ACLU Wins, No Sexting Charges For NJ Teens 406
Following up on the "sexting" case we've discussed in recent days, oliphaunt sends word from the Times-Tribune that a New Jersey federal judge has ordered the prosecutor not to file charges in the cases of three teenage girls whose cell phones were confiscated. "Wyoming [NJ] County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. cannot charge three teenage girls who appeared in photographs seminude traded by classmates last year, a judge ruled Monday. US District Judge James M. Munley granted a request by the American Civil Liberties Union to temporarily stop Mr. Skumanick from filing felony charges against the Tunkhannock Area School District students."
It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Insightful)
TFS states that it's only a TEMPORARY halt to filing any charges on the teens
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and based on the article I read earlier (my excuse for not RingTFA now) the basis for the judgement was that the pictures of the girls were not sexually explicit, not that charging the subject as in supposed victim of child pornography with life-devastating charges is an affront against the spirit of anti-child-porn laws and of justice itself.
I suppose given the former there's no reason to rule on the latter, but still I really wanted this to be thrown out because the very concept of charging the girls whose photos were taken is insanely Kafkaesque.
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Informative)
The ACLU lawsuit argues the photographs in which the girls appear are not pornographic and should be protected under the First Amendment.
It's exactly that. Thank you First Amendment, once again.
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Insightful)
This REALLY needs to be decided on Constitutional grounds. A little research will show that these sorts of threats and even charges are becoming commonplace against teens. This is one reason this needs to go to trial. Let's send a CLEAR message to prosecutors that this is fundamentally a violation of teens' protected speech and outside the (narrow) child pornography exception.
Note that in other cases obscenity charges are used. However, this poses extremely problematic issues as well. Normal obscenity law depends on a jury to decide a relevant contemporary community standard. Since there are no jury trials in juvenile court, the judge gets to decide what is obscene and what is not and thus IMO this makes the law as applied to juveniles unconstitutionally vague (because a judge alone decides matters in what would fundamentally be an arbitrary way).
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's odd that the prosecutor thinks he's doing nothing wrong. The judge clearly has problems with it:
According to the Times, Judge Munley told Skumanick's lawyer, A. James Hailstone: "It seems like the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here. How does that make sense?" State law "doesn't distinguish between who took the picture and who was in it," Hailstone was quoted by the newspaper as saying.
He's actually trying to charge them as accomplices to "open lewdness", which is a misdemeanor. I had never heard of such a thing. The possible child pornography charge was just prosecutorial blackmail - standard operating procedure for almost any DA. I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that these laws would be found unconstitutional. The legislature needs to amend them from being applied in this way - although they typically only take action after a well publicized travesty of justice.
In any case, I think you'd need this to be much more explicit to set the kind of precedent you want. A not-guilty will be good enough for me, and the children involved too, I'm sure.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sending a message is fine. But the response needs to be proportional. You're going to label the poor misguided girl a sex offender for taking sexy pictures of herself? She can have sex like a grown woman but not give sexy pictures of herself to guys she like?
This is like charging a 10 year old for felony larceny for stealing a candy bar, and getting him thrown in pound my ass prison. That'd teach him a lesson, he'd never steal a candy bar again.
People do dumbass things, and its up to them to live with t
Off-topic, but funny aside (Score:3, Funny)
As a funny aside, in Massacheussets, there is an attempt to amend child pornography laws to also include disabled persons and persons over 60 years old.
If that one gets passed, I really want to watch hearings on its Constitutionality, especially if it gets to the Supreme Court. I want to see how the justices will respond to being told that consent is irrelevent for folks over 60 years old, given that Roberts is 54, Alito is 58, and everyone else on the court is over 60.
Finally, a law SO blatantly Unconstit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But, if not for puritanical jerks like yourself, this sort of behavior wouldn't be a big deal, would it? You turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy - "if you do this, your life will be ruined, because a loudmouthed minority of religious bible-thumping zealots like myself will judge you as a nonperson because of it."
