×

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!

Florida Reduces Penalties For 'Sexting' Teens

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the more-time-to-work-through-their-shame dept.

Cellphones 295

SonicSpike sends word that Florida has changed how law enforcement deals with teenagers who send racy pictures to each other over their phones. Quoting CNN: "Before Saturday, a Florida teenager who sent or received nude photos or video could have been charged with a felony and forced to register as a sex offender. But a new law, recognizing the proliferation of cell phones and computers, eases the penalties for 'sexting' infractions. A first offense is punishable by eight hours of community service or a $60 fine; the second is a misdemeanor and the third is a felony. ... Under House Bill 75, teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it, did not solicit the image and did not send it to someone."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

295 comments

Whatever (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37581810)

Hey, just tell teens not to have sex while you're at it.
If the stuff isn't wanted, an alternative may be pursued: harassment charges.

Wow (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581816)

How very pragmatic. Guess the sponsors will be voted out next election, since pragmatism is anathema to politics these days.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

durrr (1316311) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581958)

Did you miss the part where they have to report it? Meaning you have to share it with the law enforcement or you might get in trouble.
Whoever made that law is a huge wanking pervert.

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582354)

Florida is getting a little less evil with legislating against teenage sexuality and nudism, but it's getting a lot worse for dog lovers in Florida, because just a few months ago, after 3 attempts (and stalling from the Republican party), bestiality is now a criminal offense in Florida.

Also, Florida will also charge children who show a but-crack (called the "droopy-drawers" law). You'd think these highly paid politicians that get free health care benefits would spend their time trying to improve the country instead of punishing children (and animal lovers).

Ref: www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/florida-bestiality-law-passes-third-attempt_n_858884.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582674)

The bestiality thing is a bit of a joke, because it was already effectively illegal under broader animel cruelty laws - and with the precident to back up that interpretation too. Making a law to explicitly outlaw it is really just moral grandstanding - publicly attacking some icky sex thing to boost the Family Friendly credentials of a few politicians, even though it doesn't actually change a thing.

Re:Wow (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582690)

They are getting a little less evil but only for "crimes" that could accidentally impact the lives of white, middle class kids. The only reason this law is getting a second look is that it happened to hit "good kids." The laws that impact brown or black people still stand.

Re:Wow (5, Informative)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582744)

This whole law is fucking retarded in regards to teen sexting. Kids are going to be playful, curious, and they are going to send nude pics of themselves, and it's ridiculous to call it a crime. If the pics they send are of themselves, then it's none of the governments damn business. Leave it for the parents to take care of. Classifying it as a crime with tis graduated 3 strikes rule is over the top. What exactly is it suppose to accomplish. It is a distortion of the law to call it child porn to begin with. Instead of making exceptions for self pics from teens, they have again done the wrong thing, albeit it to a very slight lesser degree, instead of just putting an exception in to begin with.

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582200)

Pragmatic? You're asking for a pragmatic approach?

Accept the fact that teen's bodies are flooded with hormones, and they only think of sex for about 36 hours each day. (Yes, I know, for children and adults, there are only 24 hours in each day - teens live in a different continuum!) The little bastards are always going to be thinking of sex, they speak sex, they look sex, they breathe sex. Pragmatism dictates that we leave them the hell alone, to deal with their own demons, in their own way.

If YOU don't want to see pictures of naked teens, then DON'T LOOK AT A TEEN'S PHONE!

Dumbasses . . .

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582302)

Oh the whole "save teh childrenz!" thing is royally fucked and we have been way past sane for quite awhile. Some examples include the guy who wrote the "pro pedo" book that is now rotting in jail. Nobody accused him of touching anybody, no pics or anything, just his thoughts and opinions on paper. I seem to remember someone writing about a time when people could be arrested for their thoughts. There is also the guy doing prison time for writing his fantasies in his journal which his shrink told him to do, another thoughtcrime. Then there is the guy who went to jail for dirty Jap cartoons, again no kids, just pen and ink. as a friend that works in the state crime lab told me these laws are so badly written you could draw a stick figure and scribble "nekked kid" on it and theoretically be guilty of child pron!

For one a little closer to TFA how is THIS for fucked up: In several states I can marry a girl as young as 14 with their parents permission. I can marry her, bang her any way my little heart desires, again completely legal, but if I take a picture of my wife naked I'd be a child pornographer!

