Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

6 Pennsylvania Teens Face Child Porn Charges For Pics of Selves

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the nudity-is-for-in-person-only dept.

The Courts 1044

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.'"

cancel ×

1044 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Think of the children (5, Funny)

the_arrow (171557) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530163)

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

Not good enough. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530377)

We need to ban vision. If you don't willingly poke out your own eyes, then you must be a child molester.

Re:Think of the children (1)

gapagos (1264716) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530419)

If it would reduce my monthly cellphone bill, I'd be ok with it.

Re:Think of the children (3, Funny)

TerribleNews (1195393) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530565)

If it would reduce my monthly cellphone bill, I'd be ok with it.

Nope, they'd come up with a system non-access fee which you pay so they can make sure you're being saved from yourself. Your new bill would include that and changes for the time you would used your phone and the text messages you would have sent. At which point, if you're a 15 year old boy, the cops will come and arrest you for nude photos of 15 year old girls you would have received, had you been able to carry a cell phone. See? Everybody wins!

Re:Think of the children (4, Insightful)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530447)

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?

Re:Think of the children (5, Insightful)

haystor (102186) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530523)

Nope. The device was a school child's and it was on school grounds. 4th amendment argument won't fly.

Re:Think of the children (3, Insightful)

FredFredrickson (1177871) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530535)

Laws don't apply in this case.

Re:Think of the children (2, Interesting)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530581)

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.)

Re:Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530633)

You are an idiot!

Re:Think of the children (2, Interesting)

pipboy9999 (1088005) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Think of the children (2, Insightful)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530609)

That's kind of what I was going on, but I didn't explain it very well.

Sure, confiscate the phone, as it's not allowed on school property, or in class, or whatever.

But you have no right whatsoever to look through the contents of my phone.

Re:Think of the children (1)

FireStormZ (1315639) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530669)

Teachers have a right to confiscate property from a teen and are obligated by law to report violations of criminal codes.

A police office could not walk into the school and take the phone (sans warrant) but they way this played out it was completely legal.

Re:Think of the children (5, Informative)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530685)

Unfortunately, most of the unlawful search and other illegal evidence laws apply primarily to the police, not to actions taken by others. Often times, if somebody else obtains the evidence, even illegally it can be used by the prosecution in the case. The party that obtained the evidence illegally could potentially be subject to prosecution as well, but that is not surprising.

Now not all evidence works like this. For example phone recordings in some states may be inadmissible as evidence if the state's rules regarding it are not met, even when neither party is the police. But in most cases, as long as it was not the police (or prosecution) that obtained the evidence illegally it is admissible.

Now in this case, this is moot. No warrant was necessary. Anybody (police or otherwise) may search property without any warrant if the owner of said property agrees to the search, and any evidence obtained is admissible. In general, although there are exceptions such as probable cause, law enforcement requires warrants to search a person's property against his/her will. Private individuals never need a warrant to do this, although usually searching of property by a private individual against the property owners will is a crime. However, school officials generally have the legal right to search any property on school grounds. Thus the evidence was lawful.

IANAL, but all the above is my understanding of how it works.

Re:Think of the children (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530623)

This thread is useless without pictures!

Re:Think of the children (5, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530635)

You know, in all the years I have heard "Think of the children" as a battle cry expressing concern over the welfare of children, it just occurred to me that it can be read the wrong way by paedophiles... they TOO are thinking of the children. And as it turns out, they think of themselves as well.

A great victory in the fight against child porn! (5, Funny)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#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!

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (4, Funny)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530259)

They're old enough to consent, but god forbid I videotape it for later.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (5, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530363)

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'?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (4, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530475)

This is a 2nd amendment issue. The parents of the children in question, for the security of a free state, should collect firearms, organize a militia, and shoot dead everyone who has fast-tracked this case into the courtroom.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530293)

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (1)

pxlmusic (1147117) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530359)

your sarcasm detector is broken.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530345)

"6 Pennsylvania Teens Face Child Porn Charges For Pics of Selves on"

On where? What site? Admit it ... you were hoping to find a link there, weren't you?

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530393)

This is a good example of the spirit of the law versus the letter.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530467)

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.

How about this? We KILL the children who engage (1, Interesting)

crovira (10242) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530671)

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...