I did a lot of things as a teenager that I'm embarrassed about - in fact, there's photographic evidence that I had hair halfway down my back and walked around in sleeveless T-shirts. If some g
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, pornography should also be protected by the First Amendment. And it should be legal for anybody to make pornographic photos of themselves. They may be teenagers but they should still own their bodies.
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:4, Insightful)
the basis for the judgement was that the pictures of the girls were not sexually explicit
Now that these pictures have been ruled not sexually explicit, where can I get a copy?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also what's do horrible about acknowledging beauty? When I watch the Blue Lagoon, I think Brooke Shields looks gorgeous. Her male friend is rather beautiful too. Does the fact she's only 16 make me some kind of deviant? Is that child pornography?
Only in the minds of people who are, themselves, mentally ill.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty scary stuff as the pictures described contain more clothing (a braw, which typically covers more than a bikini, and long pant pajama bottoms) as would otherwise be present at a lake or beach outing. If allowed to stand, anyone who has ever taken a picture while at the beach or lake is likely a child pornographer in the eyes of this idiot prosecutor. According to this idiot, the majority of the world is a child pornographer.
It would be nice if this guy were to be beat over the head with wrongful and m
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Funny)
It would be nice if this guy were to be beat over the head with wrongful and malicious prosecutions.
Or a bat.
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Funny)
You're harshing my mellow, man! (Score:4, Funny)
Hey! He was only one letter off!
That's closer to a bra than the average /.'er gets!!
Leave his geek card alone...it's wrapped in a braw, dammit!
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I had an idea to call the ACLU at that time but thought that media exposure might hurt me in the long run, now I regret not calling them.
Anyway, this seems like a similar situation and hopefully competent decisions like this will continue to be made.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nevermind the thousands of dollars in attorney's fees that we had to pay
How did you rack up thousands of dollars in fees for something that got kicked the first time the judge saw it? I wound up charged with a Class E felony in NYS that went to grand jury and five different court appearances and "only" wound up paying ~$4,500.
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Thanks for the math contribution. Where would we be without your mad skills?
You'll surely note that I said my case had five different court appearances and the GP's had one. Hence I think my question was valid. Now bugger off unless you have something meaningful to say.
Depends on your case. I spent thousands on lawyer fees before and never saw the inside of the courtroom or was subject to charges. Of course, that was the point. I know that if there was anything that might land me on the sex offender registry, I'd lawyer up like you wouldn't believe.
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Funny)
Building a web site ------------- $ 50
Dealing with the police ------ $ 280
Courts and Lawyers --------- $9845
Discussing your ball sack in a courtroom... Priceless!!!
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now if only the article was correct - this didn't take place in New Jersey, but Pennsylvania. FYI I went to this high school in the 90s. The girls were nothing to write home about. I still don't think they are - not much changes in farm country.
I know the families of several of the involved in this case -- it just was yet another case of a DA trying to make a big name for himself with a "prize case" that would make nation attention and move him up the ladder in his career. He's a real ass clown.
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:4, Informative)
Well, sure, the ACLU only filed its complaint like, what, three or four days ago? It's ridonkulous to think a court would issue a final ruling in five days. But it's not unusual to get a temporary order this fast, that will hold while the court takes its time to figure out whether to make the order permanent or give this nutjob prosecutor a chance to back down.
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's a battle and not the war.. (Score:4, Interesting)
but ethically should we not be allowed to sue, or bring charges, against prosecutors who do patently ridiculous and abusive things?
Perhaps, but the DA makes a good point (probably his only one ever) when he says that it's a dangerous precedent to set when a Federal court prevents a State prosecutor from bringing charges. I'm no fan of what he's trying to do but I probably would have called his bluff before I would have run off to the Federal court house. His 'evidence' seems pretty thin and it's doubtful that it would even make it to a jury, let alone a conviction.....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dangerous ? His actions are unconstitutional - federal court is the right forum for that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A case in point is Title 18, Section 2257, which (contrary to popular belief) applies to individuals just as much as it does to commercial pornography. They justify this with an outrageous interpretation of the Interstate Commerce clause, stating that if ANY of the materials
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>sounds to me like this pervert is looking for an excuse to humiliating some pretty young girls.