This whole damned thing has become another red scare, only instead of commies we see pervs behind every tree. what we seriously need is some common sense laws but sadly politicians have learned they can stir up the rabble and get more votes by pushing the "save teh childrenz!" button.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582500)

AFAIK that would not be the case. While most people emancipate at coming of age (18 in most western countries), you can emancipate earlier by court order or ... marriage. And it's legal to take pictures of an adult.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582542)

The other terrible thing about the sex offender registries is all the horrible regulations one has to live with if you end up on the list. My dad has a friend who lost the lawyer lottery (and admittedly wasn't smart enough to realize it at the time) and was advised to plead guilty to a sex crime when his ex wife convinced their daughter to claim he had touched her inappropriately in the middle of their ugly divorce. He now isn't allowed to live within 5000 yards of any schools or daycare facilities. He just rented an apartment and was told after moving in that somebody living nearby is running a daycare in their house so he has 10 days to find a new place to live. There is a database of daycares you can check before you move somewhere, and the database said his new address was in the clear. It was only after he paid his non-refundable deposit and moved all of his stuff into the place that the sheriff came by and said "Oops, turns out there IS a daycare nearby. Too bad, get out within 10 days or you go to jail for a felony. have a nice day!"

Terrorist watch, no-fly, felony, and sex offender lists are the new yellow stars. Anybody who claims America doesn't have classes or a caste system is either misinformed or lying.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582574)

Yes, blame the lawyer for someone pleading guilty for a sex crime. It must the the lawyer's fault. I hope that guy castrates you before he kills himself. I want your thought process out of the breeding population.

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582676)

Depends on the lawyer. Public defenders are generally kept overworked to the point where they just don't have time to make a defence. That's the way the state likes it - every time a person gets found innocent of a criminal charge, it makes the police look like idiots. Unacceptable.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582664)

Really, cuz I think it's ironic that people who think there should be NO penalty for sexting are also the ones that think that we should have severe penalties for "hate crimes".

Curious (4, Insightful)

Nialin (570647) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581820)

What about persons previously convicted? I doubt they're gonna retroactively "fix" those kids' lives.
It's still pretty fucking stupid to charge them in the first place.
At least it's a step in the right direction, albeit a small one...

Re:Curious (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581936)

It's not a stupid charge, it was a stupid penalty. The current penalty is still too much, but you're ignoring the fact that naked pictures have a way of being liberated by an angry ex or lost when a phone is either lost or stolen. Not to mention the fact that the only way to prevent naked photos of one being naked is to prevent them from being taken. There are going to be times when there's a covert camera in a restroom, but taking the pictures oneself is a really bad idea.

Plus, this isn't a matter of consenting adults, if they were adults they wouldn't need an exemption from the normal child porn charges that would result from dealing in these types of photos.

That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

Re:Curious (3, Insightful)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581954)

That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

Well, it'd certainly release them of the need to kidnap kids to get the photos themselves. I see this as a win-win situation.

Re:Curious (5, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582066)

Plus, this isn't a matter of consenting adults,

Yes, it is. They are of age to legally consent to sex, but not legally able to consent to signing a model release. This leaves the gray area of taking a picture of a legal activity being illegal, possession of a picture of that legal activity is illegal, and it doesn't matter if its you taking a picture of yourself, it can still be a felony. They can consent to the acts photographed, so they are consenting. "adult" is meaningless now. The age at which the courts have decided someone can be tried as an adult is 12. Cigarettes at 18/19 (mostly 18, but more going to 19), voting at 18, porn at 18, drinking at 21. "Adult" is a meaningless tag used and abused for emotional responses, unrelated to logic and reason.

Yay arbitrary lines which, at best, are wrong only 50% of the time.

Re:Curious (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582232)

How on earth is it the job of the state to protect teenagers against themselves? The job of their parents, sure, but the state?

Re:Curious (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582238)

Not to mention the fact that the only way to prevent naked photos of one being naked is to prevent them from being taken.

The only way to prevent naked photos of one being naked is to avoid being naked. Join the Nevernudes(TM) [aoltv.com].

Re:Curious (5, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582380)

[...] taking the pictures oneself is a really bad idea.

It's a bad idea to unscrew a lightbulb and stick your finger in the socket. Are we going to punish such stupidity as well? Perhaps we should leave such things for what they are: simple rules of life parents ought to teach to their children.

That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

How? And if it were true, so what? If your naked picture is already out there on the internet and downloaded by thousands of people, who cares if one of those people happens to be a paedophile? Contrary to belief that is popular in certain circles, kiddy porn does not magically turn paedophiles into child molesters.

Re:Curious (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582646)

It's a bad idea to unscrew a lightbulb and stick your finger in the socket. Are we going to punish such stupidity as well?

That act will punish itself hard enough. No need to beat a dead horse (or moron, for that matter).

