Teens Prosecuted For Racy Photos 740
An anonymous reader writes with a story on CNet about two teens who were prosecuted under anti-child-porn laws in Florida for having made and emailed racy photos of each other. Both were under 18 years old, so the resulting pictures are clearly illegal; but the teens' intent was not to share the pictures with anyone else. An appeals court majority opinion found that emailing the photos from one of the kids to the other was a careless act that should, it seems, bring down the full weight of the law. A minority opinion argued that the laws were intended to protect children from exploitative adults, not from other children.
Strupod.. (Score:5, Insightful)
IMNSHO, this is not an issue for the legal system at all.
Re:Strupod.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Strupod.. (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is a difference between the damage done by showing the pictures, if any, and the damage done by being photographed, if any, and the damage done, if any, by being in the situation itself.
America's hypocritical (is there any other kind?) puritanism prevents its laws from recognizing these distinctions. With children increasingly able to photograph and publish, like anyone else, we will have increasing damage done by the laws that don't reflect what's right and how wrong.
Re:Strupod.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't think that just because they're minors now that their records will remain sealed. I wouldn't be surprised if there were already sex-crime exceptions to that.
IANAL.
Re:Strupod.. (Score:5, Insightful)
that's a redundancy.
Redundancy (Score:5, Funny)
Puritans Gone Wild XIV: Cape Cod Cuties
You've never seen ankle-baring like this!
Read some history if you're interested.. (Score:5, Informative)
As for colonization, that wasn't the American way, it was the European way. The English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, and Russians all took colonies in the Americas.
Re:Read some history if you're interested.. (Score:5, Informative)
You're thinking of the Quakers. The Puritans were very religious, but were in general much crazier than the Quakers (as in Salem witch trial crazy).
Try telling that to the Native Americans, Spanish, Mexicans, Cubans, Filipinos, native Hawaiians, Hondurans, Guatemalans, Costa Ricans, and Panamanians/Colombians. Sure it isn't colonialism in the same way or on the same scale of the Europeans, but we've definitely set up colonies (both actual and "neo-colonies").
Note that I'm not necessarily criticizing all of those situations, or agreeing with the GP poster. But you have to at least acknowledge historical fact. Just because we don't call everything outside of the original 13 states colonies does not change the fact that that is what they originally were.
Re:Strupod.. (Score:5, Insightful)
*Void where prohibited by law.
Re:Strupod.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Strupod.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Strupod.. (Score:5, Funny)
Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And teenagers (Score:4, Insightful)
Ranger is right.
from my observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:from my observation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:from my observation (Score:5, Insightful)
College is safely long over, but I definitely think back with some regret. I wish my parents had been less strict, but not one of those parents that just lets their kids do anything- kids love it but later it gets them. I agree that if you haven't put the foundations in place by even 12, without some real help kids are 'doomed' to get in trouble of some kind (pregnancy, the law, etc)- but that a certain diminishing amount of control must extend until college and until that time nearly everything is the parents' business- but not to the point that it requires a pre and post outing interrogation/debriefing. They certainly have a right to know, but an obligation to let their kids learn and live too.
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
What we have here is a clear example of a law punishing two teens for being human teens. These laws were passed, supposedly, to prevent some rapist from having his way with a little girl, and posting it for all to see (See my use of pathos there?). Not to arresst teens for being horny. (Here's a protip: I'm guessing before the magical Internet came about, some kids might have even developed their own naked photos and later handed them to someone in PERSON! Or, how about this. Some teens actually get naked in the SAME ROOM! And they might even DO things!)
I don't know. I'm just angry that we, as a people, are being treated this way. Where's the good old fashioned yell, "I'm as mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore?" Where are the judges who take a look at this case, say, "Well, this case is fucking stupid, and so is the law. *gavel* You're free to go, and here's $10,000 from every senator, for making you sit through this bullshit?"
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, i don't see teenage pregnancy as a big risk. Pregnancies usually doesn't kill people, it just requires you to deal with a child or an abortion. AIDS isn't so forgiving.
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Informative)
Considering that teenage sex and pregancy was the norm for most of human history I'd say the problem has more to do with society being unable to turn teenagers into financially viable and independent adults until long after they are sexually mature.
