives.

We used to get suspended for a stupid fist fight. These kids get arrested, charged with assault, and then tried as adults. It's disgusting, it truly is.


And before that you were either told to cut the crap out or given gloves to finish the fight.  I once had the former during freshman year, later that same year in a different school, a kid punched me in the face and then walked into the office to take his suspension (literally like that).  Two days later, he was part of a small group of boys who broke into a house, raped and killed the elderly lady before taking her car.  How's that for a very true and very extreme example?  I have found old school-mates, I didn't even know back then, by that story.  One them actually said "You were the guy Jeremy punched?  I wondered who that was."
 
2013-02-17 03:09:49 PM  
Don't shoot the messenger. The DA didn't make the law, he just is supposed to prosecute people that break it.

It's a shiatty law and needs to be changed. And the way to do that is to point out how unfair it is to the children it is supposed to protect.

And yes, DAs and judges should use discretion when these kinds of cases come up. But if you assume good guys will ignore the law, that makes it much less urgent to change it.
 
2013-02-17 03:22:52 PM  

Krieghund: Don't shoot the messenger. The DA didn't make the law, he just is supposed to prosecute people that break it.


DA's have discretion on if charges are needed, like say when a cop beats/murders someone. They sure seem to hush up in a hurry when its a cop.
 
2013-02-17 03:23:54 PM  

Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?


The best part is that they will be tried as adults. For producing child pornography. Of themselves.
 
2013-02-17 03:23:59 PM  

jake_lex: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The whole notion of there being a juvenile court system where kids who make dumb mistakes can be punished in a way that still gives them a chance later when they grow up is being completely dismantled.

When I have on my tinfoil hat, I connect that to the growing for-profit prison industry, but lately I'm thinking that more often when I don't have it on as well.


Oh come on.  It's not like schools are strictly regimented, with access limited to approved family members during certain hours.  Oh, er, hmm.

Well, they don't have armed guards!  Not yet, anyway.

/we wanna put your snowflakes in prison after high school FOR THEIR SAFETY!  do it for the chidren
 
2013-02-17 03:24:22 PM  
I sense this turning into an issue of his projecting his mass sexting escapades

/only time will tell
 
2013-02-17 03:24:28 PM  
This Kinzer guy sounds like a real Masshole. And there's GOT to be something he's covering up. Zealots like this always have something weird in the closet....
 
2013-02-17 03:27:21 PM  

BayouOtter: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The best part is that they will be tried as adults. For producing child pornography. Of themselves.


But it's for the children! Why do you hate the children?
 
2013-02-17 03:29:06 PM  
Closet pervert.
 
2013-02-17 03:29:13 PM  
i200.photobucket.com
Big Brother is watching.
 
2013-02-17 03:30:14 PM  
Home of the puritans, after all
 
2013-02-17 03:31:13 PM  

Krieghund: But if you assume good guys will ignore the law


This assumes that they are "good guys" to begin with.
 
2013-02-17 03:31:17 PM  
This asshat needs to be out of a job fast. The police can charge someone, but it's his decision to prosecute, and if he thinks this is warranted, then he needs to be tossed out on his ass.

I know someone who was threatened with charges for exactly this reason, in MASS. She was blackmailed when she was underage (she's much older and in college now, so I guess consider her an early test case). The guy threatened her, threatened to hurt her family, and the dipshiat feds got involved (because the perp was across state lines) and in the end, they terrorized her threatening production of CP charges for being blackmailed into taking photos of herself while the guy walked around free.

America has a really sick sense of what is right and wrong when it comes to sex.

Teens have sex, they watch porn, and they take dirty photos. Fix the farking law already and stop ruining lives over a set of tits on a cell phone. Jail the guys forcing girls/guys into this, and leave the kids alone (Hey, prosecutor, leave them kids alone!).
 
2013-02-17 03:31:28 PM  
The whole point of child porn laws was to protect children from being sexually exploited by adults. Teens sending pictures of themselves to each-other isn't the same thing. And these assholes know it.

For fark's sake, people need to use their brains.
 
2013-02-17 03:32:00 PM  
Sex
Drugs
Rock n Roll

Is there no limit to the butthurt that the Nannys feel?
Good!
 
2013-02-17 03:32:17 PM  
And that's why as soon as my young (male) cousin got a phone with a camera and a data plan, my other cousin (his older sister) told him bluntly, "Do NOT take pictures of your junk and send it around to your friends!" And then she showed him a bunch of news articles about 15-year-olds charged with felony child porn because they took pics of their tits.

Three weeks ago that cousin (now 14) was arrested for marijuana possession. The cops downloaded everything of his and his friends' phones. They found plenty of adult photos, but no child porn. I guess he paid attention to THAT particular warning. Apparently he couldn't handle not smoking pot, though.
 
2013-02-17 03:33:11 PM  

cptjeff: BayouOtter: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The best part is that they will be tried as adults. For producing child pornography. Of themselves.

But it's for the children! Why do you hate the children?


I believe that children are the future...unless we STOP THEM NOW!
 
2013-02-17 03:33:22 PM  

Ed Grubermann: The whole point of child porn laws was to protect children from being sexually exploited by adults. Teens sending pictures of themselves to each-other isn't the same thing. And these assholes know it.

For fark's sake, people need to use their brains.


The clowns in the judicial system lack anything resembling brains, or common sense.
 
2013-02-17 03:34:08 PM  

Back in the old days we did the same thing. The difference was that a Polaroid instant photo didn't get distributed instantly to millions of people. You took a pic for your loved one, and they kept it in their hope chest or locked diary. They didn't photocopy it a million times and give it to everyone else when they suspected you didn't love them enough, either.


I think we need to change the laws. Anyone past puberty who wants to take a picture of themselves should be free of the burden of child pornography laws. Any significant other of similar age who is the recipient of the image should likewise be off-limits for prosecutors.


We could make another new law that makes distributing naked pictures of yourself when you're under 18 years of age a misdemeanor, and the punishment should be a class that teaches just how dangerous it could be to give boyfriends/girlfriends naked pictures of yourself. No jail time. No sex offender list for teenagers. Just something to teach them the common sense rules for this situation.

I also think that we should establish a national age of consent, and that the age of consent should include not just the ability to choose for yourself whether or not to have intercourse, but also the legal right to choose whether or not you wish to pose nude. Personally, I'm all for sixteen being the national age of consent. Eighteen is silly-- Most relatively normal people have had sex by that time these days (and really, they did in the past, too).

It's just stupid that in Michigan, for example, a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old can have sex and it's perfectly legal, but in California that same relationship would lead to rape charges, sex offender listings, and the ruining of a young person's life.

The old, white, Christian folks who work so hard to keep these screwed-up sexuality laws on the books need to be ignored. They don't speak for the rest of us, obviously. I lost my virginity at sixteen, to a nineteen-year-old, and I have never had one moment of regret. She didn't damage me. But in today's world she would have been arrested in half the states in the union and called a child molester, when she was really my peer, my girlfriend, and someone I trusted and cared for enough to make a PERSONAL decision to share myself with her.

Protect teens by educating them about being human, not punishing them for acting human.

/Keep your laws off my body, and all that sort of thing.

 
2013-02-17 03:34:10 PM  
Is the law intended to protect people from the consequences of their actions? Yes, there are negative consequences for these sorts of actions, beyond the criminality. But when a large portion of the negative consequences comes from the illegality of the act, rather than due to the nature of the act itself (getting thrown on a sex offender list vs. people sharing the photos with recipients beyond the original intended recipient), perhaps the law is problematic. Fix the law, yet still encourage discussion that focuses the  real consequences, the risks due to the nature of the technology, not the (ideally non-existent in a better world) risks due to the asinine law which should be changed. Although if the law still exists as-is, then discussion of its consequences is appropriate, but perhaps discussion too of what an idiotic law it is.
 
