Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government United States News

6 Pennsylvania Teens Face Child Porn Charges For Pics of Selves 1044

Posted by timothy
from the nudity-is-for-in-person-only dept.
mikesd81 writes "MSNBC reports six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones. Apparently, female students at Greensburg Salem High School in Greensburg, Pa., all 14 or 15 years old, face charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys, who are 16 and 17, face charges of possession. Police told the station that the photos were discovered in October, after school officials seized a cell phone from a male student who was using it in violation against school policy and the photos were discovered at that time. Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was 'a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude.' The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the investigation turned up 'no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds ... other than the violation of the electronic devices policy.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

6 Pennsylvania Teens Face Child Porn Charges For Pics of Selves

Comments Filter:
  • by ternarybit (1363339) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @12:46PM (#26530241)
    on how to screw your enemies. Unlike porn on the Internet, cell phone pictures are *sent*, not *requested* or *received with consent.* Unless you specifically request otherwise from your carrier, you will automatically receive picture messages from whomever decides to send them to your cell phone. This combined with the details of this case make it disturbingly easy to frame someone...
  • Family album (Score:5, Interesting)

    by houghi (78078) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @12:50PM (#26530317)

    I hope they do not look in our family album. Several images of nude children can be seen. Not only that I was forced to look at other peoples family albums containing nude children as well.

    This all while I was underage myself. So who can I sue that has money enough to make me rich? Mmm. Kodak?

    Must be all my moms fault for putting that nipple in my mouth shortly after I was born. That turned me into a sex offender.

  • by DustyShadow (691635) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @12:52PM (#26530339) Homepage
    I wonder if the school administrator who turned them in realized the damage that would be done to these kids. Their lives are ruined. They will fight for a long long time to get this off their record.
  • Re:Where's justice? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dragonsomnolent (978815) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:04PM (#26530547) Homepage
    That's the way it should be, unfortunately, it won't happen like that. If the judge did that, his political rivals could throw out that he let 6 sexual predetors walk because he doesn't care about the children. Yes, he could bring up the specifics of the case, but it would do him no good, they got the first whack at him, and he'd have to play catch up. Yes, the judge should throw it out becuase the whole case is nonesense, but he won't, it would be career suicide. Instead, I hope he gives the defense team free reign, and overrules every objection the prosecutor throws out, maybe even citing prior case law to throw out the evidence. One can hope....
  • by pipboy9999 (1088005) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:04PM (#26530553)
    IANAL, but the school officials were not conducting a search, but confiscating a something per a school regulation, so the chain of custody of the phone is not an issue, but the students right to privacy my have been violated if the official looked through the phones pictures with out some sort of cause, ie suspected the kids of cheating.
  • by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:06PM (#26530581) Homepage Journal

    Why not? Does that mean I can kill someone if I'm an American school student, and they can't prosecute me because I was on school grounds?
    The law doesn't apply? What kind of bullshit is that?

    (Other than the aforementioned TOTC crap.)

  • by crovira (10242) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:12PM (#26530671) Homepage

    in such depravity, just like the Taliban pretend the Koran tells us to do.

    We could line them up face down on the ground against a wall and put single bullet from a Kalashnikov through as many heads as it'll go through.

    Well, all the girls anyway. Boys get their week-end pass privileges revoked.

    That ought to please all the religious whack jobs who says that being naked is punishable by something...

  • by Baldur_of_Asgard (854321) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:16PM (#26530747)

    The United States has been heading this way for a long while now, at least since Anita Bryant started her "Save Our Children" campaign, when she was under the impression that homosexuals could only increase their number by "recruiting" innocent children. Then John Walsh turned his personal tragedy into a national, and now a global tragedy with his movement that deceived the nation into believing that the thousands of children who run away from abusive homes each year were in fact millions of children who were being raped and murdered by strangers each year. (The quasi-governmental organization Walsh founded, the National Center for Misusing and Exploiting Children, is the king of dubious statistics - at one point they were telling Americans that over a million kids went missing annually. More recently they have been claiming that the non-existent child porn industry is larger than the legal pornography industry and Hollywood, combined.) What started out as an anti-homosexual movement has turned into an anti-child and anti-man movement, and in fact an anti-everything-good-about-the-world movement.