Re:Jesus (Score:4, Interesting)
so you're kind of comparing two different social structures.
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
As an aside, if our laws become so draconian that it's impossible to not be a criminal in some way, might that encourage people to just become rapant law breakers? When you can't win, why try?
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, even if there wasn't a single reason for them not to get a criminal record your argument of "Why shouldn't they?" would not give any credence to the idea that they should.
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
This distinction is critical because in the first two cases we are dealing with adults taking advantage of (either intentionally or not) someone younger than them. In the latter situation we do not have that same problem. The law is clearly focused merely on preventing the former scenario. This would be tantamount to prosecuting a 17 year-old for owning a naked picture of himself. If he looks at himself naked in the mirror is he getting a hot one-on-one live sex show?
Further, to put this in the context of your statements, that parents will be held legally accountable for the actions of their children, this entire issue isn't at all relevant. True, you focus almost exclusively on teen pregnancies which are a slightly different issue, but in this case there is no parental liability. These were photographs made in private for personal use. Thus, according to your reasoning -"if 'someone else' is held accountable for the actions of a 17 year old, that 'someone else' gets to dictate the rules" - my interpretation would be that the person being held legally responsible is to be provided with decision-making authority. Since there is no parental accountability in this case the parents would have no right to dictate whether the teens can or cannot do this.
Re:Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you just arguing with the gpp or are you agreeing that these teenagers should be prosecuted for violating child-porn laws? These were two consenting teens who would otherwise be legally allowed to engage in sexual acts under Florida law (where they are being prosecuted). After some quick research, the age of consent in Florida is 16 as long as both partners are under the age of 24.
The story seems to indicate that the images were not created for the purpose of sale or distribution. The images were privately emailed, and the two mutual sender/recipients were both arrested for producing/directing/promoting child porn and the boyfriend for possession.
You've clearly outlined how the teenage sex can be risky behavior. However, I do not believe that this is reason for laws preventing consenting teenagers for having sex. Furthermore, in this case, there is no such law. These kids broke a law designed to keep kids safe from adult predators. There was no adult involved in this, they were not coerced, and story indicates that the images themselves were not of the kids doing anything illegal (e.g. sex between adults and minors, or images intended for distribution). The fact that both of these teenagers being prosecuted on a BS technicality which is (IMO) far outside of the spirit of the law is disturbing to me. To me, this amounts to overzealous prosecutors attacking children for creating and possessing forbidden data. It is shameful to me that our government would do this.
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Informative)
It does raise an interesting quandary though. Now that they are sex offenders, does that mean they are restricted from going to school?
B.
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Funny)
It's harsh to say it, but when stories like this come up I start thinking that maybe the world would have been better off if the Romans hadn't run out of lions.
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it is not. To the contrary.
When I was sixteen, my mother made sure that there were condoms in the house and that I knew where they were. Of course that wasn't in the US. And of course where I come from teen pregnancy is an issue that people mostly read about on the internet, not something that happens a whole lot to real people.
As long as people like you pretend that folks need to be treated like they cannot be held responsible for themselves, people will act irresponsibly. Allow them to take responsibility and they will gladly accept it -- and be much better people for it.
I don't think you fully realize the consequences. (Score:4, Informative)
Stop and THINK. Does this make ANY SENSE whatsoever? They have to be labeled sex offenders for the rest of their lives because they were emailing EACH OTHER dirty pictures?
Re:Separation of powers (Score:4, Insightful)
There is more than just "seperation of powers" involved. There is a theoretical setup "checks and balances" (although in reality, it works more like it was designed by Blizzard, and the president gets to be the Shaman) where the dickhead lawyers in the legislative branch can make a dickheaded law, and the courts (theoretically) have the power to fix it. Just because a traitor and his cabal of asshats want to call them "activists judges" DOESN'T actually mean that that's not thier JOB.
Re:Jesus (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank goodness. I've met enough kids whose parents "mind their own business" and they end up really eff'ed up. Part of being a parent is sticking your nose in your kids' beeswax. It's called "caring".
