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 137
    More: PSA, Massachusetts DA, sex offenders, child pornography, Computer Crime  
•       •       •

6020 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2013 at 3:18 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 01:27:32 AM

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.
 
2013-02-18 01:33:02 AM
I hope a lot of kids do get arrested for child porn and put on the sex offender's list. Maybe this will freak out the parent's enough to panic them into making laws in the other direction when it comes to this sex offender registry nonsense. If there is a legitimate concern that someone who has committed a sex crime will do so again, then keep them in farking jail. Otherwise once they have served their time then they should be treated just like every other ex con.

If we didn't keep locking people up for stupid shiat like smoking pot or being black on a Tuesday, maybe we would have room in our prisons for people who are actually a threat to society like pedophiles and people that kill their grandmother's with hammers.
 
2013-02-18 01:45:16 AM

ennuie: 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).


This is why laws should be simple and allow common sense of the jury and judge to figure out when a law has been broken, and not attempt to spell out every single scenario with mandatory punishments. Why try to draw the line between a mom taking a picture of baby's first bath or teenagers sending dirty pics to each other or perverts whacking off to pics on the internet. What is and what isn't breaking the law what is wrong and what is right is obvious to most people.
 
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 37 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report