2013-02-17 03:35:00 PM  
Hey DA, 8====D
 
2013-02-17 03:35:07 PM  
Aren't children the protected class of child pornography laws?  I'm not quite understanding how you could charge the victim of the crime with the crime...
 
2013-02-17 03:35:55 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: The cops downloaded everything of his and his friends' phones.


What the hell do the contents of their phones have to do with smoking pot? Oh, yeah. Getting arrested for anything is now free reign to go throw everything you own looking for unrelated crimes to prosecute you for. Silly me.
 
2013-02-17 03:36:09 PM  

Ed Grubermann: The whole point of child porn laws was to protect children from being sexually exploited by adults. Teens sending pictures of themselves to each-other isn't the same thing. And these assholes know it.

For fark's sake, people need to use their brains.


Riiiiiiiiggghhhtt....

But, but think of the children, just not THAT way...
 
2013-02-17 03:36:52 PM  

Flagg99: This asshat needs to be out of a job fast. The police can charge someone, but it's his decision to prosecute, and if he thinks this is warranted, then he needs to be tossed out on his ass.

I know someone who was threatened with charges for exactly this reason, in MASS. She was blackmailed when she was underage (she's much older and in college now, so I guess consider her an early test case). The guy threatened her, threatened to hurt her family, and the dipshiat feds got involved (because the perp was across state lines) and in the end, they terrorized her threatening production of CP charges for being blackmailed into taking photos of herself while the guy walked around free.

America has a really sick sense of what is right and wrong when it comes to sex.

Teens have sex, they watch porn, and they take dirty photos. Fix the farking law already and stop ruining lives over a set of tits on a cell phone. Jail the guys forcing girls/guys into this, and leave the kids alone (Hey, prosecutor, leave them kids alone!).


How do you "force" someone to do anything over a computer?

Maybe teach kids to turn the farking thing OFF.
 
2013-02-17 03:37:49 PM  
Very simple solution to this:

Treat it the way prostitution is treated in many areas (again, a lot of America misses out in this). Where I live, being a prostitute is not illegal, but using the services of one is. With this, the girls aren't arrested, but johns are, if the cops feel like enforcing the law (which is often iffy at best).

Same principle: make it a non-criminal act to produce if you're under 18... but still a crime to posses if you're over 18. Also, create a distinction between "set of tits that could belong to a 20 year old but could be underage" and actual CP, to prevent clogging up the system.

It's not hard. I swear the U.S. is still run by puritans however.
 
2013-02-17 03:38:11 PM  
I had no idea the descendants of the Puritans made it as far as Massachusetts Hillbilly Country, i.e. Berkshire County. I think the kids are farked to begin with because they live there.
 
2013-02-17 03:40:06 PM  

jake_lex: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The whole notion of there being a juvenile court system where kids who make dumb mistakes can be punished in a way that still gives them a chance later when they grow up is being completely dismantled.

When I have on my tinfoil hat, I connect that to the growing for-profit prison industry, but lately I'm thinking that more often when I don't have it on as well.


That's what's really silly. Charge them as an adult for their crime of taking a picture of their minor self.
 
2013-02-17 03:40:34 PM  
A DA is just like a regular lawyer, but with a smaller conscience and a bigger ego.
 
2013-02-17 03:42:03 PM  
Those big gaps between paragraphs? Those are what happens when you switch between Formatting and HTML buttons in the middle of a post. Sorry.
 
2013-02-17 03:42:16 PM  

potterydove: Aren't children the protected class of child pornography laws?  I'm not quite understanding how you could charge the victim of the crime with the crime...


Ever hear of that 13-year old girl and the twelve-year old boy in Utah being charged with felony child molestation charges because he got her pregnant? No, really. Both were charged. The state supreme court later tossed the convictions out.
 
2013-02-17 03:42:18 PM  

Arcturus72: Ed Grubermann: The whole point of child porn laws was to protect children from being sexually exploited by adults. Teens sending pictures of themselves to each-other isn't the same thing. And these assholes know it.

For fark's sake, people need to use their brains.

Riiiiiiiiggghhhtt....

But, but think of the children, just not THAT way...


www.explosm.net
 
2013-02-17 03:42:29 PM  
ModernLuddite:
How do you "force" someone to do anything over a computer?

Maybe teach kids to turn the farking thing OFF.


No, not without running Shut Down first!
 
2013-02-17 03:43:11 PM  

BayouOtter: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The best part is that they will be tried as adults. For producing child pornography. Of themselves.


Doh I see you beat me to it lol
 
2013-02-17 03:44:02 PM  

Flagg99: but still a crime to posses if you're over 18


problems with this:  What if some 15 year old for whatever reason decides to ruin your life by emailing you pictures of themselves.  We have seen stories on fark where someone has just made up rape accusations because they were pissed with a teacher about a grade.  This doesn't seem all that far fetched.  If it is strict liability 15 year olds suddenly have a pretty powerful weapon against whomever they don't like that is above 18.

Additionally, what if they are pictures of yourself?  As soon as you hit that age threshold suddenly you are a criminal.
 
2013-02-17 03:44:30 PM  
DAs can do whatever the f*** they want to do in this country, and there's not a d*** thing you do about it. Why do liberals want to centralize all power in the government's hands in this country, with zero accountability? I mean none. At least with corporations and other institutions you have the courts as a last resort, as flawed and in need of reform as that process may be. But a DA, a corrupt cop, the IRS? Bend over and take it, citizen.
 
2013-02-17 03:47:16 PM  
Child pornography laws were created to prevent adults from exploiting children, not for preventing adolescents from being adolescents.

As with three-strikes laws, zero-tolerance policies, and the like, this is more evidence that the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law is disappearing. We no longer trust ourselves or our public servants to interpret the law in a sensible, humane, and rational way, so we insist on draconian, bureaucratic, black-and-white enforcement.

This is, unfortunately, a bipartisan trend. Conservatives are afraid that liberal judges will coddle criminals,  liberals fear that conservative judges will show favoritism toward defendants from privileged backgrounds, and moralists of all stripes are convinced that we can recreate the Garden of Eden once we have locked up all the sinners. Meanwhile, the growing for-profit prison industry and its lobbyists play both sides against the middle like a virtuoso.
 
2013-02-17 03:48:06 PM  

ModernLuddite: Flagg99: This asshat needs to be out of a job fast. The police can charge someone, but it's his decision to prosecute, and if he thinks this is warranted, then he needs to be tossed out on his ass.

I know someone who was threatened with charges for exactly this reason, in MASS. She was blackmailed when she was underage (she's much older and in college now, so I guess consider her an early test case). The guy threatened her, threatened to hurt her family, and the dipshiat feds got involved (because the perp was across state lines) and in the end, they terrorized her threatening production of CP charges for being blackmailed into taking photos of herself while the guy walked around free.

America has a really sick sense of what is right and wrong when it comes to sex.

Teens have sex, they watch porn, and they take dirty photos. Fix the farking law already and stop ruining lives over a set of tits on a cell phone. Jail the guys forcing girls/guys into this, and leave the kids alone (Hey, prosecutor, leave them kids alone!).

How do you "force" someone to do anything over a computer?

Maybe teach kids to turn the farking thing OFF.