I had a policy with my daughter. I let her know when I was "snooping" (such as calling her friends' parents to introduce myself when she was going to spend the night, or stopping by her school to make a pest of myself). Never did anything like that behind her back. And you know what? She was cool with it. I didn't have to sneak around and read her diary or collect the hair from her brushes to check for drug traces (those tests were just coming out then). And she knew that I cared enough to try to protect her, even though we both knew I couldn't protect her from everything.
I made myself part of my daughter's life (as did her mom, my wife). I also let her know that I loved her more than the oxygen I breathe. Then, I rolled the dice. If she did something stupid, I explained to her why it was stupid, and her mom made sure to talk to her about sex early enough (and believe me, her mom knows sex). Occasionally, when she'd bring a boy home, I'd happen to be cleaning my collection of combat knives or demonstrating my dog's attack training. Now my girl is 18 (for another week or so) and has never been pregnant and there are no visible track marks or bruises. Most of it was luck, but I have never regretted making myself part of her world. It's too easy to just be passive and too absorbed in my own world and then I'd have to leave it up to chance to make sure she makes it to 18 without too much damage. I couldn't live with that, so I did it the way my parents did it, and it turns out they weren't as stupid as I thought. Like the old saying goes, "my parents got smarter as I got older."
Now that I got that out of the way, some prosecutor needs a stern talking-to for going after two 18 year-olds trading cheesecake photos. He probably never played doctor or got any himself, so now he doesn't know his pecker from his elbow, but he's got the statute memorized. We need to have much smarter people than are currently involved in the justice system for minors. We've got way too many young ones who are having their lives messed up with brushes with the legal system, while a whole bunch of at-risk kids get ignored. "Getting tough" was never the answer and "zero tolerance" is for manufacturing quality control, not dealing young humans.
Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
My head asplode.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know what these kids did to piss the prosecution and the court off, but there is clearly malicious intent here.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
So in the vein of "Who Guards the Guards?" What recourse do we as the public have against these people who twist the intention of the law into a worse crime? I would agree that this prosecution, and labeling as sex offenders has done considerable damage to these minors. Can you criminally prosecute a judge for malicious abuse of power? And as a side note: Will this be taken off of their records when they turn 18? After all they are minors.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't remember anything in the article referring to registered sex-offender status. Speculation or source?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
Speculation, but speculation that's exceedingly likely to be correct. Look up the case of Glenarlow Wilson, a child in neighboring Georgia who will be registered as a child molester for the rest of his life, after serving a mandatory 10-year prison sentence -- because, at the age of 17, he had consensual oral sex with a 16-year-old girl. Georgia law at the time drew no distinction whatsoever about the age of the "molester"; any oral sex involving a minor, even if the partner was also a minor, was felony child molestation and left no room for judicial discretion in sentencing.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
Laws that don't allow for circumstantial sentencing should be abolished outright. There is never a reason to pass a law that does not take circumstances into account. It is not a question of whether the law will be abused, but a question of when, how, and how frequently....
On the other hand, I feel that with the exception of a handful of very basic laws (rape, murder, theft), all laws should be required to have a sunset provision that makes them expire unless renewed. That would force heinous laws like this one to at least get rehashed every ten years or so....
Not surprisingly, I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it has to be malicious at all. For one thing, the judges had to avoid setting an ugly precedent.
Let's say the photos were made legal, returned to the youths, and no conviction performed. Now there are legal "child porn" photos in their position.
Snap forward a few years until they're 21, and one of them is desperate for money. And sells their legal photos of their own underage antics. Are those still legal child porn as set by the precedence?
I think the judges just avoided being blunt about the concern.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sub-conscious slip of the fingers: that should have been "possession", not "position."
Taken further, a precedence could have sparked an entire industry of teens archiving photos they intend to sell as soon as they reach a legal age to do so. Not a battle anyone would want to take up, methinks.
Re:Not surprisingly, I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Child porn isn't illegal because it's sick to get your rocks off looking at a child. In fact, when we're not talking about pre-pubescents, it's biologically natural to be turned on by someone attractive - even if responsible adults understand why teens probably aren't really emotionally ready for sexual encounters, and don't have the wherewithall to consent to such encounters with adults who've got far more life experience.