Sounds to me like he's a religious type, and he sees an opportunity to impose his Judeo-christian values onto the citizens. He likely thinks nudity is a horrible, horrible sin deserving of punishment and hopes to scare other people from being nude. Or having sex. Or fun. There's no tyrant worse than a tyrant trying to "do good". I hate morality dictators.
NJ? Really? (Score:5, Informative)
There is no Wyoming County in NJ.
The judge may be in NJ (since federal jurisdictions often overlap individual states).
Also note that there is no such thing as a "New Jersey federal judge". Submitter should be a little more careful... that judge has a specific title which wolud disambiguate which court we're talking about.
That summary was atrocious. Blech.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
indeed (Score:2)
The link in the summary is to the Scranton (PA) Times, and the judge is in the US District Court of Middle Pennsylvania.
I found this out by 1) clicking on the story link, and 2) Googling for judge's name and clicking on THE VERY FIRST LINK.
Seriously, can't the alleged editors of this site pretend to give a fuck about the accuracy of what they post?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, can't the alleged editors of this site pretend to give a fuck about the accuracy of what they post?
Why should they bother? Somebody will post any corrections in the comments.
Re:indeed (Score:4, Funny)
Now that's fair. Bad Slashdot poster! No donut. At least, not until everyone else has gotten one and you have to pick from the rejects.
Re:NJ? Really? (Score:4, Funny)
hey, this is slashdot. you're not supposed to read the article.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Neither is the submitter or the editors, apparently.
Re: (Score:2)
"New Jersey Federal Judge" means a Federal Judge whose district or circuit is in New Jersey. A little Googling will confirm that "{state} Federal Judge" is a pretty common idiom. Nobody who's not a lawyer (and thinking you know all about the law doesn't count) really cares about which specific district.
Which is not to defend sloppy summaries. Though I must point out that as Slashdot summaries go, this one is not all that bad, even with getting the state wrong.
And there's no point in complaining about submit
Re:NJ? Really? (Score:4, Funny)
These teens are in PA, not NJ.
And thus regardless of the actual ruling we can by deduction state that there are no "sexting" charges for nj teens, and the article title is correct!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm intrigued by your logic and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter :-P
Accuracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA:
Judge Munley ruled Mr. Walczak successfully met the standards necessary to issue a temporary order blocking Mr. Skumanick from filing charges against the three teens, including that they have demonstrated "a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims." He also believed "no harm would come to (Mr. Skumanick) by delaying prosecution on this matter."
Re:Accuracy? (Score:5, Informative)
right. first you get a temporary order. Then the court looks at the briefs, and maybe even asks for oral arguments. Then the judge decides if he needs to make the order permanent.
That's how the process works.
Reasoning? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mr. Walczak has said it was clear the three girls were victims; they did not take or distribute the photos in question."
Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self. Which is kind of unfortunate.
Re:Reasoning? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reasoning? (Score:5, Insightful)
If a 2 year old hands you a photo of themselves posing naked on a bear skin rug, should said 2 year be arrested for distribution of child porn and forced to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life?
In the USA, yes. In a country with a sane legal system, no.
Re:Reasoning? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you just hate when you wake up in the morning after a night of heavy drinking and find out that you've taken advantage of yourself again?
Yes but I always find myself coming back for more so I must like it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self. Which is kind of unfortunate.
Not everybody considers this unfortunate. I doubt he "ignored" the issue; rather, he opted that the defense of a person willingly committing a sex crime against oneself is invalid. That decision makes a lot of sense in my book.
Re:Reasoning? (Score:5, Informative)
Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self. Which is kind of unfortunate.
I don't think the decision does any such thing. (The full text of the judge's order may be found here [aclupa.org].)
