Cell Phone Photography and Sexting

BobNewYork · Mar 2, 2009

I really don' think "artistic expression" was the kids' intent here but I have a real problem with this nonsensical approach. There's a good chance these kids will go on the sex offenders list for 10 years - what do you think the odds are that they'll get a job? If any of them had any thoughts about education as a career - forget it! And, by the way, we'd better throw them out of school because if you're on the sex offenders list you may not venture within a couple of hundred yards of a school.

Let's all just pretend that kids do not think about sex and they'll stop. It was forty years ago that I was a 15 year old and I can assure you that my mind was far from pure.

I get sick and tired of all these asinine public officials telling us that we have to show kids that actions have consequences. Did these idiot lawmakers and prosecutors consider the consequences of the actions they were taking in this case? If they did they should be thrown out.

Justice? I have a very different definition that really isn't fit for publication!

Now where's my blood pressure medication !

Bob H

nickandre · Mar 2, 2009

Oh look! Another example of how the Politically Correct Movement is steering America into a reign of terror reminiscent of the French Revolution. Annoyed? Yes. Surprised? No.

When we became a first world country we realized that we didn't need to work hard anymore so the Two Hour Rule came into effect and this crap happened.

Simplicius · Mar 2, 2009

That is PC Police gone mad, Those kids are just using technology for one of the oldest and most natural stages of development of any kid. Where next sighs.....

Pity my poor USA Photographer Friends, how long before you are all under curfew and are all told to be home an hour before sunset and then be on the internet reading "My latest Sunset shoot" ........... smirks.

DJGainer · Mar 2, 2009

Absinthe said:
So if 15 year olds want to see each other naked, even for the purpose of sexual excitement, that in a way seems natural. And in that, at least between the artist and the intended audience... I would still consider it artistic expression. But that is just me...

Right, but it's up to the Pennsylvania General Assembly to decide this. The policy consideration is to protect minors from permiscuousness when their bodies are changing drastically but their minds may not be mature enough to fully appreciate the consequences, good and bad.

Also, understanding all comments about the sexual interactions of similarly aged individuals, images are more transferrable, which is why there is a discrepancy in the statutory rape provisions and child pornography provisions.

Think of these two hypothetical situations:
15 year old boy has sexually enticing pictures of his girlfriend on his phone, but loses it in a public mall. Much older individual picks up the phone, and now has access to and ability to disseminate said images to whoever he/she so chooses.

Same 15 year old boy has same pictures on phone, but sends them to his 22 year old brother away at college.

For anyone interested, the relevant provisions at issue may be found in section 6312 of title 18 of the Pennsylvania Code.

And just for the record, I find it objectionable that the image of a naked adolescent be disseminated as art; I just don't see it...

jd callow · Mar 2, 2009

So the 1/10 of 1% chance that the shot of a teenager's B/GF might wind up in the hands of an adult or online is justification for this? I just don't see it... I find the crime in this to be the teacher scrolling through the youngster's phone.

DJGainer · Mar 2, 2009

jd callow said:
So the 1/10 of 1% chance that the shot of a teenager's B/GF might wind up in the hands of an adult or online is justification for this? I just don't see it... I find the crime in this to be the teacher scrolling through the youngster's phone.

It absolutely justifies it. I could be wrong, but I don't think the teacher scrolled through the phone; I believe it was on the screen when he took it from the student.

Think about what might happen if this were not the law. Pictures would end up online much more often, and it would be impossible for authorities to control dissemination. There would be absolutely no way of ensuring that images of minors only make it to other minors.

BobNewYork · Mar 2, 2009

By the same token let's ban all public photography just in case the images can be used by terrorists! It just seems to me that this is the danger - let's ban absolutely everything........just in case! We have laws, well founded laws at that against KP. Let's not condemn kids to unemployment because they're being kids. Should their parents have a serious talk with them? Of course. And if we're going to charge them for KP offenses why on earth should they not be jailed for 5-7 years.in an adult facility of course because it's an adult offence.

Bob H

jd callow · Mar 2, 2009

DJGainer said:
It absolutely justifies it. I could be wrong, but I don't think the teacher scrolled through the phone; I believe it was on the screen when he took it from the student.

Think about what might happen if this were not the law. Pictures would end up online much more often, and it would be impossible for authorities to control dissemination. There would be absolutely no way of ensuring that images of minors only make it to other minors.