Child porn is illegal because creating it involves subjecting a minor, who by definition can't consent to sexual activity, to sexual activity. The porn is a product of that process. Making it illegal to buy, sell and possession child porn is akin to making it illegal to do the same with stolen goods, or goods created in illegal sweatshops - it's a way of eating away at the root wrongful activity.
But when a person makes himself or herself the "victim," that logic breaks down somewhat. Is there really a victim at all? Especially if the choice to sell the pictures comes when the person is an adult, and theoretically responsible for his or her own actions? I can't imagine we'd want to create a precedent where cynical 16- or 17-year-olds are stashing away pictures of themselves to turn a quick buck when they turn 18, but if that's going to be illegal, we really need a different rationale.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Think of the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. If your view of children is rights-less chattels emancipated by the age of consent, absolutely. If your intent is to get legal sanction to brainwash your under-18 citizens with whatever viewpoint the State sees as desirable in order to maintain control of said under-18 citizens for life, you bet. If you have the money to influence your government to legitimise whatever Puritanical viewpoint you happen to be carrying, without a doubt.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the law exists, doesn't mean those who execute it are absolved of the responsibility. Ultimately, the responsibility for any action rests with the person who engages in it.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, even if what they did violated laws on child pornography, there is the separate issue of expectation of privacy.
Regardless of that, the reason there is a system where people don't automatically get charged but one where district attorneys decide whether to press charges, is to attempt to ensure that justice is done - charges are dropped or not raised in the first place all the time when prosecuting a case isn't in the public interest.
In this case there is a law ostensibly intended to protect children, that have now instead been used to harm children. Whether or not it's the law, it's still malicious and spineless of both the prosecution and the judges not to stand up for these children instead of harming them by letting this case get this far.
That the judges who wrote the majority decision even went as far as claim that these children "could have" caused the pictures to be spread and cause harm to themselves that way is just plain disgusting - those two judges have done far more harm to these children than a few pictures would.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit. If these two were 5-year-olds that were NOT having sex, but just taking pictures of themselves, then you would not call the cops in. You'd take the camera away, destroy the film, and tell them not to do that again.
We are treating these 16-year-olds differently because they ARE old enough to know what they're doing. And since they're old enough to know what they're doing, they can be tried as adults. That alone should be enough to negate the kiddie porn charges for the pictures of themselves.
Are you proposing that laws should be selectively enforced on an adhoc basis?
To a certain degree, yes. The cops and judges did their jobs and performed their roles as the system intended. However, the DA is there to make sure that justice is served. The DA is granted the right to select which cases are prosecuted and which are not. The DA should have shut this one down as soon as he heard of it.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:4, Interesting)
This is part of a moral panic in America about 'Children who molest'. Every time I think about what Americans are doing to innocent children, I get very mad.
I urge every slashdotter who reads this to go out and learn more about this phenomenon. Ethical Treatment for All Youth [ethicaltreatment.org] documents what's happening to kids across America right now in situations like this, and the devastating consequences.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
They broke the letter of the law, not the intent of the law. Laws are interpreted by courts. Using a law designed to protect children to punish children instead is just bizarre.
Re:Think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Charging kids with sex crimes to prevent exploitation of minors is like f*cking for virginity.... There are three problems here:
#1 is bad because the stated purpose for these laws is to prevent an authority figure (including any older person to some degree) from using that position of authority to coerce a minor into doing something damaging. A person of the same age, assuming neither party is mentally handicapped, just doesn't have the same effect. Now if peer pressure from a group of people were involved... well, that gets a little tricky, but there's no reason to believe that this was the case.
#2 is bad because it is a direct abrogation of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. In effect, it says that the laws that protect you as a minor only apply when it is convenient for the state to apply them.
But by far, the worst one is #3. Based on that, if a kid sends someone nude photos, even if the recipient did not ask for them, the recipient could be charged with a sex crime. WTF? That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Want to get that law changed in five minutes flat? Every high school boy or girl out there should send semi-nude photographs of themselves to their congressmen, then turn them in. I guarantee that such a flawed law will get corrected in a hurry.... :-)
I'm sure this case will get overturned on appeal, but I'm firmly of the opinion that the prosecution and the judge in this case should be the subject of a public flogging for gross misconduct. There's no excuse for ruining the life of a minor based on what amounts to a technicality in the law. For once, "think of the children" is exactly what we should be doing, and the only way to do that is to change this broken law.
