Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

6 Pennsylvania Teens Face Child Porn Charges For Pics of Selves

Posted by timothy on Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:39 PM
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.'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: ACLU Sues Penn Prosecutor For Empty Threat of Child Porn 590 comments
TechDirt is reporting that the ACLU has stepped in on behalf of several teens facing the threat of child pornography charges in Pennsylvania for sharing nude pics of themselves. Unfortunately for a girl in New Jersey, she is facing much more than just a threat, as she was arrested yesterday for posting almost 30 explicit pictures of herself on MySpace for her boyfriend to see. "...the ACLU has sued the prosecutor on the girls' behalf, saying he shouldn't have threatened them with baseless charges — which haven't yet been filed — if they wouldn't agree to probation and a counseling program. The prosecutor says he was being 'proactive' in offering them a choice, but the ACLU says he shouldn't be using 'heavy artillery' to make the threats. As its attorney points out, teaching kids that this sort of behavior can bring all sorts of unwanted and unforeseen ramifications is a good idea, but threatening them with child-porn charges isn't the best way to do it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by the_arrow (171557) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:41PM (#26530163) Homepage

    We need a world-wide ban on all phones with cameras!

    • by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:59PM (#26530447) Homepage Journal

      I'm no expert on American law, but wouldn't this evidence be inadmissible in a court case, as there was no warrant, and therefore the search of the phone was illegal?

      I realize this is a "OMG!!THINKOFHTECHILDEEHJRJEIEAAARRRRGGGHHH!!!!111LOL!!" kind of thing, where legal formalities are frequently tossed aside because "they're only child molesters."
      But seriously....wouldn't this be a illegal search in the first place?

      • by haystor (102186) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @01:02PM (#26530515)

        I'm sure they're going with the idea that every student consents to a search when they attend school.

        Of course, they are required to be a school and failure to attend can result in charges in some states. Thus, they are required to consent to searches.

  • by HungryHobo (1314109) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:41PM (#26530165)

    truely a great day for the protection of children, personally I hope these scum get put on the sex offenders register for life so that concerned citizens can be warned of their presence in the neighbourhood and can act accordingly to protect their children from dangerous sex offenders!
    Hangings too good for them!

    • by 0100010001010011 (652467) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:49PM (#26530291)

      Indeed. Thankfully because we caught them early on they now won't be able to become teachers or run for office. On every job application they ever fill out for the rest of their lives they'll have to put that they're a sexual offender.

      When they move they'll have to notify the county where they live. They'll have to let their neighbors know (So they can keep their kids away from these nasty people). In certain states they'll have to turn over their e-mail addresses and passwords.

      Hurray for the war on child porn, lets see if any of them have tried marijuana (as the last 2 and current president have admitted to doing) then we can sweep them under with the War On Drugs too.

      Never mind you're more likely to be molested by your Uncle or your Mom's new boyfriend than some stranger in a van.

      • 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.

        So whomever confiscated the phone didn't just turn it off and give it back after class, but the sick voyeuristic fuck actually rummaged though the phone's pictures, ran into the bathroom and beat off to it, then felt dirty and decided to call the cops to report CP?

        What is up with all of the voyeurism lately? Are peoples' lives so pathetic that they have to spend inordinate amounts of time and effort to gawk at others'?

    • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @01:00PM (#26530467) Homepage

      I recognize that your comment was intended to be sarcastic.

      We attempt to paint this picture that is far too black-and-white for practical purposes when reality is too far removed from the ideology behind the laws we have in place.

      Fact is, teenagers will figure out sex and sexuality with or without adult guidance. Making their own experimentation criminal is simply a huge mistake. At the very least, an institutionalized grey area needs to be present. For example, if there is a "teen" in the age of the suspects, a lot more consideration needs to be applied. Do the words "raging hormones" mean nothing to legislators and prosecutors? Does the fact that for most people their first genuine sexual feelings begin prior to the age of 13?

      Criminalize nature all you like, but it will not change nature. Today's ultra-cautious political state is simply out of control. If today's standards for children applied when I was a kid, I'd have been put into jail forever for some of the crap I did. Everything from fireworks to B-B guns would have gotten me marked for life. And yes, I too had partaken in various forms of cruelty to animals as there was an abundance of insects, frogs and tortoises in my area where I grew up... not to mention birds and squirrels.

      We need a LOT less legislation of morality. Some child pornography is very obvious and needs control -- older adults with ten year olds is very obviously wrong. A 20 year old and a 16 year old is less obviously wrong. And kids taking pictures of themselves and sharing them with friends in an environment commercial exploiting sexuality as a means of getting attention for their selling ads is just wrong. You can't allow the environment to exist without expecting young people to be affected! Take Paris Hilton off the air, off of covers of magazines and newspapers! She is famous for ONE reason alone.

      Frankly, if I was the parent of any of these teens, I would start filing suit against EVERY major media provider that influences children with their unavoidable crap selling sexuality to teenagers. You can destroy every TV, magazine and newspaper in the home and teens are STILL going to be at risk of influence from it. And yes, I know it is futile and stupid. But attention to the real problems will never be drawn until obvious clashes between culture and law are reconciled.

  • Most notably did the school have the right to search the student's phone/does a student have the expectation of privacy. There have been varying rulings over whether the police can search a cell phone or PDA of an individual placed under arrest. In the case of a school, they are not the police and do not have the authority of the police (despite some administrators thinking that they do).