    (As a curious aside: Anita Bryant made a name for herself as a singer, and one of her hits was a tune from the 1950's musical "The Music Man", which was set in the early 1900s. "The Music Man" was about a charlatan who deceived parents into believing their children were in danger so that he could sell them the cure. Sound familiar?)

    So now we have reached the point where we are putting children who are "doing what comes naturally" in jail, or blacklisting them for life, in the name of "protecting them". Protecting them from what, exactly, no one has been able to satisfactorily explain, but protect them we will, by God, if we have to kill every last one of them!

    I feel for both the boys and girls who have been caught up in this situation, in which the only real crimes were those committed by the principal who violated their right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure and those committed by the police and prosecutors who pursued charges.

    When combined with such things as The Drug War, it is getting harder and harder every day to do anything but laugh at the notion that the United States is home to the free or the brave.

    "And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
    O'er the land of the fear and the home of the slave!"

    Play ball!

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JCSoRocks (1142053) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:18PM (#26530773)
    Can we just blind the lawmakers instead?
  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:20PM (#26530781) Homepage

    Actually, my last lines spell it all out.

    The REAL problem is the disconnect between nature/culture and our morality laws. They are moving in separate directions.

    We had similar problems with smoking at one point until laws were create to reign that in... now that we have laws preventing children from smoking and laws preventing its advertisement, we are at least consistent. But laws against sexual expression in advertisement will be a LOT harder to come by and a lot harder fought. Meanwhile these sappy laws "protecting the children" even from themselves are in dire need of revisitation and reconciliation with our present day standards and culture.

  • They're old enough to consent, but god forbid I videotape it for later.
    I'm actually cool with that. Recordings are a lot more likely to cause trouble in their lives than just having sex.

    What I think is perverse is that someone could be old enough to have sex with you, but not to *watch* a video of you having sex.

  • by snspdaarf (1314399) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:42PM (#26531189)
    Right. The school is acting as a guardian of the children. This gives them authority to do a number of things that the police could not do in a city park. My kids always brought home a number of forms to sign each year, and one was to inform parents that vehicles parked on school property were subject to search, as were backpacks, and other personal belongings on school property. While the school was overpopulated with horse's-asses, I am sure that they were not the only school system with that policy. So, the cell phone search is probably legitimate.
  • by tool462 (677306) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:50PM (#26531333)

    No he did not have that right. My wife is a teacher, and if they feel a need to search the contents of a students bag, they either get parental permission, or if they think something criminal may be occurring (i.e. drugs) then they'll call police to do the search. But he did look through the phone. Once that happened, it all snowballed from there. Note that I am not trying to defend this person. I'm just trying to make the point that this isn't Big Evil Administrator ruining the lives of Poor Innocent Children. It's considerably more complex than that--a culture of fear around anything linking children and sex. People become irrational and will gladly throw everyone else into the fire to save themselves as the consequences are so often so out of proportion with the offense.

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jythie (914043) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:53PM (#26531421)

    As far as I can tell it came out of this weird collective fear parents have had after you started seeing two income households.
     
    And keep in mind, all those things people claim are breeding grounds for pedophiles. Nudist colonies esp are having a really difficult time in the US over the last few decades.

  • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @01:56PM (#26531487) Homepage

    Before, when some crazy shit happened it was only for those actually there. If you weren't at the party you never saw that girl flashing her tits, and while some talk might get around if you were a parent you wouldn't be present nor would anyone tell you about it. Parents *want* to have a certain blind spot like this, it's kinda like not wanting to think of your parents having sex. Documentation shatters that illusion, kids this generation actually do the same stuff you'd almost managed to forget you did as an impetus teens. I'm now thirthyish and people have stopped telling only the "moral" stories some time ago. The last generation or even further back did a lot of things that were stupid, illegal, dangerous and sexual as teens too. Particularly before legalized abortion it doesn't take much more than birth dates and subtraction to figure out what was going on. So yeah, in many cases the problem people have isn't what's happening but the video tape.

  • FTFA -

    Police Capt. George Seranko was quoted as saying that the first photograph was âoea self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude." The school district issued a statement Tuesday saying that the investigation turned up âoeno evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds ⦠other than the violation of the electronic devices policy.â The statement also said that school officials didnâ(TM)t learn of the charges against the students until Monday.