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (3, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530683)

wait... what?
You start out saying teens will be teens and will be interested in sex then move on to denouncing "every major media provider that influences children with their unavoidable crap selling sexuality to teenagers".
So is sex evil now or not?
do you want teens kept in a sex free bubble or in the real world?

I'm just not exactly clear after reading that.

Re:A great victory in the fight against child porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530497)

Makes me fucking glad I don't live in Amerika.

suspected identity (1)

Alfius (886617) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530171)

Are we sure they're not just 4chaners?

This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (5, Informative)

Trekologer (86619) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530195)

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).

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (2, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530253)

While you are in highschool your rights are suspended.
A little like prison only you've commited no crime and get to go home more.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530343)

Thats a misconception. They want you to think you do, however just because you enter a school doesn't give them the right to remove your rights.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530491)

it also depends on if you are going to a private school or not - in which case you are giving up rights when you agree to attend there

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (5, Interesting)

DustyShadow (691635) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530339)

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:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#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'. ;(

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (5, Insightful)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530619)

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.

Probably didn't even think of it. I work for a large school district, and the one thing I've noticed is that it's not just the cream that floats to the top. A depressingly large fraction of school admin people are complete idiots--- and not just the regular street-variety dodo, but the worst kind of idiot, the kind that has a degree and subsequently thinks they're brighter than everyone else. The kind of self-righteous twit that makes a stupid decision and then defends it to the death, even when faced with prima facie evidence that they totally screwed the pooch.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530681)

At the same time, the mere accusation of impropriety can so destroy the career and life of an educator that he must have felt obligated to turn it over to the police as soon as he saw the picture. The motivation to keep everything very public and and very open would be very strong. I don't know what will happen with these kids now, but I would hope it will stop short of a trial and certainly short of a conviction. However, if this administrator had done the right thing and sat down with the students who were involved and their parents an over-reactive parent may have seen fit to take him down for looking at naked pictures of their teenage daughter. It would have been nice if he was stronger and went this route and dealt with any problems that arose, rather than taking the easy way out. But at the same time, I can see where the motivation may have come from. It may not be maliciousness or self-righteousness.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (2, Insightful)

rpervinking (1090995) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530357)

Gee. I thought school teachers and officials acted in loco parentis. Don't parents have the right to examine this sort of thing? Most notably? Really? Compared to concern about criminalization of the acts performed by these kids? Wow.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530477)

if it was merely parental rights then they'd have to treat you like human beings once you hit 18.
No, while in school all those civil rights things might as well not exist for you.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (1)

Wiseleo (15092) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530679)

Why is it that I always see that response?

A school is just another government institution. Every employee is employed by the government, hence is a government agent. Rights against government intervention are not waived.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530501)

They do, unfortunately they only speak spanish, not latin.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530473)

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).

Nor are they bound by constitutional amendments regarding illegal search and seizure.:

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984): "This Court has ... consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."

So, even if they have a grounds to sue the school it will not prevent the evidence being used to charge them with kiddie porn.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (3, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530511)

To the extent that the parents/schools can be held legally responsible for activities the students are involved in (or rather the blissful and perhaps willful ignorance therein), minors should have limited freedoms and expectations of privacy. They are usually legally treated with kid gloves because we don't expect minors to necessarily understand right/wrong, consequence and danger. The downside is that minors do have freedoms limited by parents and guardians (and I disagree and think schools should count as guardians, although the law seems to vary).

I think the only thing noteworthy in this story is whether the kids will actually get convicted. This has "plea out" all over it, with a side of "I'll teach you a lesson you won't forget".

The question of whether it's appropriate to charge teens with porn charges is probably irrelevant. 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. The question of whether these laws are well conceived isn't being raised.

This is a case where kids are being kids and should be treated like kids... but the law isn't great with exceptions. I question what "lesson" the prosecutor thinks can be taught by chasing this particular crime, and why not just let the parents handle it with a firm warning that this is illegal. If anything is wrong here, it's the attorney trying to play the role of a parent.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (1)

AxemRed (755470) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530627)

"...but the law isn't great with exceptions."

This isn't the first time that I have heard of this happening. I think the law needs an exception added that protects minors from being charged with adult crimes when it comes to "child" pornography in many situations.