Re:Curious (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582398)

No, it's a stupid charge. Sexting is one of those many things a minor might do that should be handled by parents rather than judges and cops.What else should be charged as a misdemeanor and heard by a judge? Out after curfew? Not studying? Forgot to take out the trash again? Drinking from the milk carton?

There's a lot of good reasons not to sext, and I'll bet a heart to heart with mom or dad will convey them a lot more meaningfully than what the kids would no doubt call "a stupid lecture from some old man who's just pissed he can't get it up without a popsicle stick" or some such.

I would argue that if the so-called adults in the "justice" system were actual adults, there wouldn't need to be an exception either.

Re:Curious (1)

Hylandr (813770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582594)

The heart to heart with Mom or Dad implies that children ever get to see their parents for 3 to 4 hours per night before going to bed. And even this may be occupied by homework, sports, dinner or doctors visits. Most parent's only know their children's names because they *gave* them the name in the first place. Much less what's going on in their lives to be able to connect for this 'heart to heart'. Raising children has devolved to dropping them off at the best state daycare-in-school-disguise they can manage to live close to.

If there is at least one parent not working and staying home to be with the kids after school chances are they won't be starved for attention in the first place.

- Dan.

Re:Curious (4, Interesting)

tech4 (2467692) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582636)

Sexting isn't "starving of attention". It's just a little sexual act, or to make others day a little bit more pleasureful, or for the any other reason adults too it. Teens, especially towards the adulthood, aren't as stupid as adult seem to think. People just usually draw that picture based on non-complete images, and things that stand out (the bad things).

We used to send nude pictures of ourselves with my gf when we were teen, and it was both for the little thrill, sexual pleasure but also for feeling love towards the other person. When we later broke up it never did cross my mind to spread them to internet. Things change, and while it hurts, you don't have to be an ass about it.

It's sometimes funny when you read about parents writings on the internet, especially slashdot, how it feels like they've completely forgotten how it was to be a teenager. Of course, you didn't have smartphones, but you had the equivalent stuff anyway.

And of course, I don't live in the US where showing a nipple on TV is a huge thing (but killing people and other violence is just fine), so maybe I'm more liberal because of that too, but you just have to accept that sexting is usual and is what teens do. Even if you didn't get to do that as a teen.

Re:Curious (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582656)

If you don't even have time on weekends then maybe you should look at your life and reconsider what you're doing with it.

Re:Curious (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582712)

If there is at least one parent not working and staying home to be with the kids after school chances are they won't be starved for attention in the first place.

I am addressing the generic "you", so don't take this personally unless you need to: If parenting is the most important job, then you need to restructure your life to give your children the attention they need for proper development into adults, or to just fucking admit that you're a selfish fuck and you don't actually love your children, nor are they the most important thing in your life.

And yes, I grew up in a single parent household, how could you tell?

Re:Curious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582508)

Great, while you are at it, make it a criminal offence for children to follow strangers into their cars.

If children have a undesireable behaviour it is the parents job to correct it. First when the parents refuse to do so they shall be informed that unless they are willing to educate their children in proper behaviour then they may lose custody of their child.
What you don't do is to send the law enforcement directly after children. Until the day a person have the full rights of the law (Including voting, driving cars, owning weapons and whatever adults are allowed to do.) then the children should not have the full responsibility that this right comes with.

Re:Curious (5, Insightful)

Calydor (739835) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582518)

That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

I sat thinking about this for a bit, and you know what?

I think that's actually a good thing.

Hell, if there were any nude pics of me from when I was 13, 14 years old, and the fact that a pedophile used them for wanking material instead of going out and actually hurting a child, even better.

There is a line between fantasy and action. I'm sure a lot of us have at times, in the dark of our own bedrooms, momentarily thought about what something would be like, something you wouldn't normally do - and not just because it's illegal. The thrill of the forbidden, the ability to let something play out inside your head. It doesn't mean that the next day you go out and actually DO that for real.

It's the same with this.

Re:Curious (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582522)

It's not a stupid charge, it was a stupid penalty.

Oh, so sorry Mr. Pedant. Let me correct that: "It was stupid for the Prosecution to waste taxpayer resources filing charges and pursuing a lawsuit."

Plus, this isn't a matter of consenting adults, if they were adults they wouldn't need an exemption from the normal child porn charges that would result from dealing in these types of photos.

Except that for many purposes, they ARE adults. For example, if you're 16 in most US states you can legally participate in sex but if you take a picture of yourself doing so, now you're producing "child porn". And that's bad, because it's obviously SO damaging to yourself to take a picture of what you're doing.