I actually put "threatened to hurt her family" in the original post, so please read next time. She was 12 and fully believed he would show up and hurt them. "Turning it off" wasn't that simple, at least not in her mind. When she got older she reported him and then feds pulled their douchebag act. I felt terrible because I actually encouraged her to report him when she told me/even gave her the link to the ICE website that she used.
 
2013-02-17 03:52:45 PM  

Gergesa: Flagg99: but still a crime to posses if you're over 18

problems with this:  What if some 15 year old for whatever reason decides to ruin your life by emailing you pictures of themselves.  We have seen stories on fark where someone has just made up rape accusations because they were pissed with a teacher about a grade.  This doesn't seem all that far fetched.  If it is strict liability 15 year olds suddenly have a pretty powerful weapon against whomever they don't like that is above 18.

Additionally, what if they are pictures of yourself?  As soon as you hit that age threshold suddenly you are a criminal.


Less problems with this than the current system. The blackmail example/false rape accusations - yes, that happens, and it will have to be sorted out in court. Some people will always abuse the system. That's no argument to keep the current law.

You should always be exempt from possessing photos of yourself, at any age. The same way my grandma should not be charged for that photo of me streaking through the backyard when I was 5.
 
2013-02-17 03:58:05 PM  

Ed Grubermann: potterydove: Aren't children the protected class of child pornography laws?  I'm not quite understanding how you could charge the victim of the crime with the crime...

Ever hear of that 13-year old girl and the twelve-year old boy in Utah being charged with felony child molestation charges because he got her pregnant? No, really. Both were charged. The state supreme court later tossed the convictions out.



Convictions?? fark that's terrifying... never should have gone to trial, but for there to actually be convictions show's a complete lack of understanding of sexuality, human nature, common sense, and the law.
 
2013-02-17 03:59:15 PM  
Stopping teens from "having sex" has got to be the definition of futility.
 
2013-02-17 04:00:37 PM  

Flagg99: That's no argument to keep the current law.


To be clear,  I don't advocate keeping the law as it is currently.  I do advocate being careful in setting up an alternative.

Flagg99: You should always be exempt from possessing photos of yourself, at any age.


Agree, however, this is really more about what gets prosecuted by overs zealous DAs.   I think we know how that goes.  Tough on crime image and all...
 
2013-02-17 04:00:42 PM  

Flagg99: Gergesa: Flagg99: but still a crime to posses if you're over 18

problems with this:  What if some 15 year old for whatever reason decides to ruin your life by emailing you pictures of themselves.  We have seen stories on fark where someone has just made up rape accusations because they were pissed with a teacher about a grade.  This doesn't seem all that far fetched.  If it is strict liability 15 year olds suddenly have a pretty powerful weapon against whomever they don't like that is above 18.

Additionally, what if they are pictures of yourself?  As soon as you hit that age threshold suddenly you are a criminal.

Less problems with this than the current system. The blackmail example/false rape accusations - yes, that happens, and it will have to be sorted out in court. Some people will always abuse the system. That's no argument to keep the current law.

You should always be exempt from possessing photos of yourself, at any age. The same way my grandma should not be charged for that photo of me streaking through the backyard when I was 5.


Exactly. There are pictures of me at about 4 years old sitting naked in a big old sink full of water. How does one determine if it's child porn or a wholesome, cute family photo? I'm certain several DAs out there could have my parents prosecuted for our family album if they stuck to the letter of the law.

The laws are poorly written, and the intent has been lost. FIX IT.
 
2013-02-17 04:03:08 PM  

Krieghund: And yes, DAs and judges should use discretion when these kinds of cases come up




But only for rich or famous offenders.
 
2013-02-17 04:05:31 PM  
Overzealous ADA = smokescreen?
 
2013-02-17 04:13:37 PM  
Unemployable?  By the time they're old enough to enter the workforce, Massachussetts will have systematically iradicated all incentive for working.

www.socialistparty-usa.org
 
2013-02-17 04:22:43 PM  

OtherLittleGuy: Okay, who let this Pennsyltucky asshat into the Commonwealth?


Massachusetts was founded by Puritans.  "Banned in Boston" used to be a selling point everywhere else.
 
2013-02-17 04:26:26 PM  
Are they going to be tried as adults for producing and distributing nude pictures of themselves?

If so, this raises the paradoxical scenario where a child is tried as an adult for something that would not be an offence if they actually were an adult.

At which point as semblance of rationality assplodes.
 
2013-02-17 04:27:17 PM  
All, not as...

/ must remember to preview/proofread
// especially after a couple of Irish
 
2013-02-17 04:29:35 PM  

Flagg99: Ed Grubermann: potterydove: Aren't children the protected class of child pornography laws?  I'm not quite understanding how you could charge the victim of the crime with the crime...

Ever hear of that 13-year old girl and the twelve-year old boy in Utah being charged with felony child molestation charges because he got her pregnant? No, really. Both were charged. The state supreme court later tossed the convictions out.


Convictions?? fark that's terrifying... never should have gone to trial, but for there to actually be convictions show's a complete lack of understanding of sexuality, human nature, common sense, and the law.


It should have gone to Family Services, not to the police. The problem is that Utah passed a law making it illegal for anyone, regardless of age, to have sex with someone under 14. Like most of these badly written laws, they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2013-02-17 04:35:45 PM  
Up next in Massachusetts? Witch burning.
 
2013-02-17 04:38:16 PM  
But kids carrying assault rifles is still not only A-OK but totally kick ass American! YEEEEEEHAWWWWWWW!!!

www.thetruthaboutcars.com
 
2013-02-17 04:42:05 PM  

Erebus1954: Up next in Massachusetts? Witch burning.


The Salem witches were not burned they were hanged (and one was pressed to death)


A FART ON THOMAS PUTNAM
 
2013-02-17 04:44:39 PM  
it is truly sick and twisted to compare the innocent hijinx of children to pornography. to send out the message that an image of your natural self is bad and negative clearly illustrates how morally corrupt some peoples minds are.

God forbid this fellow finds out 7th graders shower together after Gym class, his farking head will asplode.
 
2013-02-17 04:45:10 PM  
Welcome to the United Police States of America
 
2013-02-17 04:53:02 PM  

Kimothy: jake_lex: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The whole notion of there being a juvenile court system where kids who make dumb mistakes can be punished in a way that still gives them a chance later when they grow up is being completely dismantled.

When I have on my tinfoil hat, I connect that to the growing for-profit prison industry, but lately I'm thinking that more often when I don't have it on as well.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/school-prison-pipeline

It really exists. I've been teaching for 15 years and I can attest personally that putting police officers in schools and having for-profit prisons has ruined many, many lives.

We used to get suspended for a stupid fist fight. These kids get arrested, charged with assault, and then tried as adults. It's disgusting, it truly is.


At times it's ok to yuk it up and pass it off as kids being kids.  Sometimes however it is a very clear indication of one's destiny to be a sociopath.

Googling "teen beats teen to death" yields  452,000,000  results.  I was going to post some links, maybe pics, but eh, I don't want to depress myself any more than I already am.
[As a comparison, "fark" yields 75 million]

I'm all for second chances, but slaps on the wrist won't cut it for many youth who are already on a bad road.
/not that our prison systems are any good at all
//though if it keeps them away from civilized people it's better than just letting the violent do as they please
______________
As to the article.  A little scare tactic to keep them from harm, even if it's just their pics being posted on the internet, no problem, imo.

Each case should be judged on a case by case basis, however, as with all things.  Don't criminalize the pic taker for a nude pic, just the distributor after that.  The more malicious the initial recipient when he distributes(IE revenge sendings/posting), the harsher the punishment.