    (Emphasis mine)
    To be (somewhat) lenient on the school, it is my impression from the article that school officials didn't go in guns blazing demanding that the perverts be burned. Consider it from their point of view: child pornography is illegal and they found child pornography on a student's person (the legality, morality, acceptability of the search being ignored ATM). Even if they could identify it as a student at the school that tells them nothing, and it would be wrong for them to assume no crime was committed. The only thing they can be sure of at that point is that the girl took a picture of herself nude with her phone and didn't delete it. If someone else had stolen her phone then they could have sent the pictures to the boy they found, the internet, whoever. They can make no assumptions about the circumstances in which he obtained the pictures and for the protection of the girl (who may at this point be a victim) they MUST inform the police so they can investigate. This is to protect the girl in the pictures because the letter and intent of child pornography laws is to protect the child in question. It would have been irresponsible on the part of the school to assume that everything was innocent and not report it to the police. I wouldn't put too much blame on the school.

    Now the police... Well, suffice it to say that their stance at the moment is rather absurd and ignore the intent (and possibly the letter) of child pornography laws. But I'll let others handle that point better than I.

  • by Baldur_of_Asgard (854321) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:03PM (#26531581)

    "Psychologically, I say this is the extreme conversatives who would really like to outlaw nudity, masturbation and while we're at it, even thinking about sex."

    That's only half of it. The liberals are also idiots, especially the feminist faction.

    There have been at least two cases where women have been put in prison for being raped by teenage boys. Yes, you read that correctly, they were put in prison for being the victims of actual, honest-to-god, forcible rape. Because their rapists were less than 18 years old, the victims were convicted of statutory rape of a minor. Unlike Saudi Arabia, where the public was outraged when a woman was convicted for being a rape victim, nobody cared much. And where did this happen, some conservative bastion in the backcountry? No. It happened in Madison, Wisconsin - a famously "liberal" enclave.

    This idiocy is coming at us from right and left, and frankly I think the feminists on the left are worse. The conservatives at least have some moderating influences like a belief in the power of forgiveness and millennia of history.

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by apoc.famine (621563) <`apoc.famine' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:04PM (#26531609) Homepage Journal
    I've been shouting about this for some time. The best answer I have found is that the following chain happened:

    We don't like child molesters, someone do something about them!
    Laws are passed, people are happier.
    Politicians need a rallying cry, and who can resist "I'm doing this for the Safety of the Children"?
    Snowball begins...

    When you're super-conservative, nudity=thinking forbidden thoughts=sin. Logical solution? Remove sources of nudity to prevent sin. As an added bonus, Think of the Children will garner votes.

    It is ridiculously stupid. Ban nudity, and you ban most of the Renaissance painters. Those dirty, sinning pornographers.
  • by Kjella (173770) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:11PM (#26531727) Homepage

    Underage porn laws are written with the intent (whether you agree or not) of protecting minors from themselves. Thus you can't differentiate who took it, or you could have adults paying/pressuring teens to do this. You need to be able to charge the teens if only to let them plea and turn in any adult who may have been involved.

    So if some teen masturbates, they should be thrown in jail for child molestation because otherwise you could have adults paying/pressuring teens to do this? Might as well just rename all high schools to juvenile prisons instead of building more.

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Technician (215283) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:16PM (#26531863)

    When you're super-conservative, nudity=thinking forbidden thoughts=sin. Logical solution? Remove sources of nudity to prevent sin. As an added bonus, Think of the Children will garner votes.

    I hope I don't get arrested for the back issues of National Geographic in my bookcase. Check issues from the 1950's and 1960's where photos of natives in far away places often included nude children playing.

  • by Technician (215283) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:22PM (#26532049)

    Just for grins, I flipped through a few old copies. An example of nude women and children making pottery is in the FEB 1964 issue page 174. Now you can get arrested for photos like this? Who knew we would become that crazy.

  • by GooberToo (74388) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:23PM (#26532065)

    Given the teacher immediately turned everything over to the police I would think there is no risk of being charged... Its not, after all, illegal to report a crime..

    It is illegal to be in possession of child pornography, regardless of knowledge of possession or intent. That's the law.