There are going to be times when there's a covert camera

Off-topic, we're talking about teenagers taking pictures of themselves, not voyeurism.

pictures have a way of being liberated by an angry ex or lost when a phone is either lost or stolen

Off-topic, we're talking about teenagers taking pictures of themselves, not theft, revenge, etc. each of which are already crimes.

That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors

Well that's not what's happening here. Reducing from a felony with required sex offender registration is not the same thing as "decriminalizing".

side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

Still not legal to take the pictures. Still a crime to distribute them. Still a felony to pass them along to a third party.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you have any valid points to make, or are you just here to spread around more of this "OMG Pedophiles are coming to get you" bullshit?

Re:Curious (1)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582316)

Generally, when a penalty for a crime is lessened it is a lot easier to get your sentence reduced to the new levels. Or, if something is retroactively made legal you are supposed to be released from your punishment. Sometimes the justice system needs a little prodding from lawyers for this to actually work correctly.

Re:Curious (5, Insightful)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582348)

It's still pretty fucking stupid to charge them in the first place.

That's the real problem with this country. Somewhere along the way we became infatuated with law and not justice. If anybody in the chain, from the police to the prosecutor to the judge, dare to actually question whether ruining somebody's life over something stupid is the right thing to do they are labeled as "activist" -- codeword for not believing that some politicians somewhere that you've never met and who know nothing about the incident in question know better than you what's right.

If we could trust our public servants, if we could trust that the police and prosecutors and judges would exhibit common sense and consider justice for all parties, including the accused, then I would support laws like this. It would allow, for example, two 16-year-olds to exchange naked pictures if they want to without fear of having their lives ruined by the state and without some truly absurd requirement that they report each other to the authorities, while at the same time providing for consequences if they break up and decide that an awesome way to hurt each other is to start posting those pictures all over Facebook.

We can't, of course. Laws like this are proof enough of that. "We recognize how terrible our last law was so we'll give you a warning before we ruin your life for the exact same thing." That's moderation in our society, and I see no signs of it changing. The right thinks this is the greatest thing ever and the left lacks the balls to stand up against it.

So, where's... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581824)

Where's the "suddenburstofcommonsense" tag for the story?

Re:So, where's... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37581836)

Since there are penalties there... still no common sense.

Re:So, where's... (5, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581870)

So teenagers with breasts are not allowed to, well, be teenagers; but parents are still allowed to push their pre-teen kids into beauty contests complete with swimsuit competions and prostitute dress-ups? [dailymail.co.uk]

The types of people who villify sexting are the dirty old men-types who jack off to teen porn and pop boners watching their daughters play in the pool while being pissed that they couldn't have the same fun when they were younger, then spend the rest of their time praying for forgiveness and validating their perversions by projecting them onto others.

Re:So, where's... (1)

guybrush3pwood (1579937) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581970)

The types of people who villify sexting are the dirty old men-types who jack off to teen porn and pop boners watching their daughters play in the pool while being pissed that they couldn't have the same fun when they were younger, then spend the rest of their time praying for forgiveness and validating their perversions by projecting them onto others.

All that is, of course, plain old prejudice. That, or you're talking from personal experience.

Re:So, where's... (2)

kayumi (763841) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582160)

I don't know why you were modded down. I am not sure whether you are right in each and every detail but there is an incredible amount of hypocrisy in all attempts to suppress and control teenagers sex drives. I especially like the fact that all pictures have to be reported. I am sure that the number of job applicants for clerical police work will increase.

Re:So, where's... (5, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582624)

Someone getting nailed on kiddie porn charges for THEIR OWN PICTURES is what is ridiculous.

You can't get much more victimless than that.

What? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581828)

ok, that's great it's not a crime and all, but.........

A) Why is this even an issue? Are there really that many kids out there sexting each other?
B) How exactly are the police finding out about this? Isn't it somewhat disturbing to think that the police have people dedicated to watching out for kids sexting each other?

Re:What? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581872)

A) What happens when you take the teenage libido and give them all camera phones? Then just stir in some of the drama typical of first relationships, when every crush feels like true love.
B) Usually someone eventually reports it.

Re:What? (1)

Ixokai (443555) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581956)

Uh, its kinda weird that it has to be said but...

A) Yes. Absolutely, yes. Welcome-to-the-internet-in-your-hand-at-a-whim, yes.
B) One kid unthinkingly sends image to another kid. Other kid unthinkingly forwards it to friend. Other kid unthinkingly mass-mails. People get upset. Someone calls police. None are even vaguely capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, or more importantly separating the dramatic emotional effect of the moment from the real-life long-term consequences of said act... because they are /kids/.