This is only a temporary restraining order. It doesn't really get into the underlying issues of the prosecution itself. It's just a preliminary finding that the girls do seem to have a good First Amendment case, and that allowing the prosecution to proceed without some more argument into the free speech question might cause irreparable harm. The judge expressly notes that even a temporary infringement of First Amendment rights is a legally cognizable harm. Good for him.
The judge also takes note of the argument that the girls here are victims, not perpetrators. That question isn't decided (though it certainly isn't ignored), because again, this is only a temporary restraining order that doesn't reach that far into the substance of the case.
Sanity At least for now (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, Right... (Score:4, Funny)
He also believed "no harm would come to (Mr. Skumanick) by delaying prosecution on this matter."
I have to say, I don't agree with the judge's assessment. With all the press coverage and a successful temporary injunction(?), I can't imagine this guy is looking forward to the campaign trail this year.
Children are the enemy. (Score:5, Interesting)
In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.
Why?
Re:Children are the enemy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Children are the enemy. (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
not sure if they're 'the enemy' or not; but I do agree they're highly annoying in airplanes, in restaurants and in theatres!
Re:Children are the enemy. (Score:5, Informative)
In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.
Because it's the only way to protect them!
Imagine what harm could come to these poor girls if they weren't sent to prison for ten years and disallowed from coming anywhere near a school and having to notify all their neighbors of their crimes for the rest of their life?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Re:Children are the enemy. (Score:5, Insightful)
My theory: Having children leads to the end of all meaningful morality.
Morality is defined by what a reasonable person in society says it is. When people have children they are no longer reasonable, their genes don't let them be. It is paramount that a person's children be protected from any and all harm and given every advantage possible; because of this, parents can no longer judge what is in the best interest of society.
I wish I could say I was joking more than I am. Unfortunately, I've had this conversation with someone before. Them: "You don't want universal healthcare, the quality of your care will go down". Me: "What if I value everyone having care more important that some hypothetical reduction to my care?". Them: "You'll understand once you have children".
Re:Children are the enemy. (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither is true, of course, and those sorts of arguments are completely irrational in and of themselves; they're all variants of well-known logical fallacies. It can be pretty much cleanly disproven by the fact that there are childless individuals, and people with children, on both sides of the argument.
I love my children very much, and I am terrifically concerned about their future. Most of what I do is for the children. I do indeed 'think of the children.' That means that I would hate to see their human rights abrogated over a non-issue like a flirtatious picture. Concern for children isn't the problem; that's a good thing. Irrational and misplaced concern is the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bull shit.
A) Are you seriously claiming that people without children put aside their own self-interest and decide morality in some self-sacrificing manner for the good of society? What world are you living in? It clearly isn't this one.
2) Because one parent made a statement you disagreed with about the complex and heavily debated topic of universal health care and (so you claim) they backed this up with a bogus reason pertaining to their children, you conclude that morality exists only due to childless pe
selfishness (Score:3, Insightful)
witness the term "crotchfruit" and the way people who have kids are looked down upon
and the general trend among all developed nations, not just the west, to stop having children
they are just too messy, too much to bother
of course, they are also your replacement after you are dead, but i guess that's a minor detail, somehow
If Fox News reported this (Score:5, Funny)
"Atheists and liberal judges make child porn legal." Brit Hume reporting.
Re:If Fox News reported this (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to fire the retards in our government. Bush was a first good step. This prosecutor would be a good second.
Re: (Score:2)
Retards in Government = Redundant
Because most Americans are Retards who vote for the retarded (D) and (R)s ruining our country.
Re:If Fox News reported this (Score:5, Funny)
You can't spell retard without r and d!
*ducks*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Power trippers must be stopped. (Score:3, Insightful)
The next step is to take action against those who deemed it protective of his charges to:
1. access an electronic device without permission
2. view personal images whose intended audience was limited to a chosen few (maybe one, not staff in general)
3. fail to limit the negative impact on the life of his charges
First step would be to seize the personal/work computers of the people involved to ensure copies of said photos has not been taken.