    If I secretly copy some to your computer and then anonymously turn you in, you can be arrested and go to jail; your life forever destroyed.

  • by Rob the Bold (788862) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:28PM (#26532215)

    Like it or not, agree with it or not, minors do not legally have civil rights so they can not be infringed upon.

    Gonna need a source on that one. I can't find anywhere in the constitution that civil rights only apply to non-minors. In fact, the US Supreme Court has famously found that: "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." (Tinker v. Des Moines). If the first amendment applies to students, that would suggest that minors do have Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, and therefore that the rest of the constitution applies to minors as well.

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:29PM (#26532245)

    so does it mean that if two minors has sex .. legal their both child molesters? i mean .. ire meber being 16 .. and eating that one thing we used to eat when we were kids ... thats what being 16 is all about!! GIRLS!and i mean cmon.. what 16 year old guy wouldnt want naked pictures of his 16 year old girlfriend ... there kids .. I just dont see how its child pornography if they are the same age ..

    btw .. im too lazy to sign in

    - WINDOWS_NT

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Adriax (746043) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:36PM (#26532419)

    Reword it.
    Once we have banned all children, there will be no children in unsafe situations. We will finally achieve a perfect 0 incident rate on all dangers to children.

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Glimmerdark (1229958) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:45PM (#26532633)
    in a different direction. the pictures were discovered by the school administration confiscating one of the male's cellphones. what then gave them the right to go poking around at the data on the phone? if the student was using a phone during class time, i can understand taking it away. but i don't see how that allows an invasion of privacy? what if we were talking about a laptop instead of a cellphone. does the school have the right to go through all that data as well? access to bank information (that some 16-17 year old's could have) going through old emails, etc. with today's cell phone capabilities, in many ways there isn't a difference between what you store on your laptop and your phone.
  • by GooberToo (74388) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @02:46PM (#26532657)

    I interpreted "most such laws" too broadly.

    Just the same, the point remains. The US legal system is completely fucked. I understand the legal basis for arresting her. I wasn't surprised to hear the outcome in the least. Just the same, if common sense, reason, or even simple logic had been applied, she would not have been arrested.

    You arrest people so they can be in the system and ensure they are properly addressed by the government. It is not reasonable for someone attempting to go above and beyond their civic duty to be arrested. In the end, this did nothing but waste tax payer's money and valuable court/police time. No justice was done. And a person with good intent was punished.

    Ultimately, that's part of the problem. Law enforcement and courts do not see the mere act of being arrested or being forced to go through the legal system as a punishment in the least. Contrary to their ignorant position, simply having to react is a form of punishment. Locating and retaining an attorney can cost significant time, lost wages, vacation time, and thousands of dollars before a lawyer even touches a phone on your behalf. According to the courts, that's tough shit - deal with it.

  • by ChilyWily (162187) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:06PM (#26533261) Homepage

    My experience with High Schoolers has been that:

    1. Teens today are quite easily manipulated into many things that earlier cohorts may have resisted. Perhaps a changing of the times, where a media-driven culture sends out messages of 'everything is cool, the more 'kinky' the better...'

    2. Don't understand the ramifications of a compromising photograph.
    When 'everything goes', then who cares about a photo taken without a thought of its unintended usage. Not to mention, how easy it is for someone to pass the photo around. In one of my classes, I invited an HR person who explained how easy it was to take a picture and massively publish it... and pop up just at the wrong time for when a job offer may be at hand.

    3. I deal with law enforcement at times and they say that the #1 way to entrap kids, especially girls, is to have them either do something (e.g., nude webcam, pics etc.) for which they know they will be in trouble with their parents. Once a predator has established this sort of blackmail, the poor kid will end up forced into far worse things.

    I don't like this porn law being used this way because it detracts from the real issue(s) at hand. Yet, I can see that law may not fit the bill entirely in such cases. I would instead favor a system which educates kids/teens better and a social system that encourages kids towards greater self-esteem and understanding of such things by informing them of the bad and very real consequences for teens who made reckless choices.

  • You have no autonomy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:14PM (#26533483)

    It is against the law for children to take nude pictures of themselves....because their youth and immaturity make them more vulnerable to the kinds of harm that having a nude picture of one's self can cause...

    and yet, they will probably be tried as adults, to make sure the punishment sticks.