I don't buy it. By your logic the 20% of people who speed, 2 or 3% of those who shoplift and or any crime you care to mention could and should require a draconian legal response. And that is when the initial activity is a clear and obvious violation. You are supporting a law because a tertiary activity that is unlawful may occur. If you think these kinds of laws will stop kids from doing this sort of thing you are wrong. It hasn't worked keeping adults from alcohol, drugs, and prostitution and it sure as hell won't keep kids who are full of hormones and curiosity from exploration. I'm all for protecting children, but this is not protecting them, but marking them.

Simplicius · Mar 2, 2009

DJGainer said:
Think about what might happen if this were not the law. Pictures would end up online much more often, and it would be impossible for authorities to control dissemination. There would be absolutely no way of ensuring that images of minors only make it to other minors.

Much as I understand your concern, this is where the State needs to step back and people should expect the State to step back, not get stuck in. It is not for legislation to control behaviour of children or teens because they might get into harm, that is a slippery slope. That used to be and should still be Parental Responsibility.

It seems to me these days that Parents are only too happy to let kids be managed by others and hold their hands up helplessly if their kids do something stupid.

In my book the School Principle should have called in the parents in question, carpeted them and read them the riot act, suspended the kids for a few weeks and then at an emergency parents night again raised the issue and let every parent know if their child is caught doing this they will be suspended and remind parents it is their responsibility to police hormonal time bombs , not the state legislature.

.......... ok I'm going back to investigate what Rodinal can't give good results with....

Ole · Mar 2, 2009

DJGainer said:
It absolutely justifies it. I could be wrong, but I don't think the teacher scrolled through the phone; I believe it was on the screen when he took it from the student.

Think about what might happen if this were not the law. Pictures would end up online much more often, and it would be impossible for authorities to control dissemination. There would be absolutely no way of ensuring that images of minors only make it to other minors.

That is one of the best arguments I have ever seen for total gun control, as well as preemptive censorship (someone is bound to get offended, so let's ban everything) of the Farenheit 456 kind.

Honestly, it stinks.

Ed Sukach · Mar 2, 2009

Recidivisim - I've heard BOTH that recidivisim among sex offenders was horribly frequent, and that it was the lowest among all crimes. Anyone have any VALID information, other than "Everybody KNOWS!!".

The "inability" of the government to control the dissemination of such material? Do we really NEED "control"?
Easily looked up - Sex crimes, and crimes of violence in general - all indicated significant decreases when the Scandinavian governments abandoned their pornography laws. Note: that IS DEcrease - the "DE" is not a mistake.

Interesting cause and effect.

BetterSense · Mar 2, 2009

I think this is terribly mixed up. If you are over 18, it is illegal to have sex for money, unless you photograph it, in which case it is legal. If you are under 18, it is perfectly legal to have sex, unless you take a picture of it, in which case it is illegal. In fact even taking pictures of yourself is illegal? I fear for my children, who aren't even born yet.

Absinthe · Mar 2, 2009

Wait a second... What is so terrible about the possibly that the photograph taken by the teen of herself be disseminated? She is not harmed in the least, unless you count the fact that her copyright has ben violated. Or perhaps some embarassment.. I believe the harm in child pornography is the coercion, abuse and exploitation of the children involved. None of which has happened in this situation. Kind of no-harm no-foul.

Granted, there are other reasons KP is illegal, such as being used to show the "normalcy" of some Adult-Child relations to prospective victim. However, that aside, what is to be gained by sending this child to prison? Does that protect her from anything? Will it protect her future victims? Oh wait, I forgot, she is the claimed victim. Maybe prison will rehabilitate her and when she gets out can be a contributing member of society instead of the lecherous trenchcoat flasher with candy in her pockets... for herself to eat?. Nope, when she gets out she will be a marked pariah and not be able to get a job, work anywhere or live anywhere. Perhaps she should just be killed instead.

Cheryl Jacobs · Mar 2, 2009

DJGainer said:
It absolutely justifies it. I could be wrong, but I don't think the teacher scrolled through the phone; I believe it was on the screen when he took it from the student.

Think about what might happen if this were not the law. Pictures would end up online much more often, and it would be impossible for authorities to control dissemination. There would be absolutely no way of ensuring that images of minors only make it to other minors.

I would like to know what the harm is in a teenage minor's photographs ending up in the hands of adults. Really. Beyond the knee-jerk reaction of "that man must be a pervert", how exactly is that doing any harm? What, is he going to hunt her down? I'm curious. It seems to me that there is so much under-age porn on the net that some girl's cell-phone self-portrait which may or may not end up in someone else's hands is a very, very minor concern.