At a minimum a transfer to a job where the people he responsibility for are only one pay grade below him, power trippers must be stopped and they hate that.
Goddamn DA (Score:4, Insightful)
No, strike that - fucking overzealous DA.
He was willing to ruin the lives of these kids, and for what?
It's shit like this that makes the rest of the world shake their heads with pity at the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It's shit like this that makes the rest of the world shake their heads with pity at the US and Saudi Arabia
Different outcomes but similar problems. Unable to distinguish between victim and perpetrator.
pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid (Score:5, Informative)
(btw, it happened in PENNSYLVANIA, not new jersey):
http://prisonpost.com/blog/2009/02/20/pennsylvania-judges-plead-guilty-in-juvenile-center-kickback-scheme_227.html [prisonpost.com]
why was the judge so harsh?
because he was getting kickbacks from the privately run prison
let me repeat that: in the usa, children, who did not deserve to be sent to prison, were being sent to prison for minor offenses. why? because the prisons were being run PRIVATELY, there was a PROFIT MOTIVE. enter: one crooked judge eager to line his pockets, and you have a cash machine
how evil is that? i mean really, how utterly shameful on us as americans that this took place? how shameful on us that we allowed the fiscal and legal environment in which PRIVATE PRISONS even fucking exist!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/us/14judge.html?fta=y [nytimes.com]
ok, so we have enron, we have this gem, we have the recent stock market crash
dear fiscal conservatives and republitards: why exactly do you want to privatize and deregulate everything?
i await your stunning insight as to how its all the democrats fault, when this private prison debacle and something like enron and the recent stock market meltdown are clear and obvious indications as to why, no, some things in this world you actually do not want to privatize and deregulate, that you actually want to keep utlities and prisons in the hands of the government, and you want to regulate the markets, for their own good. i now await your usual regurgitated kneejerk drivel about tax and spend democrats and socialism. well yes, actually, democrats are tax and spend. as opposed to republicans, who are just spend (all deficits climb sky high under republicans and are reduced under democrats: study past administrations). and as for socialism: yes, democrats actually do care enough to say gee, maybe its wrong middle class hardworking folks have to declare bankruptcy when they get a serious illness
"bloated government bureaucracy... blah blah blah... welfar
Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid (Score:5, Insightful)
Or... and I posit this entirely theoretically, it might be best if we take the approach that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints have some merit and we should work to create reasonable compromises in politics, government, and all laws.
Of course, that's just me talking. But based on the rhetoric and vitriol we see regarding politics in the media, on the web, and in other venues I appear to be the last centrist.
Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid (Score:4, Insightful)
Or... and I posit this entirely theoretically, it might be best if we take the approach that both the liberal and conservative viewpoints have some merit and we should work to create reasonable compromises in politics, government, and all laws.
Thing is, if you look at the spectrum of these things outside of your country - say, let's limit the set to other true liberal representative democracies - your "liberal" and "conservative" viewpoints are really "rather conservative" and "batshit fucking insane", respectively. Any "reasonable compromise" between them isn't going to be any more reasonable than either one of them, which really isn't a lot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I was unable to find any information about who made the decision to contract out the detention centers to the company involved, but the references I found indicated that Luzerne County politics is dominated by Democrats, which suggests that it was Democrats who were responsible for this particular privatization.
So this case doesn't work out as such a good indictment of Republicans. When you are trying to support your oppos
it could have been dome by martians (Score:3, Insightful)
the point is, it was made possible by republican/conservative ideology: privatize and deregulate everything, even things that shouldn't be dergulated and privatized. like utilities, prisons, the stock market
Re:pennsylvania is a scary place to be a kid (Score:4, Informative)
In the US there are no such things as "Democrats" or "Republicans". You have the right (calling themselves Democrats) and the far right (calling themselves Republicans).