Re:This is going to raise a lot of legal questions (1)

slifox (605302) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530645)

Many states have 'in loco parentis' laws, which state that a school must take up some responsibilities of a parent.

According to wikipedia, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.

In my opinion, searching an electronic device, just like searching through a diary or similar, IS a violation of the students' civil liberties...

Some may argue that you have to search through their personal items in order to find out about other punishable things, in order to protect the child. However, that argument is easily applied to government, and it ends up with very bad, totalitarian results. Generally speaking, extremes are not a good choice.

Even worse are cases where the school punishes students for things they do off-campus. That is way out of line; its supposed to be the parents' job!

If the parents aren't being negligent, and the child is at the age where they can weigh consequences and make decent decisions by themselves, then theres no reason for the school to violate civil rights for the child's "own protection." Of course, with children its hard to be so cut-and-dry, since some are more mature than others at the same age, etc...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_loco_parentis [wikipedia.org]

Wow. (5, Insightful)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Wow. (5, Informative)

Irish_Samurai (224931) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530527)

How the fuck is this a troll?

Charging a child with taking their own picture is punishing the victim!

Jesus people.

Nude != Porn (0, Offtopic)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530199)

I hope Obama will talk about this soon.

Re:Nude != Porn (4, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#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 (4, Insightful)

Skinkie (815924) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530461)

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.

Re:Nude != Porn (1)

DrLang21 (900992) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530587)

"Think of the children" nut cases think anyone who loves anything under 20 with or without boobs is a paedophile.

Re:Nude != Porn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530603)

you might need to look at Wikipedia for the actual definition of a pedophile

Check out the paedophile definition while you're at it

Re:Nude != Porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530351)

Yeah, there's a lot of non-nude stuff that should be classified as porn.

Re:Nude != Porn (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530481)

Really?! Where? ;)

Re:Nude != Porn (1)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530593)

I hope Obama will talk about this soon.

He shouldn't have a problem......both Greensburg Mayor Karl Eisaman and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell are Democrats. In fact, Rendell is former head of the Democratic National Committee and is being tapped for a position in Obama's cabinet.

repost (1)

sofar (317980) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530201)

but the story of girls photographing their stuff is just too cool to not repost...

Finally happened (0)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530213)

Not on slashdot, but I've been saying this kind of situation is going to happen soon or later.

Re:Finally happened (3, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530355)

I remember when I was a child myself hearing about such laws and asking curiously "what about if you take pictures of yourself?" and being told "Oh of course it's just to catch bad people, nobody would be that silly."
Unfortunatly slashdot tends to be right when it comes to such things and if there's an insane way to apply a law which everyone dismisses as "nobody would ever apply it like that" then you can bet your ass it will be abused exactly like that.

Re:Finally happened (3, Informative)

Walpurgiss (723989) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530455)

This already happened like a year ago. A couple had a picture of themselves and it was sent via email. http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/20/teen-couple-who-phot.html [boingboing.net]

And here's the ruling that Child Porn laws apply to minors, that will probably be referred to in the current case. And this all was at the start of 2007. http://politechbot.com/docs/child.porn.laws.apply.to.minors.020807.html [politechbot.com]

child pwnography (5, Funny)

damnfuct (861910) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530217)

A classic case of child pwnography.. someone had to say it.

Re:child pwnography (0, Redundant)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530503)

Redundant, my ass! That's FUNNY!!!

Jealousy (2)

snarfies (115214) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530221)

I graduated from high school many years ago, long before cel phones, rainbow parties, etc. I would have loved it if some female students sent me some n00dz. I suspect that the people currently in charge feel the same way. Hopefully this sort of thing will be ironed out by the next generation - wonder how many lives will be destroyed out of jealousy before that...?

Take this as a lesson (5, Interesting)

ternarybit (1363339) | more than 4 years ago | (#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...

Re:Take this as a lesson (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530385)

Think of it as the "pedophile gun".
Want to ruin someones life? no need to hit them with a baseball bat or go to great lengths to frame them. just send them and email or sms with CP, report them and they'll be on the sex offenders register for life and from there you can be sure some upstanding citizen will take a bat to their head for you.

Re:Take this as a lesson (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530533)

Er, better hope that's not getting traced back to you.