What exactly are we worried will happen? Explain to me the imminent danger. Explain to me why these girls' mortification isn't enough of a lesson.

DJGainer · Mar 2, 2009

BobNewYork said:
By the same token let's ban all public photography just in case the images can be used by terrorists! It just seems to me that this is the danger - let's ban absolutely everything........just in case! We have laws, well founded laws at that against KP. Let's not condemn kids to unemployment because they're being kids. Should their parents have a serious talk with them? Of course. And if we're going to charge them for KP offenses why on earth should they not be jailed for 5-7 years.in an adult facility of course because it's an adult offence.

Bob H

That is not the same token at all. I'm saying minors are a protected class and I agree with the law as it is.

With that said, an arrest is very different than a conviction or sentence, and this case isn't anywhere near that. I agree with the law being firm, but I doubt it will be enforced in its true 'draconian' form.

Everyone here is entitled to their opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I don't seem myself persuading any of you who share the opposite position, and you do not persuade me, so I will leave it here with an agreement to disagree.

Cheryl Jacobs · Mar 2, 2009

DJGainer said:
Everyone here is entitled to their opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I don't seem myself persuading any of you who share the opposite position, and you do not persuade me, so I will leave it here with an agreement to disagree.

With all due respect, this is a discussion forum. This is a place for people to discuss and debate, and probably not the right place to post if you'd prefer to agree to disagree.

DJGainer · Mar 2, 2009

Ole said:
That is one of the best arguments I have ever seen for total gun control, as well as preemptive censorship (someone is bound to get offended, so let's ban everything) of the Farenheit 456 kind.

Honestly, it stinks.

Ole, I've read and learned from many of your posts, so I regard your opinion highly. But your post is changing the issue entirely. This is not a question of gun control or censorship.

I feel adults of majority should be free to express themselves in whatever way they can imagine and desire; but I feel the exact opposite about minors. In fact, sometimes people need to be offended so they may eventually expand their mind, but the subject that evokes that response should not be a nude picture of a minor.

As for censorship in public I am vehmently against it. In fact, I have found myself in several situations arguing with law enforcement about what I may or may not take a picture of, and every time I find their position rediculous. It is the freedom of expression that makes art truly inspiring, but, again, I disagree on the topic of nude pictures of minors.

DJGainer · Mar 2, 2009

Cheryl Jacobs said:
With all due respect, this is a discussion forum. This is a place for people to discuss and debate, and probably not the right place to post if you'd prefer to agree to disagree.

Cheryl,
With all due respect, it is clear that I am the only person representing the other side of the discussion. I am trying to state that I am withdrawing from the discussion because I feel that we could end up arguing the points ad naseum, but I'm not going to do that. Too many discussions and debates shortly turn into attacks, and I want to stop before that happens.

JBrunner · Mar 3, 2009

Some kid taking a picture of themselves, and then sending it to some other kid is vastly different than kiddie porn. Whoever brought the charges needs their head examined. Parenting and discipline are called for here, not a further burden on our overtaxed public resources and lumbering criminal justice system.

aluk · Mar 3, 2009

We had a similar situation here in Canada a little while ago - i.e. where youth managed to outsmart a law meant to protect them.
See http://www.thestar.com/GTA/Crime/article/588289

spotulate · Mar 3, 2009

If the judge determines that the law has been violated, the law has been violated. I think this is more an 'example' case. The kids will probably leave with a slap on the wrist but big press. The issue at hand is not so much "What has it done specifically in this case" but more "How do we handle this next time?". If we let them go without any process now, what happens in the future when someone else tries to use the same defense but had truly nefarious ideas in mind?

BobNewYork · Mar 3, 2009

spotulate said:
If the judge determines that the law has been violated, the law has been violated. I think this is more an 'example' case. The kids will probably leave with a slap on the wrist but big press. The issue at hand is not so much "What has it done specifically in this case" but more "How do we handle this next time?". If we let them go without any process now, what happens in the future when someone else tries to use the same defense but had truly nefarious ideas in mind?

Yes - I understand that. I think the problem is that the lawmakers need to tighten up the wording of the statutes. We seem to be enacting legislation which is purposely worded in such a way that they can be invoked at in ridiculous situations by publicity-seeking prosecutors. I say it again, the lawmakers ought to suffer the consequence of their actions. These silly teens are now suffering the consequences of theirs.