Permanent marks though?  Maybe 16+, expungable completely after 5 years, probation and community service for 1 year (just shotgunning, not saying it HAS to be that way, rough example only).  Kids of that approximate age, contrary to popular belief, are capable of knowing right from wrong and legal from illegal.
 
2013-02-17 04:53:29 PM  
DA=Dumb Asshole. Gotta please all the prudes, because they are the ones that vote these days.

Sex is DURRRRR-DEEEEEE
 
2013-02-17 04:57:38 PM  

TV's Vinnie: But kids carrying assault rifles is still not only A-OK but totally kick ass American! YEEEEEEHAWWWWWWW!!!

[www.thetruthaboutcars.com image 320x235]


Derp. Massachusetts has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation... including an assault weapons ban.
------------------------------------
Massachusetts is a blue state, folks. And this is a blue county in that state. Try all you want to blame the "puritans", but they aren't involved in this one...
 
2013-02-17 05:00:11 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: DAs can do whatever the f*** they want to do in this country, and there's not a d*** thing you do about it. Why do liberals want to centralize all power in the government's hands in this country, with zero accountability? I mean none. At least with corporations and other institutions you have the courts as a last resort, as flawed and in need of reform as that process may be. But a DA, a corrupt cop, the IRS? Bend over and take it, citizen.


Yes clearly the problem here is 'liberals'.
 
2013-02-17 05:15:14 PM  

Tigger: Yes clearly the problem here is 'liberals'.


I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything, and I don't believe that creates a healthy and fair society. Centralizing on a system with no accountability is a recipe for disaster in my view. If you'd like to argue that we should put the blue and red flags down for a bit and figure out a way to make government accountable, hey, I'm down for that.
 
2013-02-17 05:16:07 PM  
My hometown in the news!!!  Jesus I'm glad I moved out of that state. Just a bit south they were the ones with the adolescent "mosquito"  dispersals. Don't get me wrong, the Berkshires are a beautiful place as long as the 2nd homers don't roll over you. Don't even get me started on the bike path to nowhere.I know that guy, and yeah he's into the snowflake protection job. 5 miles north they have shootings about once a week. you'd think he had better things to do
 
2013-02-17 05:24:28 PM  

Flagg99: ModernLuddite: Flagg99: This asshat needs to be out of a job fast. The police can charge someone, but it's his decision to prosecute, and if he thinks this is warranted, then he needs to be tossed out on his ass.

I know someone who was threatened with charges for exactly this reason, in MASS. She was blackmailed when she was underage (she's much older and in college now, so I guess consider her an early test case). The guy threatened her, threatened to hurt her family, and the dipshiat feds got involved (because the perp was across state lines) and in the end, they terrorized her threatening production of CP charges for being blackmailed into taking photos of herself while the guy walked around free.

America has a really sick sense of what is right and wrong when it comes to sex.

Teens have sex, they watch porn, and they take dirty photos. Fix the farking law already and stop ruining lives over a set of tits on a cell phone. Jail the guys forcing girls/guys into this, and leave the kids alone (Hey, prosecutor, leave them kids alone!).

How do you "force" someone to do anything over a computer?

Maybe teach kids to turn the farking thing OFF.

I actually put "threatened to hurt her family" in the original post, so please read next time. She was 12 and fully believed he would show up and hurt them. "Turning it off" wasn't that simple, at least not in her mind. When she got older she reported him and then feds pulled their douchebag act. I felt terrible because I actually encouraged her to report him when she told me/even gave her the link to the ICE website that she used.


Tell me there was the lawsuit from hell when her parents found out...

/Traumatizing victims disgusts me. If I ever considered a career in law enforcement, it would probably be in some kind of internal affairs just because I would dearly love to kick the ass of whoever did that shiat.
 
2013-02-17 05:30:57 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything, and I don't believe that creates a healthy and fair society.


Well, it avoids some problems.  State to State laws about, say, gay marriage.

It is possible for the government to do most of it.  No killing, no stealing, etc.

Cover the big bases as such(the big universal laws as above), and then, stop the states from doing things like "no gays" "no fatties" "let's have  insane alcohol and tobacco taxes" Let bars choose if people get to smoke there, but not hospitals and such, let people buy a large soda, etc.  A very large problem that we're facing now. It would take the federal government to step in and say, "But the fark OUT of their lives, you farking yokel morons!" And we could get over a large part of our social problems.

This social arena where democracy fails, the minority always loses, and everyone is part of a minority when it comes to one ideal or another.  This is precisely the power that should NOT be in the state's hands, yet, this is the majority of what goes on in each state.  Micromanagement of people's lives and hence a reduction of their liberties.


Then work with the state itself to regulate trade and business practices that are unique to that region.  But fair and to the benefit of the US as a whole.

It can be done.  However, it is very unlikely.  I don't the think federal goverment could practice such restraint, however. Our federal government is as prone to asshattery and farkuppery as any state or local government, though they are reigned in a bit more because the whole populace can pressure them.  Don't have that control with states, hence the widely varying laws state to state.
 
2013-02-17 05:54:34 PM  
Fortunately there are strict guidelines that define what can be considered to be pornographic and what is not (Miller test). The second assistant DA needs to learn here that nude and semi-nude do NOT automatically mean pornographic (regardless of age). He sounds like a zealot douche-bag that is just interested in high prosecution numbers rather than justice.

/he needs a different job
//one where he is not interacting with the public
 
2013-02-17 05:54:43 PM  
Or MA parents could talk to their kids and tell them not to be a dumb farks.But suggesting people actually raise their offspring and buy into social accountability is asking too much.
 
2013-02-17 06:18:48 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything


The issue in this case has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, but rather being authoritarian. Which is actually something liberals in general aren't too big on. Come to think of it conservatives aren't either, not that you'd be able to tell by looking at most people who call themselves conservatives these days.
 
2013-02-17 06:25:04 PM  
This country has gone off the farking deep end as far as pornography is concerned.  Yes, children exploited being sexually exploited by adults should be illegal.  High school kids sending their friends naked pictures of themselves not so much.
 
2013-02-17 06:38:01 PM  
Another Puritan Puberty Purge.
Shunning naughty bits since 1620.

The guy should be air dropped into P-Town (Provincetown) on a hot summer day.
It's sort of like the Key West of the north. An "Arts" village.
Great entertainment as you watch him twitch out.
 
2013-02-17 06:49:24 PM  
Let's go back in history a couple hundred years or more.  We as an adult society have paintings and statues of nude or partially nude adults in museums and other public places.  Then there's the men's magazine business that's been around over 50 years.  And, let's not forget strip clubs.    The case could be made that there seems to be a double standard, where we want to hold children to a higher stndard than adults!
 
2013-02-17 06:50:39 PM  

Pincy: This country has gone off the farking deep end as far as pornography is concerned.  Yes, children exploited being sexually exploited by adults should be illegal.  High school kids sending their friends naked pictures of themselves not so much.


Well, now, who is actually preying on the young in this FUBAR?
That is correct, the DA and the "legal system" have made themselves the predators.

Would be BIZZARO WORLD if it were not the coming norm in this New Order.
 
2013-02-17 06:54:49 PM  

85blue: Or MA parents could talk to their kids and tell them not to be a dumb farks.But suggesting people actually raise their offspring and buy into social accountability is asking too much.


And, yet, we all know that some percent of all youth have a rebellious streak where they are determined to do whatever their parents tell them not to do.  I'd guess that's been going on forever.  And these days, it seems young people are more heavily influenced by their friends and popular culture than traditional family upbringing.
 