Right is the side that strives towards monarchies or keeping an elite group in power, usually trying to keep the state and church together for more influence to rule the populace. They also use nationalism as a state religion to feed their military.
Both parties are equally not interested in a democracy nor a republic.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking bribes, cooking the books, etc are all illegal. People caught doing it get sent to prison. What, do you want to make it illegaler?
No he wants to eliminate the underlying cause of the corruption which is the profit motive. Yeah, yeah, there can still exist corruption, but the farther back you push it the more marginal the opportunity for profit and thus the more marginal the corruption itself. The TP supplier having a profit motive is infinitely better than having the prison have a direct profit mot
The right thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's clarify something... (Score:2)
But for some reason we're still supposed to look at the ACLU as evil?
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Hitler helped develop the Volkswagion, that doesnt make him a great guy.
Re:Let's clarify something... (Score:5, Funny)
I call Godwin!
*rolls d%*
Double Zero! A rift in space-time opens and Godwin steps out. "What do you want? I'm a busy man. This had better not be about Nazis."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As I understand the argument put forward by our more reactionary friends, they would like the ACLU more if they also duplicated the work of the NRA. Presumably that organisation doesn't fulfill its remit to their satisfaction, and they'd like the ACLU to lend a hand?
Re:Let's clarify something... (Score:4, Informative)
they would like the ACLU more if they also duplicated the work of the NRA. Presumably that organisation doesn't fulfill its remit to their satisfaction, and they'd like the ACLU to lend a hand?
I don't want them to duplicate the work of the NRA, I just want them to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment protects a civil liberty that's every bit as important as the rest. Instead they claim [aclu.org] that "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." One doubts they would make the same claim about the regulation of free speech, hence they are hypocrites. Because of that, most people who care about gun rights can not bring themselves to donate money/join the ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. They're hypocrites because they call themselves the American Civil Liberties Union but then turn around and work AGAINST the foundational civil liberty itself.
Dont get me wrong, for the most part, I like what they do. I've marched with them, helped with fund-raising, signature drives, etc. I had the pleasure of a few long discussions with the state director where I lived before, and he was a really good guy, as well as a really sharp lawyer. That combination is sadly very rare, and I was really glad to
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Correction: They work against what you believe is the foundational civil liberty. They don't agree with you. The fact that your opinion and their opinion differ is not hypocrisy
You don't see the hypocrisy in fighting for as broad of a reading of the Constitution as possible except for one part? They fight for rights that aren't even mentioned in the document (the right to privacy) under this theory but the one part of the document that they don't like doesn't get the same treatment? That doesn't seem just a little bit hypocritical to you?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First no one said the Constitution prohibits all "regulation" of firearms. That's not true. It simply sets a very high bar for this, just as it sets a very high b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And we're agreed on that.
Sure, that's a reasonable argument in form, though your paraphrase is significantly and critically off so far as the amend
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It has nothing to do with belief, if I managed to practice enough ignorance and double-think to actually *believe* their position it would still be false. And as I mentioned, I know for a fact that many of these guys are very sharp and well read and know how hypocritical the organisational position is.
Liking peanut butter or not isnt even vaguely comparable - you're talking about personal taste on the one hand, and fundamental civil rights on the other, as if they were somehow comparable. They are not. Liki
Re:Let's clarify something... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm.. I can understand an argument as to why the right to bear arms is a fundamental civil right, but there are many very good arguments as to why it isn't. I can see how you might not be swayed by them; but to deny that they exist is a bit intellectually dishonest.
Do you think it is a fundamental right that I can possess, for example, a bomb large enough to destroy the city I live in? I can't imagine you think that... if you can accept that it is not a fundamental right to own that sort of weapon, it is only a matter of degree to argue that a fully automatic weapon, say, can be banned without violating civil rights.
You might disagree with the argument, but you have to at least see how someone could disagree with your assessment.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you think it is a fundamental right that I can possess, for example, a bomb large enough to destroy the city I live in?