    Oh, the irony.

  • Lack of common sense (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:33PM (#26534027)

    Sorry about posting this as AC, but this subject is just the sort of thing AC is around for - to get true ideas said when saying them would get people too much and cause them to be dismissed. Anonymous speech is free speech on steroids.

    Here are some facts:

    • Almost all people have been sexually attracted to pubescent people. For example, when I was 13, I wanted to do the nasty with 13 year old girls. This does not make me a pervert or even weird. It makes me absolutely normal. Pubescent people can procreate. People with a sex drive are mostly wired to find people who are biologically able to procreate with them sexually attractive. This is so normal that you don't have to go back to the stone age to find many places around the world where this is taken for granted, and not even frowned upon.
    • There is no reason for this to change, so in most cases it doesn't. Just because you age, doesn't change the fact that many if not most 13 year olds of the opposite sex are physically able to procreate with you. Therefore I am still sexually attracted to 13 year old girls. This doesn't make me a pervert or even weird. Though I was sexually attracted to famous adults as a 13 year old, it was only fantasy. I did endeavor to nurture sexual attraction that could concievably come to fruition - i.e. attraction to 13 year old girls my own age. I let thoughts of relations with sexually attractive females older than myself die on the vine for the most part, as they were useless at the time.
    • As people age, they, for the most part, and myself included, continue to find those females in their lives to be sexually attractive. In my case, I allowed myself to appreciate more mature and developed females as I became old enough for those females to be within the realm of possibility to actually have a relationship with.
    • As societal norms ( no chicken chasing ) remove teenagers from the realm of possibility. Most people ( myself included ) let thoughts of those people die on the vine. Obsessing about something you can't have is stupid, especially when there are better, possible, things to obsess about. ( I.E. possible partners your own age )
    • However, in the same way as attractive famous adults are usually part of the sexual fantasies of 13 year olds, a particularly attractive youngster may be part of one's sexual musing. This doesn't make one weird or a pervert. It's biology at work.
    • In the same way as it is unwise to obsess about a celebrity you can never have, obsessing about a youngster you can never have is likewise a waste of time. There are better things to obsess about.
    • For the most part those your own age will have more to offer, since they have had time to aquire those things. And there are fewer inherent risks. Therefore the wise person turns their eye towards real and better opportunities.
    • Those who actually obsess excessively to the point where their actions put them at risk for prosecution are probably not thinking clearly. They tend to have a few screws loose, and would be rather unsavory even without their chicken chasing behavior. Consider the sort of people you see on Dateline....

    However, remembering myself as a thirteen year old, I don't see any reason why a consentual relationship with an *average* adult would have more or less potential to damage me than a relationship with someone my own age at the time. It is true that currently a relationship with someone with enough screws loose to actually attempt to have a relationship with a minor as an adult has *lots* more potential to cause damage to anyone, minors included, than is likely with a relationship with an average person. However this is likely an artifact of the societal norms around such coupling affecting the makeup of the actual pool of participants. Without those norms, the makeup of the pool of adults who couple with minors is unknown to me, though it may differ in some unknown ways from the general pool of adults.

    Also, remembering myself as a thi

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @03:37PM (#26534143)

    The school is acting as a guardian of the children

    That is surprising argument. I have always thought a school is responsible only to the lengths of its insurance policy. Any search should be performed by a police officer after a request by the school based on a suspected violation of city codes and criminal laws (weapons, controlled substances). A search of a phone in this case should be performend by the FBI after the school reports the suspicion.

  • Just wait... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kabuthunk (972557) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <knuhtubak>> on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:00PM (#26534743) Homepage

    If nudity is seen as porn, imagine when some higher-up realizes that mothers kissing their children on the forehead when they go to sleep is CHILD RAPE!

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fugue (4373) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:06PM (#26534849) Homepage
    The whole foundation of our legal system is this: write a law, and then pay lawyers shitloads of money to debate exactly what the law says. Where in there do you see anything about trying to make sure that the law supports justice?
  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:21PM (#26535169)

    It's even worse than this. The subjects don't even have to be under age. They just have to look underage (whatever that means). The absurd reasoning is that anything a model who "looks" underage might encourage prurient interest in children.