Re:Take this as a lesson (3, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530395)

Frame fail -- you can view child pornography as long as you report it immediately and destroy it as soon as it has been collected as evidence by the police.

Re:Take this as a lesson (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530599)

And how many senators do you think would actually do that? How many even know how to delete MMS messages that they've received?

Re:Take this as a lesson (0, Redundant)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530489)

Most phones also have this crazy thing called a 'delete' button that removes unwanted pictures or messages from your phone. Now granted, I sopose it would be possible to report someone and then spam their phone with pictures right up until the moment the phone is taken and searched, but I imagine that the police would catch on to that kind of thing (though with kiddy porn, you never know. Police are notoriously stupid on this subject). And of course, in order to send the pictures you must have them yourself, which is very dangerous ground to be on.

The real problem is that just making the accusation (even without the pictures on the cell phone) is enough to get a person fired from their job and ostracized by the community. Child porn is one of the few offenses in America where the rule is guilty until proven innocent beyond any shadow of a doubt. Even if you are eventually proven innocent, the stigma remains and many people have to completely change their life in order to live normally again.

This is going to be an interesting case to watch, we can only hope that the judge and jury assigned to it are smart enough to handle it correctly. Logically, the law should probably read similar to some states's statutory rape laws, where if the 'victim' and 'perpetrator' are close enough in age the punishment is less severe or eliminated entirely. The girls who took and sent the pictures will probably get off with a slap on the wrist, but I am concerned about the guys in this case. I could see them unfairly winding up in jail or a sex offender's registry all too easily.

looking in a mirror (5, Funny)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 4 years ago | (#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...

Re:looking in a mirror (2, Funny)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530333)

Maybe we should all just wear swimsuits in the shower.

Next step: surgical concealment of anything which might lead to temptation.

Re:looking in a mirror (2, Funny)

Sage Gaspar (688563) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530509)

They're fostering a nation of nevernudes! Gasp!

Hmmm. (4, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530251)

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

That seems hard to believe, but ok.

Re:Hmmm. (4, Insightful)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530525)

I'd say the investigation itself, at least by the administration, is inappropriate activity on school grounds.....

So I'm a criminal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530311)

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is no victim, no ones constitutional rights where violated, I just don't get it. Than again it is a government school, so attempting to apply logic to the issue is likely to cause a severe migraine.

I could see an issue if the pictures where taken unknowingly, if they where taken by adults, if they where sold, if they where transmitted to adults or made available to the public.

I'm just glad I burned everything related to my high school girlfriends...

Family album (4, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Just the electronic version of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530319)

...if you show me yours, I'll show you mine. We all perhaps have done this as kids, I know I did.

Innocent of course, just natural curiosity. But a new wrinkle for the new technology that must be solved to be acceptable in our society.

Of course many children may go to jail before a solution to this new problem appears.

Start thinking now.

Whats the big deal? (5, Insightful)

Durrill (908003) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Laws != prevent harm (4, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530443)

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.)

Re:Whats the big deal? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530585)

Even those of us who didn't get any till college understand your viewpoint :D

May I be the first Anonymous Coward to say (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530347)

pics or did not happen!

As has been said... (1)

xmarkd400x (1120317) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530365)

Send a picture message to the DA, police, school officials, and whomever else you wish to defame. They will all suddenly become owners of child porn. OOPS!

utter crap (5, Insightful)

Loki_666 (824073) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

replacement repression (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530379)

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".

Klump vs. Nazareth High (5, Informative)

mtg169 (1257810) | more than 4 years ago | (#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]

Where's justice? (2)

jav1231 (539129) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530401)

Our system is called the "Criminal Justice System." Where is there any "justice" in this case? I blame judges. The judge should simply throw the case out, period. "As a judge it is my duty to see where justice can be served. I feel there is no better result for the public than for prosecutors to learn the lesson that our system always prosecute with an eye towards justice. Maybe throwing this pathetic case out will help them learn this lesson or at the least encourage the public to demand prosecutors who do so!"

Re:Where's justice? (2, Interesting)

dragonsomnolent (978815) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530547)

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....

Re:Where's justice? (2, Insightful)

DustoneGT (969310) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530583)

Hooray for victimless crimes. We wonder why our prisons are overcrowded and the US has more prisoners than China.