Before, we charge kid with making, distributing, or simply receiving child pornography-- this has happened several times. Kids life is ruined. Adults behave like complete idiots while pandering to idiotic voting bases. Kids get screwed, adults get re-elected. Nothing surprising.

Then FL does something vaguely sensible-- though I'd argue it needs to go farther, but be that as it may-- and I'm shocked.

Shocked that they actually did something sensible. And shocked that you seriously think teens with magic devices that have cameras and internet access at a whim aren't taking pictures of themselves doing all manner of inappropriate, immoral, illegal things and posting it all around without thinking about it.

Of course they are. They're teenagers. Were you born 30? :P

Re:What? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582058)

B) One kid unthinkingly sends image to another kid. Other kid unthinkingly forwards it to friend. Other kid unthinkingly mass-mails. People get upset. Someone calls police. None are even vaguely capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, or more importantly separating the dramatic emotional effect of the moment from the real-life long-term consequences of said act... because they are /kids/.

Before, we charge kid with making, distributing, or simply receiving child pornography-- this has happened several times. Kids life is ruined.

The only way the system makes sense is if you turn it upside down, it's not to protect teenagers from sexually exploiting themselves, it's to keep the sexual teenagers from corrupting the "innocent" teenagers. The producers who generate the idea of teen porn are the worst, then those who help spread it next and finally all that seek it and contribute to a teen sex culture. All people that should be put away so the rest won't think of sex before they're 18. They've just realized penalties aren't working because the last thing teenagers think about when sexting is being up on felony child pornography charges, so now they're going for reeducation instead. Make it a small infraction, catch more teenagers and try to make it a thing you don't do. Good luck trying to restrain the combination of raging hormones, camera cellphones and the Internet. I'll get the popco.... uh, no wait I won't.

Re:What? (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582204)

It's ok. The police have set up official websites run by private contractors so that you can upload and register the pictures when you receive them, and there's even a facility for monitoring duplicates in case you accidentally upload something one of your fellow victims received already. To make it even easier to remember, the police have reserved a special domain called .XXX for those websites (three stick figures saying NO PICTURES!).

report to the stasi? (5, Insightful)

harvey the nerd (582806) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581850)

"....teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it"

Seig Heil !

Re:report to the stasi? (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581898)

Yeah, a better law would have been:

"....teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to delete it"

Re:report to the stasi? (5, Insightful)

mph_sd (564445) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581946)

Yeah, a better law would have been:

"....teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to delete it"

still more reasonable: teens who receive explicit images won't be charged.

That part of the law is so wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37581940)

That part of the law is so wrong.

Re:report to the stasi? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581944)

I'd be worse if they made one side of it legal and the other illegal. You send a sexting message to your gf, she can now get you charged later when she's your ex-gf. This way if you were both in on it you're both guilty, if you didn't want the sexting messages you have to report it. Which might be a good idea if someone sends you sexual messages you don't want anyway.

Re:report to the stasi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582298)

I'd be worse if they made one side of it legal and the other illegal.

No, that depends entirely on which way. One side is active, the other passive. If you make receiving illegal, and sending legal, that's a huge problem; if you make sending illegal, and receiving legal, as long as you don't break the law, you have no problem; you break the law, you're at risk of being sold out by all your cohorts, same as every other crime in the books. Existing rules for conspiracy and accessory liability will generally make the (ex)gf criminally liable in the scenario you mention above, but whether it's a crime in itself or by conspiracy, that's not the "safety" you think -- prosecutors grant immunity or reduced sentencing all the time in exchange for ratting out your partners in crime.

Re:report to the stasi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582090)

Sieg.

das Sieg = Victory. That's all Sieg means, on its own. Nothing to see here.

Re:report to the stasi? (4, Informative)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582132)

Sieg.

das Sieg = Victory. That's all Sieg means, on its own. Nothing to see here.

It's "der Sieg", not "das Sieg".

But the combination "Sieg Heil" is decidedly Nazi. Basically it's the putting of "Heil" on it which makes it typical Nazi.

But then, the Stasi was not in Nazi Germany (there you might have reported to the Gestapo), but in communist East Germany.

Re:report to the stasi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582196)

In other words, what the Nazis were saying was essentially "greetings of pure win, brothers!"