    • 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.
      • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @01:00PM (#26530465)

        Their lives are ruined

        how long will it be before someone whose life is ruined like this takes matters into his/her own hands and 'snaps', seeking revenge?

        its not hard to understand the terrorist mind; when you are pushed and have NOTHING (perceived) left - you do what you feel 'needs' to be done to right a major wrong.

        suppose some kids are given criminal records and they find they can't find jobs (etc) later in life. do you REALLY think they will sit quietly and accept a ruined life?

        we are creating time bombs. count on it - its just a matter of time.

        I hope that those kids find justice before their lives truly are ruined. this is a FAIL on society that kids can have a life ruined for 'being kids'. ;(

  • Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Irish_Samurai (224931) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:43PM (#26530197)

    I mean, talk about punishing the victim here...

    Oh wait, I forgot Child Porn laws are no longer about the harm and damage done to the child during the creation of the material in question...

    Way to be society.

  • by damnfuct (861910) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:44PM (#26530217)
    A classic case of child pwnography.. someone had to say it.
  • 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...
  • by SoupGuru (723634) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:46PM (#26530245)

    Next time you get out of the shower, don't look in the mirror or you could get nabbed for being a peeping tom... wouldn't surprise me the way people have gotten so unhinged with this issue...

  • Hmmm. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:46PM (#26530251)

    investigation turned up 'no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds

    That seems hard to believe, but ok.

  • Family album (Score:5, Interesting)

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

    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 Durrill (908003) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:50PM (#26530321)
    In all honesty, what harm was being done? Teens will do much more than acts of nudity with each other. This generation we have cell phones, digital cameras, internet, and web cams. So things have gone from adults "knowing" that this kind of stuff is going on to "proving" that it is true. With proof they decide to nail their asses to the wall? Thats ludicrous. Kids will be kids. If this kind of behaviour did not exist, we wouldn't be able to propogate the human race. Grow up and leave those kids alone. Those of you who actually had sex in highschool would understand my view point.
    • by corsec67 (627446) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:59PM (#26530443) Homepage Journal

      In all honesty, what harm was being done?

      Hahahaha, you think that laws are about preventing harm done to anybody?

      There are plenty of laws that cause harm, from the bans on marijuana, prostitution, speech, guns for self-defense, carrying over $10K in cash, etc.

      (I agree with you, but laws haven't been about preventing harm for a long time. Really a law should have to show that something is harmful to other people before it can be banned. Water being more toxic than marijuana by LD50 [wikipedia.org] is a good example for that.)

  • utter crap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Loki_666 (824073) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:54PM (#26530371)

    Its now only a small step to being done for having photos of your own kids nude. Hell, ive event sent pics of my kids nude to my mum, so guessing i could also be done for distributing child porn.

    Amazing.

    And how is this different from girls flashing boys in the woods or stripping off at parties (yes, there were such parties when i was at school).

    Its called life and growing up. Boys are interested in girls, girls are interested in boys, and sometimes even same gender likes same.

    Mobile technologies just add an extra element to this and make it a bit easier to do for the kids. Also safer. Girl can take a pic in the privacy of her room and send it to boy who can whack one off in the privacy of his room. In my day there was always the risk of getting caught with the girl in the woods and getting an ear bashing from the local bobby or parents.

  • by Tom (822) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:54PM (#26530379) Homepage Journal

    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. Since they can't, they are looking for alternatives.

    Stripping away all the legality nonsense, what they've done is outlawing the naked human body, at least as long as it's young. That's a step in the "proper" (according to their belief) direction.

    There is no thought about "harm" because it is replaced by a strong belief that there is "irrepairable moral harm". And by "strong belief" I mean "belief that is unimpressed by proof".

  • by mtg169 (1257810) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:55PM (#26530381)
    Similar cases like this are popping up all over the country. I did some research awhile ago and found a case in Pennsylvania, Klump vs. Nazareth, and the courts actually found the school guilty of violating the students' privacy and constitutional rights by looking at the contents of their phone. This case basically stated that although the school can have a no cell phone use policy, it does not give the school or school officials the privilege to search the contents of the phone at will unless it is believed that the student is using the phone to violate another policy (IE: using the phone to cheat). The point is, in order for any school official to search cell phone contents, the student would have to be violating another policy other than the no cell phone use policy. Being that this case is also in PA, it could be used as case law and charges would most likely be thrown out. PDF here: http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/06D0400P.pdf [uscourts.gov]
  • by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @01:01PM (#26530495)
    This is definitely something that needs to be curtailed -- these are not adults making a rational decision about these pictures, these are teenagers who think it is exciting. Arresting them will not stop the behavior, it will just drive it underground. What is needed is better parenting and education.

    Of course, that is always the case...
    • Re:Nude != Porn (Score:5, Insightful)

      by HungryHobo (1314109) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:50PM (#26530325)

      You're kidding right?
      The think of the children nutcases would label him first as soft on child pornographers, then a pedophile sympathiser and finally simply as a pedophile.

      • Re:Nude != Porn (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Skinkie (815924) on Tuesday January 20 2009, @12:59PM (#26530461) Homepage
        I'm sorry but if you think that a guy that loves everything young with boobs is a pedophile, you might need to look at Wikipedia for the actual definition of a pedophile. Worst case we are talking about Ephebophilia which is actually an extremely healthy thing.