Re:Where's justice? (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530615)

I'd go further and file charges of malicious prosecution. Put a couple of these asshole cops and prosecutors in jail for a while and teach them some sense of right and wrong. The kids need discipline from their parents, not involvement with the legal system.

And what do you want to bet some cop has copies of the pictures carefully hidden away somewhere?

Wrong way to stop this activity (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#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:Wrong way to stop this activity (1)

Leafheart (1120885) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530657)

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.

Please, define to me how that can't be a rational decision on their part? The girls thought it would be nice to tease the boys, I imagine, with whom they want to maintain sexual relationship, sending them pictures of themselves. I'm not sure on the law in Pa, but in most states if they 6 were having an orgy, they could give consent. But they can't consent on their pictures?

So you can see in person, but you can't see it by a picture? And more important, I can look at myself in the mirror, but I can't picture it??? WTF is wrong with that? Who in their right mind could conceive this law as reasonable????

From TFA:

Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends. "It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing until it's already done."

Let me translate it to you. We, the authorities, decided that we will screw the lives of this 6 forever, marking them as sexual offenders, so kids learn not to embarrasses themselves if those pictures hit the web. And we believe it will work...

Thanks goodness I don't live in USA, and if anyone in Brazil starting doing something similar there will be a lot of outcry for the ones I know.

Pics or it didn't happen (1)

RemoWilliams84 (1348761) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530507)

Pics or it didn't happen!!!

I already see the form of the protest (1)

NikLinna (1232172) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530513)

Thousands of teenagers sending nude pics of themselves to teachers, school board members, and law-enforcement personnel...shudder.

Re:I already see the form of the protest (1)

silanea (1241518) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530691)

Where do I sign up?

Ok. Its mob time again. (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530549)

go fetch my torch and you all get your pitchforks. we are doing overtime these days dammit ...

Chasity Belt (1)

BarkingGhostAR (1457407) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530557)

I find this a little abusive of the laws that were put into place to protect non-adults from adults a la sexual predators. Non-adults playing together and showing each other their 'wares is a part of becoming familiar with yourself and others. Next they'll be passing a law to require a Chasity belt for boys and girls and make them asexual for when they turn 18.

Seriously...WTF?! (5, Insightful)

thesolo (131008) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530591)

From the article (emphasis mine):

Saranko indicated that authorities decided to file the child pornography charges to send a strong message to other minors who might consider sending such photos to friends.

"It's very dangerous," he said. "Once it's on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don't realize what you are doing until it's already done."

Wait, what? First of all, no, the cell phone isn't put on the internet, the photos might be, but whatever, that's nit-picking. The real issue is that first statement. They're going to make these kids register as sex offenders to "send a strong message to other minors"?!

These kids didn't do anything wrong. They're teens, they're full of hormones, and they're going to have sex with each other. And it's not the state or federal government's place to stop them. This has gotten far out of hand when 15 year olds willfully showing their bodies to 16 year olds can be prosecuted as child porn.

This will just lead to a cyper romeo / juliet law (1)

FireStormZ (1315639) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530601)

Technically they did break the law, all they need is a sensible judge to set a president here..

Also in Utah (5, Informative)

ink (4325) | more than 4 years ago | (#26530677)

Charges coming in Davis County over nude photos [deseretnews.com]

"It's out there and it's happening," Dunn said. "It's felonies, potentially federal felonies, and kids are clueless. They think that because the person is across the room and you're sending it across the room that it isn't a big deal. It's not the case."

These kids could end up on the sex-offender registry, which would further deflate its usefulness and also deny a whole host of opportunities from these kids. What they did amounts to "show me yours, I'll show you mine" in my opinion -- but our culture is so wrapped up in sex offender mania that we're conflating rapists with innocent behavior.

When we bought our house close to the University of Utah, we looked on the state's sex offender registry and were alarmed by all the incidents around. After drilling down to specific cases, however, it turns out that most of them were of the drunken-college-student variety. Now, when I hear that someone is a "sex offender", I'm not certain if they are a violent rapist, or if they took a dare to run down the block naked.

TREASON (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#26530689)

Whoever filed the charges should be hanged for treason. PERIOD!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>