Re:report to the stasi? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582190)

Mary and Mathew like each other. They would like to engage sexually the next weekend and Mary sends Mathew a preview what to expect. Mathew masturbates thankfully of the image and reports it to the authorities after getting dressed up. Mathew does not send the image of Mary to anyone and did not ask for the picture. He decides to send his naked picture to Mary in return.
  Mary masturbates thankfully of the image and reports it to the authorities after getting dressed up. Mary does not send the image of Mathew to anyone and did not ask for the picture. Neither one is accused of breaking the law.
  Sexing is legal. Only now the authorities can masturbate of the sexy images of your children as well.

Re:report to the stasi? (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582236)

Wee bit of a fifth amendment problem there... You can't compel anyone to report a goddamned thing if it might incriminate them.

-jcr

Re:report to the stasi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582416)

Stasi = DDR secret police
Sieg Heil = Nazi greeting

Except for being totalitarian states in Germany, the DDR and Nazi germany had nothing in common.

blame the victim! (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582526)

Blaming the victim is very convenient, because it allows you to victimize anyone you want and then lie about it.

Better, but still not ideal (1)

qxcv (2422318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581862)

Under House Bill 75, teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it, did not solicit the image and did not send it to someone.

Ah, and there's the catch. I challenge anybody to find a teen who will report their girlfriend/boyfriend/whoever to the authorities for sending nude pictures. If they delete it, do not encourage the behaviour and do not show it to anybody other then the intended recipient, I fail to see the harm to either party.

Re:Better, but still not ideal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37581888)

Did you forget about being a teen? There are plenty of kids who will use the opportunity to punish an ex.

Re:Better, but still not ideal (1)

TwinkieStix (571736) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581908)

Did you forget about being a teen? There are plenty of kids who will use the opportunity to punish an ex.

You mean like reporting it?

Re:Better, but still not ideal (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581904)

Every vengeful ex will be able to do so. And concerning the deletion. Once that is known a law will be come into use to keep all the messages send. You know, for the sake of the children and the terrorist.

Re:Better, but still not ideal (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582004)

how braindead would a teen have to be to delete and discourage such pictures ?
or more like it, how fucking braindead must a grownup be to expect them to ?

if i received any picture like that (best phones we could get could barely send sms ;) ), i can't even imagine what i'd have thought of some idiot who requested me to delete and discourage girls from sending such pics...

eh, i guess my jealousy of these things has not turned into a sickness, at least not as huge one as some puritans have it

It may be 2011 (5, Insightful)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581874)

But Puritanism is alive and well in the United States.

I find it ironic that some of those complaining loudest about the impending Sharia Law in the US and Europe are among those most likely to demand various Levitical Laws in the US.

Re:It may be 2011 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37581990)

"I support the separation of church and state.... UNLESS IT'S MY CHURCH!"

Re:It may be 2011 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582002)

Not only is it alive and well, it never died. You can find churches to this very day that descend directly from Puritan churches.

It's kind of hard to find since so many churches willing call themselves "Puritan" that don't literally descend from the Puritans and modern churches that descend from the Puritans don't call themselves that any more, but if you try hard enough, there are plenty of churches (mostly in New England) that can trace their lineage back directly to Puritans.

The best I could find were a couple of forum posts on straightdope.com, but the closest they could come up with were "congregationalist." Which I'd think would apply to any church, but apparently it's the modern term for your good, old-fashioned, ancestors-came-over-on-the-Mayflower Puritan church.

Re:It may be 2011 (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582692)

To be fair, sexting often ends badly for kids. Of course when the hysterical minority who expect the government to solve every problem and the legislature which has nothing to do except constantly write new laws get together, things end up even worse.

its was teens' own fault (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581894)

If they had had any sort of group awareness and organisational capacity they'd ALL have done it, then ALL turned themselves in. Let every single teen in Florida be registered as a sex offender.

Act like a sheep, get treated like a sheep.

Re:its was teens' own fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37581924)

Only an idiot teen would count on his fellow teens not buckling under pressure.

Re:its was teens' own fault (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581960)

Why don't adult people in Florida have any sort of group awereness and vote on a presidential candidate who is not D or R?

Re:its was teens' own fault (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582148)

There are a significant proportion of people for whom the status quo is more than good enough. House, food, basic entertainment, safety, the freedom to babble - most people don't want much. It might not be sustainable for more than another few decades, but for a good proportion of people mortality makes that irrelevant.

That makes no sense. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37581910)

Is it a $60 offense or a felony offense?

Re:That makes no sense. (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581942)

The first offense would be $60 and 8 hours of community service. Subsequent offenses would continue to misdemeanor and finally felony if the particular teen kept sexting.

Still Very Evil (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581928)

A fine step from very evil to ... less evil, but still very evil.

Under House Bill 75, teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it, did not solicit the image and did not send it to someone.