2013-02-17 06:55:21 PM  

Thunderbox: Welcome to the United Police States of America


There is an amendment for that
 
2013-02-17 07:06:34 PM  
Hey, I'll offer up a solution.  Instead of the police and the legal system trying to control and punish juvenille offenders, why not let the parents deal with their children and be involved in any reprimanding, punishment or restrictions?  Until they are 18, it is the parents' legal responsibility to raise their kids.  Other adults should NOT be in a position to make decisions about somebody else's kids!  Especially, get the local, state and federal government out of the way!
 
2013-02-17 07:07:23 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: Tigger: Yes clearly the problem here is 'liberals'.

I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything, and I don't believe that creates a healthy and fair society. Centralizing on a system with no accountability is a recipe for disaster in my view. If you'd like to argue that we should put the blue and red flags down for a bit and figure out a way to make government accountable, hey, I'm down for that.


You just keep on fighting those imaginary Liberals you pretend to see around you.
 
2013-02-17 07:10:03 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: Tigger: Yes clearly the problem here is 'liberals'.

I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything, and I don't believe that creates a healthy and fair society. Centralizing on a system with no accountability is a recipe for disaster in my view. If you'd like to argue that we should put the blue and red flags down for a bit and figure out a way to make government accountable, hey, I'm down for that.


Just so long as you realize that the last few republicans you voted into office also worked to increase the size and power of the federal government. You should be just as upset with neoconservatives as you are with liberals.
 
2013-02-17 07:15:20 PM  
The headline describes half the population of Massachusetts.
That's why they're all contractors, painters, roofers or "self-employed".
 
2013-02-17 07:18:18 PM  
and they wonder why anybody who feels wronged for life lashes back at police and prosecuters..
 
2013-02-17 07:19:14 PM  
What nonsense. The school child I'm sexting with right now has two after-school jobs and is likely to be voted Valedictorian in a couple years (when she graduates). Hardly what I'd call "unemployable".

/I'll have a seat over there...
 
2013-02-17 07:31:59 PM  
In the present economy, does that matter much?
 
2013-02-17 07:45:00 PM  

Ed Grubermann: The whole point of child porn laws was to protect children from being sexually exploited by adults. Teens sending pictures of themselves to each-other isn't the same thing. And these assholes know it.

For fark's sake, people need to use their brains.


The reason the law can be abused this way is obvious though. If it were legal for kids to make child porn of themselves, then all true child pornography would be recorded by the victims to skirt the law. The intent was to protect kids from other people, but I think it has mostly led to kids getting arrested for victimless crimes. The most ridiculous that I remember was years back where a teen girl got CP charges for a naked self-portrait sketch she did (because even simulated CP is wrong and evil).
 
2013-02-17 07:50:47 PM  

Ed Grubermann: The whole point of child porn laws was to protect children from being sexually exploited by adults. Teens sending pictures of themselves to each-other isn't the same thing. And these assholes know it.

For fark's sake, people need to use their brains.


You are talking about Massachusetts politicians; that seems to be an oxymoron.
 
2013-02-17 07:53:04 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: Tigger: Yes clearly the problem here is 'liberals'.

I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything, and I don't believe that creates a healthy and fair society. Centralizing on a system with no accountability is a recipe for disaster in my view. If you'd like to argue that we should put the blue and red flags down for a bit and figure out a way to make government accountable, hey, I'm down for that.


In theory "government" = "the people". The government, of some sort of other, is going to run everything. You're just choosing whether you want a unified, federal government involved, or a local government, and either way, both of those are supposedly run by your peers and you.

Defeating "government" isn't going to fix ANY of these problems. Change of heart among the populace is the only way. You aren't fighting some other, some vague entity without a face, you're fighting yourself and your own neighbors.
 
2013-02-17 07:57:38 PM  
Because if there's one person you should be afraid of, it's the Second Assistant District Attorney of Berkshire County.

\seriously, Berkshire County has computers?
 
2013-02-17 08:16:59 PM  

Krieghund: Don't shoot the messenger. The DA didn't make the law, he just is supposed to prosecute people that break it.

It's a shiatty law and needs to be changed. And the way to do that is to point out how unfair it is to the children it is supposed to protect.

And yes, DAs and judges should use discretion when these kinds of cases come up. But if you assume good guys will ignore the law, that makes it much less urgent to change it.


Prosecutorial Discretion.

That's the fancy legal term for "The Prosecutor says this law is stupid and against justice, so he's not going to press charges here".
 
2013-02-17 08:35:15 PM  

ennuie: WhoopAssWayne: Tigger: Yes clearly the problem here is 'liberals'.

I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything, and I don't believe that creates a healthy and fair society. Centralizing on a system with no accountability is a recipe for disaster in my view. If you'd like to argue that we should put the blue and red flags down for a bit and figure out a way to make government accountable, hey, I'm down for that.

In theory "government" = "the people". The government, of some sort of other, is going to run everything. You're just choosing whether you want a unified, federal government involved, or a local government, and either way, both of those are supposedly run by your peers and you.

Defeating "government" isn't going to fix ANY of these problems. Change of heart among the populace is the only way. You aren't fighting some other, some vague entity without a face, you're fighting yourself and your own neighbors.


I don't disagree with what you've said.  Yet I'll make a distinction between government and "Big Government."  Because it happened incrementally, I don't know when our government turned into a "Big Government."  And, it is our elected officials who are to blame.   But we have far too many government departments and agencies, with far too many employees.  More importantly, we have way too many unelected people writing policy and setting standards that other regulatory agencies then get to enforce.  We have more  'government' than we need, and certainly more than we can afford.  Despite what some of the (bogus) unemployment numbers are - the actual is above 20% and possibly as high as 25% -  and despite what the stock market is or isn't doing, we are still in "the worst economy since the Great Depression," and whether people realize it or not, we are on the verge of a total economic collapse.  It's not so much if it will happen but when it will happen.  Continued massive government spending aided by continually borrowing and printing more money will definitely have disastrous consequences.  Our currently serving politicians are most definitely not doing anything to make things better.
 
2013-02-17 08:40:42 PM  
Will being on a sex offender list mean that much when everyone is on it.
 
2013-02-17 08:44:01 PM  
The problem... DA's are elected..They have to run on something and that something is "tough on crime".
So they keep a nice chalkboard tally of the number "pervert" arrests that make for a good TV
commercial come election time. DA's need to be appointed, not elected. Then there would be no need
for DA's to have press conferences and grandstand on numbers to keep their job.
 
2013-02-17 08:57:02 PM  

LiteWerk: Despite what some of the (bogus) unemployment numbers are - the actual is above 20% and possibly as high as 25%...


U6 is at 14.4%, down from its peak at 17.1% in 2009. link. Note that U6 includes people who have a part-time job but want a full-time one, as well as people who have given up looking but still wish to work.

[citation needed] on any sensible unemployment measurement that exceeds U6, please.
 
2013-02-17 08:58:07 PM  
Sorry, trying again for the U6 reference link.
 
2013-02-17 09:11:01 PM  

LiteWerk: Despite what some of the (bogus) unemployment numbers are - the actual is above 20% and possibly as high as 25%


img.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-17 09:22:55 PM  
The DA is telling how it is. It's the legislature's job to fix it. Everyone saying the DA should use discretion is perhaps forgetting that that's a problem:  the law shouldn't be what a DA says it is.  In theory we could make everything illegal and leave it to DAs to decide who's bad.
 