So then... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So then... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So then... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So then... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So then... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You just don't GET it. Sex is UNNATURAL, EVIL, and masturbation is a GATEWAY to ORAL SEX and even INTERCOURSE!
If God had intended for us to have sex, and to masturbate, He would have given us external sexual organs which are proven to help people feel better and healthier when stimulated on a semi-regular basis. He would have given us the desire to do this ourselves, and we'd have plenty of examples in nature to suggest that around the age of puberty, it is desirable and perfectly normal. But you don'
Re:So then... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:So then... (Score:5, Interesting)
Cause if this 17 year old & 16 year old have to register as sex offenders for the next five years, I would imagine that worse than almost any potential psychological trauma from having your ex-(boy/girl)friend show their friends some nude pictures of you...
Re:So then... (Score:5, Informative)
if he'd fucked her, it would only be a 1 year. he was having a party with friends and a girl he'd never seen before walked into their hotel room and started blowing him- he didn't ask for an id, but he did break the state's anti-sodomy law regarding teens and he will be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of his life. too many links to provide- just google Genarlow Wilson
Re:So then... (Score:4, Informative)
I think you're talking about Genarlow Wilson [wikipedia.org]. IMHO, he got completely shafted. There's a great article about him [go.com]. Were I in the DA's district, I'd be rounding up an impeachment petition right now. It's a fucking travesty.
Not children (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not children (Score:5, Insightful)
Some aren't. Most, maybe. But by no means all. And that is the problem. The law has to put a line somewhere. Not all kids develop at the same rate. So some are mature enough, and some aren't, at the arbitrary dividing line.
2) These laws were made to protect minors from older perverts, not from themselves.
Very true. But the letter of the law says "Anyone convicted of sending pictures of naked children..." Key word 'anyone'.
3) This is stupid.
Get the laws changed. (So that a very mature 17 year old can coerce his very immature 16 year old friend to pose nude) Problems, problems.
Re:Not children (Score:5, Insightful)
Here, this is clearly a case that should not be prosecuted. How is justice served by throwing the book at two minors who consensually broke a law designed to protect them from exploitation by adults? If, as in your last example, one had demonstrably coerced the other, then it would be sensible to prosecute the case. Note that it would ONLY make sense to prosecute one of them -- there's NO way it's sensible to prosecute them both just because the letter of the law allows it.
Re:Not children (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that all human beings should have human rights, regardless of their age. One of these rights is the right to free speech and freedom of association. Anyone should be able to share any information and anyone should be able to have any consensual contact with another.
People think that it's uncommon to prosecute minors for sexually abusing themselves under statutory rape or child porn laws. This actually happens all the time. Child porn laws are not designed to protect minors at all. Most images and videos of minors having sex are made by teens in consensual relationships. Anyone who has been in high school in the age of digital cameras knows this. These laws are made by extreme religious fundamentalists who think that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. Since adults can vote, they have largely been unsuccessful in restricting adult sex (at least in the past few decades), however (even mature) minors have no say in government, so they can freely be subjected to to one of the sickest, most twisted sexual fetishes: abstinence.
Re:Not children (Score:4, Insightful)
Although I agree with that because there's a major difference between actual children and adolescents, that's not going to solve the problem. The problem here is not legal status but legal interpretation. A lot of freedom has been taken away from people this way because in the world of lawyers it matters not whether your actions harm anyone else or put anyone else at risk of harm. No, it solely matters whether they go against what has been written down.
Sure, technically this is child pornography and technically there's a risk these pictures made it to the public. In reality however this prosecution alone did more harm than the bit of candid photography ever could.
So.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The real reason for these stupid prosecutions (Score:4, Insightful)
So why are these laws being applied when the photographer is the subject?
It's quite simple. If the uptight authorities don't do this, why, then you'd have teenagers all over the place taking naked pictures of themselves and passing them along. The whole world would be flooded with naked pics of teens!
Can you possible imagine what such a world would be like? Why, why, ahhh, oh nevermind.
Anyway, the religious authorities don't like this. That's what it boils down to.
Oh my. Now we're starting to sound like Iran.