BTW DJG - please accept my apologies if you thought my postings were an attack. If they came over that way I'm sorry. I do feel strongly about the issue and most particularly about the state overstepping what I see as its bounds. I'm a father of three so I certainly don't advocate Kiddie Porn. Were a teenaged daughter of mine to do this I would be really, really p****d. But I would be equally infuriated if the authorities decided to usurp my authority as a parent.

Again my apologies if you felt I attacked you.

Bob H

Absinthe · Mar 3, 2009

BobNewYork said:
I think the problem is that the lawmakers need to tighten up the wording of the statutes. We seem to be enacting legislation which is purposely worded in such a way that they can be invoked at in ridiculous situations by publicity-seeking prosecutors. I say it again, the lawmakers ought to suffer the consequence of their actions. These silly teens are now suffering the consequences of theirs.

Bob H

Having just recently been involved in writing new legislation for something I can attest to the fact that "Lawmakers" do not write the laws. Lobbyists and common people (like myself) write the laws. Let me just add, that writing a law is a lot like choosing your three wishes from a Genie. You really have to think of every possible way that it can be misconstrued, misinterpreted, misused or any other words beginning with "mis-" that you can come up with.

This would be a good place to insert the joke about the guy that walks into a bar placing a tiny piano on the bar and a 12" man sits down at it and begins to play. He, looking sad, offhandedly mentions that there is a Genie in the parking lot granting wishes. The bartender immediately runs out and when he returns is surrounded by literally a million ducks, all quacking loudly and flapping their wings and just making a general nuisance of themselves. He complains to the first man, "That Genie must be deaf as a post! I never said anything about ducks, I wanted a million bucks!" To which the first guy replies, "And you think I wanted a 12 inch pianist?"

I hope that is not out of line, but it came to me for some reason. Point is, when laws get written, it is a very strange process, and when you are done, more than one person has touched it. No matter how perfectly you giveth in the "Code" someone always seems to taketh away in the "Exemptions." No matter how perfectly you write the "Definition" someone always seem to come up with a way to take the one word you thought you knew what meant, and use it in some #7 definition from Websters that completely derails your intentions. And laws are usually attached to other larger pieces of legislation, so they are an inclusion in the larger code of the state, and as such many times inherit legacy parts that cause for some interesting side effects.

ntenny · Mar 3, 2009

spotulate said:
If the judge determines that the law has been violated, the law has been violated. I think this is more an 'example' case. The kids will probably leave with a slap on the wrist but big press.

I haven't followed the case particularly, but I think this may be one of those situations where the kids *can't* leave with a slap on the wrist, because of mandatory sentencing restrictions.

Production and distribution of child pornography are heavyweight offences, and rightly so---the problem seems to be that the law doesn't consider the possibility that the culprit might also be the victim, and so nobody's gotten around to creating a lighter offence that's more appropriate to this situation.

I think the point DJGainer made was actually quite well taken---there *is* a legitimate state interest in stopping the possession and distribution of these pictures, regardless of who took them. In that light I think it's meet and right that there *is* law-enforcement involvement---but the only laws that apply (and allow the state to intervene in the aspects where they do have an interest) are completely out of whack with what actually happened.

But it's never going to get fixed, I think. There's no percentage for a politician in being the sponsor of a bill to reduce penalties for child porn---you can imagine the opponent's adverts come reelection time!

-NT

MattKing · Mar 3, 2009

To my mind, this is just one in a long list of examples where resorting to criminal law to regulate an issue just leads to problems.

The criminal law is a very poor instrument for regulating most of our lives.

If there were enforceable rules relating to what could and could not be shared over the internet/phone system, that involved essentially civil penalties for those transmitting objectionable material involving minors, then we could more easily have a discussion about what (if anything) might constitute objectionable material.

The spectre of imposing a lifelong criminal record for a sex offense totally skews any rational discussion about this.

I'm not suggesting that the criminal law doesn't have a role, but it only seems appropriate where there is a requirement to show some sort of evil intent or reckless disregard of harm.

Matt

Cell Phone Photography and Sexting

BobNewYork

nickandre

Simplicius

DJGainer

jd callow

Moderator

DJGainer

BobNewYork

jd callow

Moderator

Simplicius

Ole

Moderator

Ed Sukach

BetterSense

Absinthe

Cheryl Jacobs

DJGainer

Cheryl Jacobs

DJGainer

DJGainer

JBrunner

Moderator

aluk

spotulate

BobNewYork

Absinthe

ntenny

MattKing

Moderator

Cell Phone Photography and Sexting

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency