Count this blogger utterly perplexed as to why teenagers would be brought up on child pornography charges for trading risque pictures with each other via text message.
The problem seems two fold: a) questionable use of limited law enforcement resources in communities where prosecutors are actually pressing such charges and b) does such activity between consenting teenagers even remotely fit the intent of child pornography laws? The logical answers seems to be almost invariably, no.
Now, many a different ramification for such teens such as school disciplinary action seems much more reasonable. Arresting a horny 15 year-old because their significant other texted them a lewd photo, however, seems fantastically dumb.
I'm curious to hear the views of the Sound Politics faithful on this one.
UPDATE: title fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 14, 2009 09:47 PM | Email ThisI think the point is that the pics find their way onto the web via MySpace or Facebook or a scorned hormone driven teen. When they end up on the web there is no way to exercise any control over them and the probability they will make their way into true pornography is great. As I understand it from TV, it is that contribution to the porn industry and the perverts on the web (inadvertant though it may be) that is the problem.
AND, if you let a stupid kid off aren't you opening legal doors to lower standards for true perverts?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 14, 2009 11:10 PMBottom line, two parent homes need to take responsibility for their kids and teach them all of the hazards of today's busy world. It's not just the drugs talk any more, but the technology talk as well.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 14, 2009 11:15 PMIn a 5-year-old, it's harmless curiosity. In a 15-year-old, there's the power to create a child and there's the power to irreparably harm someone.
Child pornography--possession or distribution--is wrong, even if it's children participating in it.
This is not different than murder being wrong even though it's a 15-year-old murdering another 15-year-old.
The police and government should be going after the corrupt peddlars of smut in the movies and TV shows in the UK, and the people who teach it's ok to be "sexually liberated" and engage in this kind of dangerous behavior, in addition to those participating in this abhorrent culture.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on January 14, 2009 11:26 PMSpeaking of spectacularly dumb...
You have got it TOTALLY a$$ backwards. You have TOTALLY missed the purpose of child pornography laws. They are NOT intended to be anti-teen sex measures.
Face it, teenagers always have and always will have sex occasionally. I'm not saying it's good or should be encouraged, but it's not some sort of societal meltdown. People who are sexually interested in biologically mature people, while not always wise to act on such a notion, are perfectly normal and not threatening.
People who are sexually interested in 5 year olds? HUUUUGGGGGEEEEE difference. Those sorts of people are dangerous and should be locked up.
Posted by: cliff on January 14, 2009 11:49 PM1) Child pornography laws are intended to protect children from adults. Adolescents may legally be considered children, but as questionable as that may be in some contexts, can they simultaneously be considered adults for the purposes of being prosecuted?
2) Does anyone actually believe that prosecuting these, er, crimes will alter anyone's behavior?
Posted by: jvon on January 15, 2009 12:49 AMTake Seattle for example; they will be sending 45 SPD officers to the Obama deification ceremonies 2,700 miles away in Washington D.C. next week even while the city is currently understaffed with officers to protect and serve. Some cities just have their priorities straight.
last thought: ...we've come along way from the draconian act of 'bra snapping' in our public schools.
''. . , young people face arrest and prosecution for sending and receiving the obscene messages.''
For RECEIVING the messages ?? You gotta be kidding:
So a 17-year old guy gets an au natural picture of his 17-year old girlfriend FROM his girlfriend; and his cell-phone gets ''inspected'' before he has a chance to delete the picture; and HE gets charged with child porn ??...
Not of course that he would delete it in any case. Think of the obvious follow-on:
Girlfriend asks boyfriend the next day: ''How did you like my picture that I sent you ?''.
Boyfriend answers: ''I deleted it without really looking at it''.... end of relationship.
Get real. And the ''receiving'' part is beyond absurd:
It's legally outrageous:
It's like a fleeing bank robber being chased by the cops dumps his loot in a trash can in your back yard, and when the cops in hot pursuit come by and notice the stolen cash in a trash can on your property, they arrest YOU as an accessory to the bank robbery (if you find the cash and keep it for 5 years before the cops find it, that may be another story, but I digress).
I especially agree with Eric's point ''a)'' and point ''b)''; and with Eric and Jeff B. where they said: Fantastically dumb.
With the level of violent crime our society is plagued with, with meth still destroying young (and old) lives, and etcetera:
Somebody has their priorities WAY out of whack, to spend legal system time and money going after consentual trading of cell photos by high school kids amongst themselves.
It kinda' reminds me of an old joke that goes something like this:
A drunken fellow walks over to a table with very good looking female and asks, "Would you have sex with me for $1,000,000?"
To which she replies, "Yes, I would".
He comes back with "Would you do it for $10?"
And she says, "No! What kind of girl do you think I am?"
The guy comes back with, "Madam, we have already established that. Now we are just dickering over price".
Teenagers should learn at home that it is by their actions that they will be known. If you are a teenage girl and you are sending nude photos around via email it speaks volumes.
This is law enforcement gone awry. They are supposed to investigate what happened, and go after the senders and generators of the content, not someone who received the content unwittingly. And further, as bad as it is that young students are filled with explicit gangster images from Hollywood TV and feel that taking lewd pictures of themselves is appropriate, it does not pass as child porn, unless they are specifically generating it to distribute it to predators who have an appetite for that stuff. If it's just some 16 year old stupidly flaunting his sexual activity, it does not count as child porn, because he is a child, and he created it in the first place.