2013-02-17 09:41:32 PM  
That sounds about right.  Look, the sexting thing is the crime of being phenomenally stupid. Racy emails and stuff are all good and fine, but sending pictures of your junk into the internet, a massive anonymous copying machine for crazy, and you are farking done.  Threaten that shiat out of existence and specifically threaten to kick the living crap out of re-texters.  Kids don't get right from wrong, but they know a straight up threat when they see it.
 
2013-02-17 09:53:12 PM  

Kimothy: jake_lex: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The whole notion of there being a juvenile court system where kids who make dumb mistakes can be punished in a way that still gives them a chance later when they grow up is being completely dismantled.

When I have on my tinfoil hat, I connect that to the growing for-profit prison industry, but lately I'm thinking that more often when I don't have it on as well.

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/school-prison-pipeline

It really exists. I've been teaching for 15 years and I can attest personally that putting police officers in schools and having for-profit prisons has ruined many, many lives.

We used to get suspended for a stupid fist fight. These kids get arrested, charged with assault, and then tried as adults. It's disgusting, it truly is.


The Justice system's idea of utopia:
static.environmentalgraffiti.com
 
2013-02-17 10:00:15 PM  
 And people wonder why kids have no respect for authority.
"if you do _____ it could harm you. So to keep you from doing it we're going to make sure THAT IT RUINES YOUR LIFE FOREVER!!!" Same deal with drugs, It's almost like it has less to do with protecting anyone than it does petty authoritarian control.

Hypnozombie
 
2013-02-17 10:35:15 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: Tigger: Yes clearly the problem here is 'liberals'.

I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything, ...


You do? Who, exactly, is saying this?
 
2013-02-17 11:04:01 PM  
All of this butthurt over what in the end is a farking image of a human body.
Wow!
And that is evil, bad, disgusting and warrants destroying a child's future, WHY?

Oh, because it offends some Nanny.
Right.

this ain't right
 
2013-02-17 11:05:15 PM  

Nem Wan: The DA is telling how it is. It's the legislature's job to fix it. Everyone saying the DA should use discretion is perhaps forgetting that that's a problem:  the law shouldn't be what a DA says it is.  In theory we could make everything illegal and leave it to DAs to decide who's bad.


Checks and balances.

One balance on bad laws, or poorly worded laws, is prosecutors refusing to prosecute under them.

Part of the problem is that our legislators make the laws, but they don't think of the exact legal implications.  They don't read the exact text, that's written by a staffer (or a lobbyist).  They may not understand the legalese even if they do read it.  They vote based on being able to say they were tough on crime, or tough on drugs, or whatever helps them get re-elected.

So, laws with bad wording or are overbroad slip through.

One check is prosecutors refusing to prosecute.

Another is police refusing to arrest.

Another is jury nullification.

Sadly, each of these checks has problems with its implementation.
 
2013-02-17 11:07:04 PM  
I'm more astonished that girls are dumb enough to sext and not think it'll get out.
 
2013-02-18 12:14:43 AM  
When everyone is an unemployed sex offender, the only ones employable will be the sex offenders.
 
2013-02-18 01:46:40 AM  
"They're going to face [prosecution], probably not jail time unless they've got bad records. But that's OK. They'll just be put on probation and they'll get to register as a sex offender, and that's a great box to check off on any job application," he continued. "You're going to lose jobs and relationships, and you'll spend the rest of your life as a registered sex offender."

This is what I consider narrow minded politics. The bugger knows that kids aren't fully responsible for the things they do yet, but is more than willing to throw the entire book at them and classify them as sex offenders -- even if they are not.

I figure that under today's laws, half of my graduating high school class would be on the sex offenders' list. Including the usual 'sterling students' who could do no wrong and were usually in class leadership positions.

It's apparently political suicide to go 'HEY! Wait a minute. Let's use some common sense here before damning someone to a life of shame and misery. Yeah he peed in the line of sight of a daycare center -- but it was at freakin' one in the morning, the place was closed up and empty and he was at a bar and drunk and in the parking lot.

Maybe it should dawn on them that 6 year olds don't know enough about sex to do anything actually sexual so if a 6 year old boy kisses a 6 year old girl on the cheek in school and neither her nor her parents get upset -- the government should not mandate the boy be expelled for a SEXUAL offense.

Plus, as much as many will hate to hear this and others will vehemently inform me I'm full of shiat: having cartoon kiddy porn or teen porn (cartoon also) on a computer does NOT mean the guy will EVER actually act on such urges.

Many of you have acceptable adult fantasies a lot of us would recoil in horror over, but while they steam you up -- you'll NEVER act on them. Just fantasize. Quite a high percentage of you will get all turned on just by seeing others do the acts. A small percentage find such acts fascinating, but would not want to perform them in person.

So, you need to be able to determine who is a real perv and who is not.

There's another group who would just love to see some banned perverted act -- at least once -- and download it, but never act on it. They might even delete it afterwards -- forgetting that traces are left that can be used against them. Maybe they'll keep it to have a guilty, forbidden thrill later on, even though getting caught with it means society will consider them a monster.

One more group prefers assorted seeing sexually oriented materials in cartoon form, finding the 'real deal' unsatisfactory. Like guys who get all steamed up on torture and disembowelment cartoons but who would never do the stuff for real because they actually would NOT want to hurt a real girl.

That plus the assorted laws forbidding it which all have one of two conclusions if caught: life in prison or death.

We didn't have 'sexting' in my day, but we did have Polaroid Cameras. You think a lot of us teens passed around instant pictures of birds and butterflies? There was no internet, but us kids knew how to get to those hard core books kept behind the counter at magazine stands. It was very hard to trace a call back then, so you can imagine the heated, whispered calls some unsuspecting girls received. Usually from a pay phone.

We also had portable tape recorders the size of a paper back book. You think they were used just to record music?

Guys who got their hands on a genuine porn book passed it around until the pages wore out. When copy machines popped up -- they made copies.

Back then, in most places, it was illegal to buy or own hard core porn, but we got it anyway.

I was a pre-teen when the first scandalous bikini showed up on our beaches and suddenly discovered I didn't want to stop looking at the young woman wearing it. Laws to ban it failed. (Thank goodness.)

So, our law makers and enforcers need to develop common sense when dealing with sex offenses. There are much fewer REAL pervs out there than the media and the politicians would have you believe. However, since they now arrest nearly everyone for anything even remotely sexual and slap the Sex Offender charge on them, it seems like they're coming out from under every rock and bush around.

We had kids who killed people in my day. None were sentenced as adults. None spent life in prison. An exception was made for their age and the expected stupidity that accompanied it. Very few, depending on their crime, spent more than 5 years in an institution.

Now, we have this technology that has opened up avenues no one was prepared for. Leaders are scrambling to cope with it by creating often poorly thought out laws -- the majority of which will not be adjusted or repaired for decades.

Remember, if you're a new Dad and your wife takes a picture of you bathing in the tub with your toddler -- as Dad's will do and have done for centuries -- you can be considered a sex offender. Better wear swim trunks. Better yet, wear jeans.

The sex drive, especially during puberty, never mixes very well with common sense, but the majority of the people do not commit criminal acts -- unless everything related to sex becomes a crime.

For those who are Gay, it nearly has.
 
2013-02-18 01:52:15 AM  

mizchief: TV's Vinnie: But kids carrying assault rifles is still not only A-OK but totally kick ass American! YEEEEEEHAWWWWWWW!!!

[www.thetruthaboutcars.com image 320x235]

You have to have a federal fire firearms license to have an assault rifle which you can't get till you at least 21, then to buy one your looking at over $10k, so not many kids with those. Then when your 18 you can buy a semi-auot shotgun or rifle, then a handgun at 21.