    So, now, anything that "might" encourage prurient interest in children is kiddie porn.

    Know what? I'm a million times more likely to sodomize my eight year old son if these kids are prosecuted. Prosecute them and you're guilty of producing child porn, 1,000,000*0=0 being over your heads, clearly up the DA's ass.

    As for "snapping", it's only crazy if done on the spur of the moment with no forethought under what conditions one will fight back with deadly force.

    I know damn well the conditions under which I will start killing police and anyone who does not kill them with me, and one of them is being harassed for exercising my right of free speech to criticize this insanity.

  • Re:Wow. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by canajin56 (660655) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:50PM (#26535833)
    Wouldn't be the first time. A 16 year old girl has been sentanced to years in prison, and put on the sex offender list, for taking a nude photo of herself. The DA tried her as an adult. His argument was going to trial at all that she doesn't know what's she's doing since she's only a kid, and doesn't realize that she might be up for a nice job in 10 years, but oops, that picture comes out and her chances are ruined. His argument for trying as an adult was the heinous nature of crimes against children. ya rly. She blew her brains out I think.
  • by jinxidoru (743428) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @04:53PM (#26535913) Homepage

    This is what disturbs me in the case. I feel like the whole thing could be thrown out by illegal search laws. I'm sure that the school official had the right to seize the cell phone, but what right did he have to go searching on in the contents of the phone?! In fact, why the hell was he looking around on the phone of a 16-year-old?! What relevance could that possibly have to the issue of the child using a cell phone when he wasn't supposed to be using it?

    I feel like a good lawyer will be able to get out of this without too much trouble.

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Obermeister (899160) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @05:11PM (#26536323)
    I have my own theory. It's all about the Benjamins. It's not about protecting people, it's about giving the system lots of money. The parents of these kids will now each need to retain the services of lawyers to try and minimize the unspeakable harms the state will now attempt to do to their lives. If they can't afford that, then they get to go to jail and employ lots of other people in the "justice system".
  • by thtrgremlin (1158085) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @05:18PM (#26536459) Homepage Journal
    And that is why we have Miranda rights. By your logic (and I agree, just to make it clear) This case can only be proven through clever, manipulative, self-incrimination. If the defendants totally keep their mouth shut, and they have a descent lawyer that understands privacy and pornography law, and the very important statutes regarding child porn, these kids must not be convicted. In simple terms, these are not the type of people the law was trying to protect society from. I remember hearing that with cases like this, it is making it very difficult for the FBI to track down child pornography rings because so often the publishers are children. The law isn't meant to protect people from having to possibly see children in sexual situations (as disgusting as that is) but to protect children from abusive adults of many kinds. Some people get off on recording depraved acts, others steal children, or buy them off the black market as slaves for adult films. It is a sick world and our law recognizes that and makes a very strong effort to shut such groups down with very severe laws

    That is not what is going on here. Is it behavior that should be encouraged? Of course not! As you said, what is the intent by the model, photographer, and distributor?

    There are some difficult questions to answer. The law also needs to be clear, but not by prosecuting these kids in a way that the law was never intended. I think some responsibility needs to go to the parents, but NOT the same charges. I think the harshest justifiable punishment would be some kind of counseling for the teens about appropriate school behavior, and the differences between appropriate minor vs adult activities.
  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday January 20, 2009 @08:30PM (#26539425) Journal

    Not just the DA at fault. What about the 12 ordinary citizens? Why did they find him guilty?

  • Re:Not good enough. (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @12:57AM (#26542051)
    I also know someone where something like this happened. The 17 year old daughter got pissed off at her dad and claimed this fellow who was a friend of the family raped her to get back at her dad. Nobody believed her, not even her family except the prosecutor. She changed her story constantly and eventually she admitted making it up. The prosecution still went forward and he had to serve 6 months in jail and get registered as a sex offender because he couldn't afford a decent defense.
  • by jahudabudy (714731) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @01:36PM (#26548373)
    and the differences between appropriate minor vs adult activities.

    In Pennsylvania, the age of consent is 16. If one of the participants is under 16, but over 13 (as applies here), the partner must be within 4 years of age (which is true here). So, it is perfectly legal for these boys and girls to fuck, but sending nude pictures is inappropriate. Yeah....

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...