Smart parents can look in to limited number cell phone plans and parental controls on their computers that prevent this kind of thing from ever happening. Lock it down, and teach your kids about the dangers of your online record, and that will go a long way towards solving the problem.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 15, 2009 09:12 AMDing, ding, ding - we have a winner here. There are parents and there are perpetual adolescents who themselves are suffering from terminal arrested development posing as parents.
Oh, but how "uncool" would it be to set limits on what those who live under your roof and rely on you for their sustenance are permitted.
Now I can see how if your offspring live under a roof provided for them by uncle sugar and their nourishment is courtesy of the taxpayers providing them with a "free" breakfast and lunch ....you might question your abilities as a parent to set limits on any aspect. I would if that were me. However if you want to be a real parent, how about taking some responsibility for what is brought into your home in the guise of entertainment etc. how about bringing up your kids to recognize the value of living life with style, class and dignity.
Posted by: JDH on January 15, 2009 09:33 AMUnfortunately, the government reaction to this is just part of a disturbing trend of ever more government prying into where they don't belong: In this case parsing the perfectly legal pictures on phones. As far as I know it isn't against the law to take a nude picture of yourself and give it to somebody who wants to have it. Minor to minor or adult to adult is the key here. Passing between age groups is a problematic however.
The school does have authority to regulate what is brought onto its grounds but they have no control outside their campus. If the phone has the pictures on it, on school grounds, they can take some sort of action. Nothing more than having the picture(s) deleted and some sort of light punishment for bringing them onto the campus (consenting minors after all).
I remember a case back east a few years ago where a mother took creative, fine art black and white photos of her young child. The child was naked and the pictures were tasteful. The local government went after her for "child porn" and passed her multiple times through their harassment wringer (something that governments are very good at doing). I forget the final outcome but the ridiculousness of it sure reminds me of this Taliban style BS here.
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 15, 2009 11:24 AMKudos for Eric for having the sharp eyes and courage--unfortunately this takes courage--to do this post.
Bureaucracies are necessary for our civilization and not inherently bad.
But they all have the same tendency: Mission Creep.
To take a very good law like the anti-kiddy porn law and use it to attack teenagers is a poster example of how bureaucracies are continually testing their ability to expand their own mission and mandate.
As for me, I'm glad to hear that the kids haven't been so chlorinated by pervasive pollutants in the atmosphere that they've lost interest in sex.
Thanks all,
New Left Conservative # 1
Posted by: New Left Conservative # 1 on January 15, 2009 11:39 AMStill, porn is porn. Your arguments would/will be far different had one of the recipients been a 21 yr old who then passed it around the frat house.
And while some teens intend for the suggestive photos to be seen by only one person, they might not think those photos will be forwarded or that something posted on the Internet lives on.
...over the years I have become convinced that teenage sexuality will become the next big battlefield of the Sexual Revolution. Teenagers as young as 13 or 14 will be promoted by the culture at large as fair targets for adult sexuality. And the more teenagers sexualize themselves, the easier it will be for adults to say, "see, they're already doing it -- what's the harm"? As a parent, few things frighten me more than this.
This kind of behavior can be stopped only if teenagers have been taught a strong ethic about the value of themselves and others, and if they have a clear understanding of what is appropriate and not appropriate to reveal about themselves. Only responsible parents can teach children those things. These days, though, one has to wonder how many adults fail to comprehend them as well.
But EXAMPLE is also a great teacher. Kids and grandpas being arrested for illegal music downloads did much to curb that illegality. These arrests are no different.
And I find this whole discussion so ironic, ESPECIALLY from liberals who want to regulate everthing.
So now kids are breaking the law that is support to be protecting them from the "predators" and not other children of their age group. Glad I only had a Polaroid to take pic of my girlfriend (now my wife) when we were in high school, this digital thing would have landed me in jail.
Posted by: Variable on January 15, 2009 12:32 PMYou betcha' - when adolescent girls look at themselves as a commodity instead of as a person this is what they do to get attention.
Posted by: JDH on January 15, 2009 01:05 PMGood grief am I glad I didn't have to grow up in this perpetual state of nanny-stateism that kids have to deal with today. Sometimes I wonder how I ever survived a bike-helmetless, non-seat-belt-wearing, corporal-punishment-aplenty, pre-MADD, pre-security-camera society.
Posted by: Splinter on January 15, 2009 01:56 PMI love when Rag's Bizarro-universe Internet makes an appearance in the threads.
Posted by: brent on January 15, 2009 02:33 PMOperative words: EACH OTHER.
No chance of the pics being virally spread on the net when it's just EACH OTHER.
I love when Rag's Bizarro-universe Internet makes an appearance in the threads.
Not quite so "Bizarro".
You're welcome.
One reason we apprehend and JAIL criminals, besides the obvious of punishment and removing them from the streets is to send a message. A prime example is the "We prosecute shoplifters" signs. Should a 14 yr old be exempt?
A crime is either a crime or it's not: it matters not the intention nor the age of the perptrator.
A=A
The Law of Identity: A thing is itself; it cannot be and not be at the same time.
As I understand it, it's perfectly legal for a 20 year old to have sex with a 16 year old, but not a 15 year old.
For a 15 year old to have sex with a 13 year old but not a 12 year old.... and for a 12 year old to have sex with another any age, 14 or younger.
Unless, of course, the 20 year old is MARRIED to the 15 year old; or the 15 year old is MARRIED to the 12 or younger year old and so forth.
Marriage allows this kind of thing in this state.
Folks.... I believe these laws are idiotic.
Children shouldn't have sex, period. And until we fix that... the picture issue is kinda stupid.
See for yourself.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.44.073
Posted by: hinton on January 16, 2009 12:39 AM