You may want to inform this particular jackwagon then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlHjqfxDce4
 
2013-02-18 01:54:26 AM  

Mr. Mikey: WhoopAssWayne: Tigger: Yes clearly the problem here is 'liberals'.

I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything, ...

You do? Who, exactly, is saying this?


I think his name is Straw H. Man.
 
2013-02-18 03:02:37 AM  
www.afterelton.com

Whenever I hear of stories involving teen sexting and such I think of the role Paris Hilton had in making it acceptable.  Maybe it's a stretch, but kids saw quite clearly that putting amateur porn videos of yourself not only won't get you in trouble but may make you absurdly popular.  Her sex tapes were the first public thing she did and afterward she got TV and movie roles, her media presence skyrocketed and she cashed in on her image to endorse products.  Her family got richer and little girls in particular were encouraged to do something unfathomable not even a decade ago.
 
2013-02-18 07:47:31 AM  

OtherLittleGuy: Okay, who let this Pennsyltucky asshat into the Commonwealth?


Unfortunately, we can't blame anyone but ourselves here.

It's not like this DA is mischaracterizing the law, which was enacted by people we voted for...

Might be time to upgrade those statutes, but good luck getting political traction being "weak on pedophiles" in ANY state.
 
2013-02-18 07:49:13 AM  

BayouOtter: Weaver95: because one mistake when you're young and dumb should destroy your life forever, right?

The best part is that they will be tried as adults. For producing child pornography. Of themselves.


I'm emailing this potential loophole to a defense attorney buddy of mine :)
 
2013-02-18 07:52:24 AM  

Flagg99: Ed Grubermann: The whole point of child porn laws was to protect children from being sexually exploited by adults. Teens sending pictures of themselves to each-other isn't the same thing. And these assholes know it.

For fark's sake, people need to use their brains.

The clowns in the judicial system lack anything resembling brains, or common sense.


How dare the DA enforce a statute as written...it's an OUTRAGE!!!!

/the law needs to be updated
//won't be, until some state senator's kid is busted
 
2013-02-18 07:54:36 AM  

ZeroCorpse: Back in the old days we did the same thing. The difference was that a Polaroid instant photo didn't get distributed instantly to millions of people. You took a pic for your loved one, and they kept it in their hope chest or locked diary. They didn't photocopy it a million times and give it to everyone else when they suspected you didn't love them enough, either.
I think we need to change the laws. Anyone past puberty who wants to take a picture of themselves should be free of the burden of child pornography laws. Any significant other of similar age who is the recipient of the image should likewise be off-limits for prosecutors.
We could make another new law that makes distributing naked pictures of yourself when you're under 18 years of age a misdemeanor, and the punishment should be a class that teaches just how dangerous it could be to give boyfriends/girlfriends naked pictures of yourself. No jail time. No sex offender list for teenagers. Just something to teach them the common sense rules for this situation.

I also think that we should establish a national age of consent, and that the age of consent should include not just the ability to choose for yourself whether or not to have intercourse, but also the legal right to choose whether or not you wish to pose nude. Personally, I'm all for sixteen being the national age of consent. Eighteen is silly-- Most relatively normal people have had sex by that time these days (and really, they did in the past, too).

It's just stupid that in Michigan, for example, a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old can have sex and it's perfectly legal, but in California that same relationship would lead to rape charges, sex offender listings, and the ruining of a young person's life.

The old, white, Christian folks who work so hard to keep these screwed-up sexuality laws on the books need to be ignored. They don't speak for the rest of us, obviously. I lost my virginity at sixteen, to a nineteen-year-old, and I have never had one moment o ...


All sound points.

And if you run for public office in any state in the union, you will lose if you endorse a single one of them.
 
2013-02-18 07:57:05 AM  

potterydove: Aren't children the protected class of child pornography laws?  I'm not quite understanding how you could charge the victim of the crime with the crime...


Same "logic" that considers downloading a dirty pic to be "manufacturing"  pornography.

You know, you're making a copy, so there's more of it.

Basically, you've got scared middle-aged technophobes...possibly religious whackjobs, to boot...writing laws for a world they don't really understand.
 
2013-02-18 07:59:34 AM  

Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Unemployable?  By the time they're old enough to enter the workforce, Massachussetts will have systematically iradicated all incentive for working.

[www.socialistparty-usa.org image 662x152]


The funny thing is, I voted in one Mass. election where those guys got as many votes as the Republican.

Which is why our unemployment and tax rates are both below the national average.

We keep the whackjobs on the fringes  :)
 
2013-02-18 08:02:28 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: DAs can do whatever the f*** they want to do in this country, and there's not a d*** thing you do about it. Why do liberals want to centralize all power in the government's hands in this country, with zero accountability? I mean none. At least with corporations and other institutions you have the courts as a last resort, as flawed and in need of reform as that process may be. But a DA, a corrupt cop, the IRS? Bend over and take it, citizen.


It's cute you think LIBERALS are the ones who push 'family values' legislation.
 
2013-02-18 08:05:48 AM  

WhoopAssWayne: Tigger: Yes clearly the problem here is 'liberals'.

I just hear constantly on fark from people who believe our government should be in charge of almost everything,


Name one.
 
2013-02-18 08:11:12 AM  

Mael99: The headline describes half the population of Massachusetts.
That's why they're all contractors, painters, roofers or "self-employed".


Funny how all the daily morning commuter traffic is SOUTHBOUND from your state into mine.

Not enough jobs up there in your libertarian paradise?
 
2013-02-18 08:13:34 AM  

Wayne 985: I'm more astonished that girls are dumb enough to sext and not think it'll get out.


Teens of both genders literally have not yet finished growing their brains yet.

/minor miracle me and my buddies didn't kill anyone, they way we drove
 
2013-02-18 08:18:14 AM  

DigitalCoffee: Fortunately there are strict guidelines that define what can be considered to be pornographic and what is not (Miller test). The second assistant DA needs to learn here that nude and semi-nude do NOT automatically mean pornographic (regardless of age). He sounds like a zealot douche-bag that is just interested in high prosecution numbers rather than justice.


I'm not sure Miller applies to kiddie porn.  There've been convictions for DRAWINGS, let alone photos, in the Fed. system.

Not to mention the 'treatment' program consists of requiring convicts to INVENT MORE OFFENSES for their shrinks, or they are deemed 'non-cooperative'.
 
2013-02-18 08:30:05 AM  

PunGent: I'm not sure Miller applies to kiddie porn. There've been convictions for DRAWINGS, let alone photos, in the Fed. system.


Citation Needed.

All convictions I am aware of at the Federal level regarding that material have either involved:

1. Photographs of actual minors.
2. Somebody who entered a guilty plea or alford/no-contest plea and didn't fight the charges.

Can you provide a citation for somebody who actually entered a plea of not guilty, was convicted specifically of those charges (and not lesser charges), and the conviction was upheld on appeal?

Given that SCOTUS ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstituionally overbroad because among other things it would criminalize mere drawings with no regard to artistic merit and no actual victim was created, it's very curious that somebody would be convicted and that conviction be upheld in direct opposition to a SCOTUS precedent.
 
2013-02-18 08:33:36 AM  
I farking hate cops.
 
2013-02-18 08:50:26 AM  

Silverstaff: PunGent: I'm not sure Miller applies to kiddie porn. There've been convictions for DRAWINGS, let alone photos, in the Fed. system.

Citation Needed.

All convictions I am aware of at the Federal level regarding that material have either involved:

1. Photographs of actual minors.
2. Somebody who entered a guilty plea or alford/no-contest plea and didn't fight the charges.