Historically the right to keep and bear arms originated in the Common Law concept of self-defense. It has also been required at varying points throughout history so that the people could serve the state in times of need. I don't think even the hardest core 2nd amendment supporter could make the case that you need a nuclear weapon for self-defense or service of your state in times of need.
it is only a matter of degree to argue that a fully automatic weapon, say, can be banned without violating civil rights.
If it was only automatic weapons they wanted to ban you wouldn't have as many people complaining about it. Instead th
Re:Let's clarify something... (Score:4, Informative)
Bolding the part you like doesn't make the part that says "the right of the people" go away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just dont understand this paticularly American love of gun ownership. In my country, all the auto and semi auto guns were removed from society years ago.
And here is why you don't understand - in your society you probably never had a chance to shoot at targets or hunt. Hard to miss something that you never experienced...
Why are you so devoted to having weapons when it is obvious that you would never really use them to overthrow your government?
First, weapons are owned and used because they represent
So everybody is happy now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, the girls were dragged though court for a year now
Umm, have you read ANY of the stories about this case? The DA has threatened to charge them. They haven't been "dragged" anywhere more menacing than a conference room as yet.
and probably get a psychic damage for lifetime
Oh please. This whole thing smells like bullshit but I'm growing weary of hearing people play the "damaged for a lifetime" card. If they are like the teenagers I know their reaction is probably somewhere between smugness and indifference. Either way, it takes more than a few meetings with an asshole DA to damage most people for "a
The Myth of Ruined Lives (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm so sick of this myth that naked pictures cause problems. The shame associated with nudity (and even sex) says more about those viewing the picture than those who are in it.
Seriously, has anyone ever known someone whose life was ruined because of a naked picture?
Anyone?
The shame that our society attaches to nudity and sex is an attempt at prohibition. By making it taboo, it becomes enticing. Just like with alcohol, drugs, and prostitution, this forces it underground. Poor debaters will also use the taboo nature of the subject to stifle honest discussion by suggesting that supporters engage in the prohibited acts (i.e. those who defend these children are pedophiles who want easy access to CP, those who defend drug users are junkies, etc).
If it weren't for that prosecutor, none of you would have ever known anything about this. Isn't it ironic that the response taken to teach these kids about "potentially permanent burdens" has done more to create those exact burdens than the act itself would have?
When will we learn that over-protecting our children is hurting them by stunting their social growth? When they turn 18 and go off to college, an over-protected teenager will not be equipped with the proper skills necessary to navigate a world full of people who want to take advantage of them.
As for the fear that there will be an explosion of new child porn if it's legal for minors to take pictures of themselves...further application of this logic leads to support for banning bullets because their existence leads to an "explosion" of homicides involving guns.
Also, consider that teenagers are already doing this, and in a quantity deserving of its own slang description.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Libby Hoeler maybe, as far as I know the video's have been floating round the net for 6-9 years now and chances are will always be around.
But nothing ever leaves the net... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem isn't the shame associated with nudity. It's the reputation that's going to follow these girls throughout high school and college. When I was in middle school, one of the students found an issue of a certain men's magazine in which our illustrious teacher was baring all. She had posed during college because she needed the money, and yet, here, 15 or 20 years later, the centerfold was displayed on the chalkboard when she walked into the classroom. After everyone had been seated and seen it.
civil disobedience (Score:3, Interesting)
One way to make a point, why not just have all your friends sexting to each other, make a facebook page, make it a facebook group, twitter about it, chose a day, and everyone participate in an act of civil disobedience. What are they going to do? Prosecute every single teenager that has a cell phone? This forces the law to react because clearly the law has been applied incorrectly because someone decided that it was easier to punish the few but the will of the masses to demand common sense will prove just in the end.
So my question is, when is the National Sexting Day going to take place?
Re:Why is the header in red? (Score:5, Funny)
This is about girls, 'sex', and on slashdot.
Think about it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Would you be referring to good old Rule 34 [xkcd.com]? :)