So let me get this straight: A 16 year old's girlfriend sends him a picture, he is guilty unless he reports her to the police?

First, bite my shiny metal ass.

Second, good luck upholding that when it goes to a court above the Florida level.

Third, to expand on item one; holy shit are you a bunch of nasty assholes. Up until a circuit or the Supremes knock this foul law flat on its ass, it is going to put a lot of kids in really nasty quandaries about their obligations to the people they care about versus the state. Honestly, I figure it's safe to assume you will be creating thousands of anti-authoritarians in one stroke of your pen. I'm sure the year 2021 thanks you for the increase in civil disobedience you are creating.

Fourth, they're just body parts. They can't hurt you. How does it make sense to put kids into the ironically named "correctional system" because they received a picture of a breast? You think they are going to come out better people? That it will improve our future? You are bat-shit-looney if you believe that.

Re:Still Very Evil (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581948)

people in favor of such 'laws' are not *thinking*.

they are 100% guided by that so-called 'good book'. once the good book speaks, mind is closed and there's no hope of getting thru.

jesusland, usa. all over the fucking place, even in progressive states.

the 60's gave us a step forward. reagan and his cronies began the back-step into the middle ages again and other than a short pause (about 10 yrs or so ago) we've been marching more and more toward jesusland, usa.

all the whole, making fun of the muslims who are just as stubborn as our christians are. no better and not all that much worse when it comes down to it.

Re:Still Very Evil (5, Funny)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581994)

All the while ignoring the parts about not eating pork chops and cheeseburgers, which is a shame because thats pretty much the only part of the bible a lot of these people should be following.

Re:Still Very Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582108)

The stuff about pork has to do with the fact that pork goes bad quickly and tends to be infested with parasites. But, since old testament law was for the old covenant and such, it's a bit of a moot point. They seem to have misunderstood the parts about leaving judgement to God and helping the less fortunate. In fact, they seem to have so completely misunderstood them that they are actively attempting to be the judges and law makers while refusing to help the needy. Also, there is that bit where Jesus spoke about 'sexual immorality' which is generally classified as pedophilia, adultery and rape (and potentially anal sex, but the development of soap and anti-bacterials kinda made that a non-issue). Wouldn't screwing with someones sexuality by telling them that they should hide their body, not share it, their feelings are wrong and so forth be classified as sexual immorality?

Re:Still Very Evil (3, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582114)

He also wasn't all that happy with the money changers(Wall Street) as well, but the "Christians" tend to forget that part too, as the religious right extolls the virtues of people who crash the economy.

Re:Still Very Evil (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582040)

Where does the bible say "you shall not make pictures of breasts ..."? Well, OK, the bible says you shall not make pictures of anything and this therefore would also apply for breasts, but then, where does the bible say that pictures of breasts are worse than pictures of faces, or pictures of trees for that matter?

Re:Still Very Evil (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581950)

That's how child porn charges work and that's why this area of law desperately needs reform. You're guilty of possession of child porn if somebody sends you a photo whether or not you see it and worse whether or not you solicit the image. Child porn charges without a mens rea requirement are just an incredibly easy way to frame somebody for a felony if you've got some reason for wanting them sent to prison.

Supposedly, if you accidentally download some, you should report it to the FBI, but I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that.

Re:Still Very Evil (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582092)

Child porn charges without a mens rea requirement are just an incredibly easy way to frame somebody for a felony if you've got some reason for wanting them sent to prison.

Indeed. For example, if you are able to manipulate his internet connection, you might insert a hidden image of child porn (since it's hidden, he won't see it, but it will probably end up in his cache anyway), and then tell the police that he likes to look at child porn. The police will seize his computers, find child porn in his cache, game over.

Re:Still Very Evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582312)

You don't need to send anything. You just need to make an accusation to the police that you say the person accessing child porn. The lack of evidence doesn't prove they didn't do it or you lied. The police will take it and run with it. They will make an arrest (looks good), seize the computers, and then the prosecutor will attempt to get the accused to plead guilty on reduced charges (once again it looks good). No sane person is going to risk 20 years when they will get off with little or no jail time by pleading guilty to false charges. The prosecutor can't decline to prosecute even if there is zero evidence. It just becomes lesser "evidence" and people are often convicted without any real or collaborating evidence. Coincidences frequently happen and a prosecutor just has to present the case in a convincing manor. Call logs for instance between friends / boss / employees can look as though you were involved in a crime. No actual tapping or conversations need be presented to the court. A prosecuting being able to drop charges is only true in theory. It rarely if ever happens. If the defendant doesn't plead guilty the prosecutor will attempt to make the charges stick anyway they can.