Can you provide a citation for somebody who actually entered a plea of not guilty, was convicted specifically of those charges (and not lesser charges), and the conviction was upheld on appeal?

Given that SCOTUS ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstituionally overbroad because among other things it would criminalize mere drawings with no regard to artistic merit and no actual victim was created, it's very curious that somebody would be convicted and that conviction be upheld in direct opposition to a SCOTUS precedent.


Looks like Miller DOES apply, but only with simulated kiddie porn...the 'real' stuff doesn't have to pass the obscenity test for convictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_pornography

Can't find the case I was thinking of, recall that it was Georgia Federal Court, maybe?  will keep looking.
 
2013-02-18 08:56:22 AM  

Silverstaff: PunGent: I'm not sure Miller applies to kiddie porn. There've been convictions for DRAWINGS, let alone photos, in the Fed. system.

Citation Needed.

All convictions I am aware of at the Federal level regarding that material have either involved:

1. Photographs of actual minors.
2. Somebody who entered a guilty plea or alford/no-contest plea and didn't fight the charges.

Can you provide a citation for somebody who actually entered a plea of not guilty, was convicted specifically of those charges (and not lesser charges), and the conviction was upheld on appeal?

Given that SCOTUS ruled in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002), that the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstituionally overbroad because among other things it would criminalize mere drawings with no regard to artistic merit and no actual victim was created, it's very curious that somebody would be convicted and that conviction be upheld in direct opposition to a SCOTUS precedent.


Got it, Virginia case:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28319199/#.USIyf2ceNck

Afa the Supreme Court, Scalia is perfectly willing to ignore his own precedents when convenient:

http://www.totallawyers.com/legal-articles/child-pornography-ruling/

Souter's dissent brings up your point, I think.
 
2013-02-18 09:19:17 AM  

PunGent: Got it, Virginia case:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28319199/#.USIyf2ceNck

Afa the Supreme Court, Scalia is perfectly willing to ignore his own precedents when convenient:

http://www.totallawyers.com/legal-articles/child-pornography-ruling/

Souter's dissent brings up your point, I think.



So, he had actual photographs of actual minors. . .and some drawings too.

Again, my original point stands, nobody with just drawings has been convicted.  He probably got a much less sympathetic treatment from the original trial jury and the judges since he had unquestionably violating materials, so they piled on with the charges.

Funny thing is, NBC is saying SCOTUS heard the case, but SCOTUS's website says they denied the petition (i.e. didn't grant cert. and listen to the appeal) after the date of that news article, and let the lower court ruling stand: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6521. htm
 
2013-02-18 10:26:54 AM  

Silverstaff: PunGent: Got it, Virginia case:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28319199/#.USIyf2ceNck

Afa the Supreme Court, Scalia is perfectly willing to ignore his own precedents when convenient:

http://www.totallawyers.com/legal-articles/child-pornography-ruling/

Souter's dissent brings up your point, I think.


So, he had actual photographs of actual minors. . .and some drawings too.

Again, my original point stands, nobody with just drawings has been convicted.  He probably got a much less sympathetic treatment from the original trial jury and the judges since he had unquestionably violating materials, so they piled on with the charges.

Funny thing is, NBC is saying SCOTUS heard the case, but SCOTUS's website says they denied the petition (i.e. didn't grant cert. and listen to the appeal) after the date of that news article, and let the lower court ruling stand: http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-6521. htm


Fair points, and I'm not going to even TRY to defend regular reporter's interpretations of legal cases :)
 
2013-02-18 10:36:56 AM  

PunGent: ZeroCorpse: Back in the old days we did the same thing. The difference was that a Polaroid instant photo didn't get distributed instantly to millions of people. You took a pic for your loved one, and they kept it in their hope chest or locked diary. They didn't photocopy it a million times and give it to everyone else when they suspected you didn't love them enough, either.
I think we need to change the laws. Anyone past puberty who wants to take a picture of themselves should be free of the burden of child pornography laws. Any significant other of similar age who is the recipient of the image should likewise be off-limits for prosecutors.
We could make another new law that makes distributing naked pictures of yourself when you're under 18 years of age a misdemeanor, and the punishment should be a class that teaches just how dangerous it could be to give boyfriends/girlfriends naked pictures of yourself. No jail time. No sex offender list for teenagers. Just something to teach them the common sense rules for this situation.

I also think that we should establish a national age of consent, and that the age of consent should include not just the ability to choose for yourself whether or not to have intercourse, but also the legal right to choose whether or not you wish to pose nude. Personally, I'm all for sixteen being the national age of consent. Eighteen is silly-- Most relatively normal people have had sex by that time these days (and really, they did in the past, too).

It's just stupid that in Michigan, for example, a 19-year-old and a 17-year-old can have sex and it's perfectly legal, but in California that same relationship would lead to rape charges, sex offender listings, and the ruining of a young person's life.

The old, white, Christian folks who work so hard to keep these screwed-up sexuality laws on the books need to be ignored. They don't speak for the rest of us, obviously. I lost my virginity at sixteen, to a nineteen-year-old, and I have never had ...


They lose anyway.
Why not get the imformation/discussion out there?
OH, the media.
 
2013-02-19 01:13:43 AM  

gleaningtheboob: [www.afterelton.com image 336x503]

Whenever I hear of stories involving teen sexting and such I think of the role Paris Hilton had in making it acceptable.  Maybe it's a stretch, but kids saw quite clearly that putting amateur porn videos of yourself not only won't get you in trouble but may make you absurdly popular.  Her sex tapes were the first public thing she did and afterward she got TV and movie roles, her media presence skyrocketed and she cashed in on her image to endorse products.  Her family got richer and little girls in particular were encouraged to do something unfathomable not even a decade ago.


Actually, the first public thing she did was have a modeling career.  She also started to gain fame as a socialite and was even cast in a straight to video movie, before her sex tape was released.  Oh yeah, she also filmed that reality show with the other woman before the sex tape was released  So, in actuality, the sex tape was the 3rd or 4th thing she did.  Either way, she is going to get screwed because Grandpa Hilton has made it very clear that she will not get her hands on his fortune!  Sure, the sex tape ultimately led to her being a millionaire, but if she had just behaved herself she could have inherited a huge chunk of the Hilton fortune.
 
2013-02-19 11:51:18 AM  

Mock26: gleaningtheboob: [www.afterelton.com image 336x503]

Whenever I hear of stories involving teen sexting and such I think of the role Paris Hilton had in making it acceptable.  Maybe it's a stretch, but kids saw quite clearly that putting amateur porn videos of yourself not only won't get you in trouble but may make you absurdly popular.  Her sex tapes were the first public thing she did and afterward she got TV and movie roles, her media presence skyrocketed and she cashed in on her image to endorse products.  Her family got richer and little girls in particular were encouraged to do something unfathomable not even a decade ago.

Actually, the first public thing she did was have a modeling career.  She also started to gain fame as a socialite and was even cast in a straight to video movie, before her sex tape was released.  Oh yeah, she also filmed that reality show with the other woman before the sex tape was released  So, in actuality, the sex tape was the 3rd or 4th thing she did.  Either way, she is going to get screwed because Grandpa Hilton has made it very clear that she will not get her hands on his fortune!  Sure, the sex tape ultimately led to her being a millionaire, but if she had just behaved herself she could have inherited a huge chunk of the Hilton fortune.


Gotta give some respect for dumping Grandpa.
Suppose she got tired of dancing to his tune?
 
Displayed 134 of 134 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report