Re:The real reason for these stupid prosecutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Florida Age of Consent (Score:5, Informative)
SHUT DOWN MYSPACE.com (Score:5, Funny)
AC because this post will likely be moderated troll, when in fact I intended it to be insightful. id: 844933
Re:SHUT DOWN MYSPACE.com (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The DA should be ashamed (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only assume he wants to pad the numbers, so he can claim he busted another "kiddie-porn ring" and kept our children safe. It really scares me that in the article, the judges use a lot of reasoning along the line of the pictures "may have" been shown to others later, or the computers "may have" been hacked laster, or something, somehow "may have" gone wrong. When did abstract possibilities becomes illegal? I believe people should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, but I don't see how they can be held accountable for what happens only in the wild speculation of some judge.
Re:The DA should be ashamed (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own."
They could've ended up selling photos ? Well for that matter this judge could've ended up buying them! Since when have we started punishing people for things they could potentially do (but clearly have not attempted to)?
Or how about lacking "maturity" - the whole case is built on the fact that they are minors
Tough Call (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I love this part of the majority opinion: (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, let's protect potential future damage to their lives or careers by ending them early! What the fuck???? I can't believe that this was an actual reasoning.
This is unbelievable on so many levels. As the monitory opinion states, it's ok to have sex, as long as you don't document it. Protection from hypothetical damage allows for doing actual damage. Consensual, legimitate and accepted practices can lead to association with scum of the earth practices.
The more I see, the less I think I'll raise kids in the US.
Insane... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, prosecuting the minors in this way for what was an innocent act on their parts, throwing them in jail for years, sticking them on sex offenders lists, and marring them for live will cause no harm to them at all.
This is just beyond crazy. A sheer sign that our country has gone way down hill. And you know what? These prosecutors will probably get a pat on the back, promotions, and the like. It's nothing to them to destroy the lives of these two teenagers just to forward their own careers.
Time to worry (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the kind of scary crap you get when you don't consider intent when deciding on guilt.
Just Wait Until Your District Attorney Gets Home (Score:5, Insightful)
However, parents are to protect children. Disciplining children by the law is a total failure of the parents. While that happens, it must always be the last resort. And always include legal charges against the parents.
Re:Just Wait Until Your District Attorney Gets Hom (Score:3, Interesting)
Why is this on Slashdot again? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes yes, the law can affect nerds too. I can also get that news anywhere.
Reminds me of an interesting case I read once (Score:4, Interesting)
However, I somehow doubt that that's going to be the holding in this case. If being under 18 gave you license to take and distribute nude photographs of yourself, you can only imagine the consequences. Actually, I think they did an episode of Law & Order about this.
What if... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just hypothetical, of course, but it does illustrates many issues here. The teen case is similar to this scenario; and perhaps we'll need an actual case to make the laws sane again. Of course, anyone who does this will risk everything.
But then again, this old song of "protecting the children" is a wash, anyway, made worthless by those who have the power to judge and prosecute, but do not exercise sound judgement.
And the really sad fact? There are real children who are really being exploited, and these silly laws do nothing to help them. It's all a joke-- a wash, where the guilty goes free and the innocent are punished to make it appear as though the system "works".
Gotta love the USA.
Good thing neither was caught masturbating... (Score:5, Funny)
eh, the US over-reacts one way... (Score:5, Interesting)
Discuss.
The Real Question... (Score:3, Funny)
This is all the camera manufacturer's fault! (Score:5, Funny)
Stupidly arresting cihldren, since 2004 (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.lies.com/wp/2004/03/30/teen-arrested-f
If you're too young to consent (Score:5, Insightful)
Try them as adults! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm worried, however, that then the Florida legal system might disappear in a puff of logic....
|>oug
Re:Out of date (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean kids under 18 are free to rape and murder anybody they choose unless we charge them with rape for having consensual sex with one another? There's no way to distinguish those two situations from each other by statute?
How do you figure, Senator?
18 years is too old to be prose
Re:This shouldn't be prosecuted. (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I can't recall you. I'm sure we had fun anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's actually much, much worse than that... (Score:3, Interesting)
So it's Florida that leads us to the police state... I woulda guessed California or Boston, at least after the last few months...