Coconice: FTFA: Meanwhile, Rowan County Sheriff's deputies say they were able to back-track an Instagram photograph of a naked 15-year-old girl to Juan Bautista, 17, a student at West Rowan High School.While I understand their withholding of the 15-year-old girl's name, I'm fairly surprised at their publishing of the 17-year-old boy's name.I also find their usage of hyphens questionable. I mimicked it, but it was tough.Also, I didn't check as to the age of consent in NC. Don't most states have an age of consent that is less than 18? I enjoy where a kid is old enough to consent to getting farked, but not old enough to consent to being photographed.
Pangea: I have to deal with a non-violent felony on my record from almost 25 years ago, every time I seek new employment. I have changed immeasurably from when I was 18, but I will carry that burden for the rest of my life.
The Stealth Hippopotamus: ugh. Why did it have to be teenage girls? I have to at least be able to fool myself into thinking they are old enough to drink legally[img829.imageshack.us image 680x396]
DarkVader: Pangea: I have to deal with a non-violent felony on my record from almost 25 years ago, every time I seek new employment. I have changed immeasurably from when I was 18, but I will carry that burden for the rest of my life.Maybe not. Check this out, you may be eligible to have it expunged.
Boo_Guy: IRQ12: Add a byte to the mac address and have an identifier for adult or non adult NICs. Server and client side.Sorry kids, you're ruining this for everyone.Yea cause its totally not really easy to spoof a MAC address, no sir.
Luse: Latinwolf: Electromax: Pangea: Electromax: orbister: Target Builder: Distributing naked photos of anyone when they don't want you to is a major dick move.Sending naked photographs of yourself to someone else is a cretinously stupid thing to do, and anything which happens as a result is your own damn fault.You can shout that into the face of every 15 year old on the planet, but they're still 15.No one is arguing that 15-year-olds aren't stupid.I think the only real question is whether or not it is fair to hold the boys who forward the pictures to a higher standard than the girls who actually take the pictures in the first place.It's absurd to me that the boys should be punished for sharing something that wouldn't exist without the actions of the "innocent" party.I agree in principle, but also feel compelled to mention that the girls are punished in part merely by the action itself, and consequently being naked on the internet for the rest of time, whereas the boys really don't have any consequences aside from getting broken up with if they aren't punished by someone else.It's a fuzzy line, but for a lot of people it's probably "hasn't she suffered enough already/the punishment of having your pics out there is worse than anything I could do" mentality. Basically let her learn her lesson that way, but the boys aren't perceived to have learned a lesson unless they see a negative outcome.Really the mistake is trusting a 15-year-old with something that will exist forever and is not easy to get otherwise. But I'm sure she was positive it was True Love 4 Life.I'm guessing that a majority of the guys that are saying that she should be punished would have no problem if she was the only one being punished and that the guy distributing the pics was allowed to get away with it.You're guessing wrong.If charges for distribution are brought up, both her and the boys should face them. She was the first one to distribute.In addition she also produced the materia ...
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 26 2017 08:50:49
Runtime: 0.303 sec (303 ms)