I know enough people who have had a run in with the law where there was zero evidence. Not a single one decided to fight it and none of them were on charges sex related/child porn. In the one case it was SEC and the guy got a year or so in prison. Didn't do it. The other case was of failing to stop for the cops (had the perfect defense given the circumstances for not stopping). I also had a minor incident where I brought in a lawyer which had zero significance (convicted or not) and I still plead guilty to a lesser charge to avoid the risk of a harsher penalty (main goal was to get off or at least a reduced penalty).

Convicted for being a victim. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582014)

Wow. Much like women in Muslim countries get convicted for the crime of being raped, this will convict a person simply because SOMEONE ELSE sends them a picture. How fucked up is THAT!!!

Re:Convicted for being a victim. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582134)

Well it's their own fault for not having stinking teeming masses of vag that no man in his right mind would touch.
I mean if they were doing their jobs no man would even consider putting it in her vag for fear of what might happen to his male member.

Bonus: The ones with crappy husbands won't have to have sex with them either!

Re:Still Very Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582296)

Second, good luck upholding that when it goes to a court above the Florida level.

I don't think you quite understand. Despite how retarded the law is, it is a case of Florida being more reasonable than other states. Everywhere else those teens would be guilty of trafficking in child porn, and they end up registered as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

Exempt & Indifferent (1)

E.I.A (2303368) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581980)

You see, I was never a teenager, so I don't care. That's what they get for not just skipping ahead like me and everyone else in denial of human nature. I mean, it's not like they're inundated with smut by the entertainment industry, and certainly the hormones in modern food products are no excuse for such intolerable visual promiscuity. If the fools can't realize that abstinence is the best policy, then obviously their future careers should be ruined, and they should lose the right to bear arms and vote. We don't want people who are attracted to the opposite (or same) sex voting and wielding firearms. Hail Wackenhut, Geo Group, G4s Securities, Serco, and purity!

But still (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 2 years ago | (#37581986)

It all sort of raises the question of why the state needs to be involved at all when teenagers send pictures of their private parts to each other. This is something the parents ought to deal with - it doesn't require the heavy hand of the justice system.

WTF! This is an improvement?? (2)

FormOfActionBanana (966779) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582056)

From the summary, this still sounds ridiculously difficult. It's a crime if you don't turn in your girlfriend?

Re:WTF! This is an improvement?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582242)

Reminds me of the MPAA's "turn yourself in and we won't sue you" campaign a while ago. Did any gullible sucker ever cave in? If so I didn't hear about it.

The law is unrealistic.

Government can't force people not to inflict possible harm on him/her self. Same thing with sexting... Possibility for self harm. What needs to change is parents need to step in and be there for these kids... These young girls need to know they don't have to be sexualized so much. It probably won't happen - but until something like that does, I don't see those young kids and anyone who is irresponsible from changing their ways.

And that's the catch. The people (kids /teenagers in this case) have to want to change. That's the key.

Post them pictures publicly! (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582060)

Like when kids in school get caught passing notes, and the teacher reads the note out loud in front of the class. Embarrassing for the note passers! Or when the local newspaper prints lists of folks arrested for drunk driving.

Bring back the village stock, I say!

Oh, and to answer Slashdot's question, "You are number 6! Who is number one?" . . .

"You, are, number 6."

This is madness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582342)

So sending or receiving an image of a child's penis is a felony, while chopping off part of the penis on a defenseless newborn is legal?

Re:This is madness! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582648)

Yep, welcome to a world in which laws are enacted, not based on actual harm, but on bullshit bronze-age morality. It's crazy when we think about the number of sex acts between adults (or just one adult flying solo) that have been criminalized for no reason other than offended sensibilities.

Malice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582468)

So, if a teenager someone buys a disposable phone and anonymously sends out pictures of his penis to ten girls that have rejected him and he does this three times the girls have to report this or get a criminal record ? Nice law you have there.

Sexting should be illegal (5, Insightful)

skegg (666571) | more than 2 years ago | (#37582704)

Any teen who photographs their own body should be charged for possessing child pornography.

And any teen who masturbates should be charged with sexually molesting a minor.

Finally, all breast-feeding mothers should be charged with indecent exposure to a minor.

Felony? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582732)

The Government will not stop until EVERYTHING is a Felony. We are getting seriously close to Thought-Crime.
UN-Elect everyone.

That's sure to get you laid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37582736)

Sorry, honey. That was a really sexy picture, but the laws the law and I had to cover my ass, so I reported you to the police. Anyway, can we have sex now? It's perfectly legal for us to see each other naked in person!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...