Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Teens Prosecuted For Racy Photos

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the protecting-from-whom? dept.

Censorship 740

An anonymous reader writes with a story on CNet about two teens who were prosecuted under anti-child-porn laws in Florida for having made and emailed racy photos of each other. Both were under 18 years old, so the resulting pictures are clearly illegal; but the teens' intent was not to share the pictures with anyone else. An appeals court majority opinion found that emailing the photos from one of the kids to the other was a careless act that should, it seems, bring down the full weight of the law. A minority opinion argued that the laws were intended to protect children from exploitative adults, not from other children.

cancel ×

740 comments

Strupod.. (5, Insightful)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964870)

Utterly stupid. 18 year is way too high. Where I come from it's 15. When I was that age in the early 70's we fucked like rabbits.

IMNSHO, this is not an issue for the legal system at all.

Re:Strupod.. (1, Troll)

Knuckles (8964) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965088)

Which idiot modded this as a troll?

Re:Strupod.. (5, Funny)

mikael (484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965144)

Rabbits live in holes, Trolls live in hills, caves and mounds - probably this is the closest thing that slashdot has to offer next to having a +1 - Rabbit moderation option.

Re:Strupod.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965326)

You do realize that they can't post about it because they modded it, right?

Re:Strupod.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965196)

Agreed, not only should this COUPLE be left alone by the law, but I should have a good look at the pics to make sure they weren't doing anything illegal...

Re:Strupod.. (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965340)

There is a real difference between the damage caused to a person when pictures of them in private situations, expecially sexual, are published. It's worse for kids.

And there is a difference between the damage done by showing the pictures, if any, and the damage done by being photographed, if any, and the damage done, if any, by being in the situation itself.

America's hypocritical (is there any other kind?) puritanism prevents its laws from recognizing these distinctions. With children increasingly able to photograph and publish, like anyone else, we will have increasing damage done by the laws that don't reflect what's right and how wrong.

Think of the children! (4, Insightful)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964882)

So now even children are victims of ill-thought out, inane "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!~1~!" type laws?

My head asplode.

Re:Think of the children! (5, Insightful)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965084)

This is clearly a case of not just prosecutorial misconduct, but malicious prosecution of the worst kind. The majority brief actually included a part where they justified continuing this charade because these pictures MIGHT harm this couple in the future. The gall of the two judges who wrote this opinion is incomprehensible, and their hypocrisy borders on sadism. I mean, it seems as if they view the mere possibility of this picture surfacing as being more damaging to these kids than being labeled as sex offenders for the rest of their lives?

I don't know what these kids did to piss the prosecution and the court off, but there is clearly malicious intent here.

Re:Think of the children! (1)

scwizard (941758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965280)

The gall of the two judges who wrote this opinion is incomprehensible, and their hypocrisy is sadism.
Fixed. Or at least I can think of no other explanation.

Re:Think of the children! (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965210)

This isn't about about the children [news24.com] ! It's about the damn MONEY [wikipedia.org] ! These people couldn't care less about the children! But apparently bringing up the real issue is considered offtopic to those who prefer to piss and moan about "age of consent".

Re:Think of the children! (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965262)

You have the order a bit wrong, I think. It's about the idea that the 'morality' of the majority is the best for everyone. People demand it be enforced, legislators prey on the people's desire to see it enforced, and we end up with 'laws' that are somehow magically sacred despite coming from the filthy hamburger grinder of a house of politicians.

To enforce these laws then, there is what you call the "prison industrial complex". And it certainly has an interest in its own survival. But it's a system set up to serve the primary desire, which is the majority public's desire to see other people forced to behave in a way that suits their 'morals'.

Re:Think of the children! (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965374)

People demanded "morality" as much as Eskimos "demand" a refrigerator. The morality is being pushed by the authorities, not the other way around. and notice it doesn't apply to them. Nowadays most people are demanding revenge, and they pay lots of money into the system to get it. And much of the time they get the wrong guy! "Morality" is a dog and pony show intended to provide profit. If it was for real, then we would have moral authorities.

Re:Think of the children! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965320)

Clearly these two kiddie-porn traffickers should spend the rest of their lives registering a convicted sex offenders. Their neighbors should have fair warning that a kiddie porn trafficker lives next door so they can protect their children. Good thing these kids were stopped before things got any worse.

This reminds me of a case in Wisconsin several year back where an 18 year 1 month old guy got his 15 year 11 month old girl friend pregnant. He applied for a marriage license. The lady behind the counter noticed his girl friend was under 16 and they were more than 2 years apart in age so he was arrested. He was prosecuted and convicted. The jury said the judge's instructions didn't leave them any choice but to convict.

So then... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17964884)

Are they going to start prosecuting 17 year olds who have sex with mutual statutory rape?

Re:So then... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17964936)

Just the boys. The charges against the girls magically get dropped.

Re:So then... (1)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965018)

Apparently Florida had a law against that (was mentioned in the article.) But it was overturned... it was "unconstitutional as applied to this 16-year-old as a basis for a delinquency proceeding." So (at least a few years ago) there's a few decent judges left in Florida, anyway....

Re:So then... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965032)

And those caught masturbating will be charged with sexual abuse of a minor.

Re:So then... (5, Funny)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965112)

Well, hopefully they won't make the sentences consecutive. Otherwise I'd have been put away till about the time the sun starts to expand into a red giant...

Re:So then... (5, Interesting)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965104)

It happens all the time; often times charges are pressed against just the boy by the girl's spiteful parents. The boy's parents had no recourse because counter-charges were invalid. At some point when I when in high school, Ohio changed the law so that it was impossible to press charges against just one or another. Both kids would be prosecuted for "raping" each other if they were younger than 16. At first I thought the move was absolutely insane, until I realized that it was the only fix for the problem that a politician in Ohio could get away with; it would take a very special kind of jackass to send his own daughter to jail because he didn't like her boyfriend. Fortunately, there's also an exception for age difference, so a 18 year old fucking his 17 year old girlfriend can't get ambushed. It's a more rational setup than I gave it credit for when it affected me.

Re:So then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965240)

They already do in Georgia USA

This shouldn't be prosecuted. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17964896)

It should be encouraged.

Re:This shouldn't be prosecuted. (1)

gd23ka (324741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964998)

I suppose you posted this to upset people but I still really couldn't agree with you more.
If not actively encouraged, those wishing to curb teenage sexuality for their twisted
social and religious aims should have no forum. Hell I remember when I was 16 ... and
whoever is reading this, so do you.

Re:This shouldn't be prosecuted. (4, Funny)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965174)

Hell I remember when I was 16 ... and whoever is reading this, so do you.

Sorry, I can't recall you. I'm sure we had fun anyways.

Logic in America is going down the shitter (0, Flamebait)

BoberFett (127537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964898)

Sorry, that's all I've got.

Re:Logic in America is going down the shitter (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965034)

If it is any comfort, common sense is disappearing in the rest of the world as well. This could happen in a lot of other countries as well.

Re:Logic in America is going down the shitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965306)

Really? Where exactly? In which totalitarian countries other than the US is this illegal? Put up or shut up!

The prisons (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964906)

are hungry for more bodies. The system works.

Re:The prisons (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965014)

Prosecution? Prison? Offtopic? Are you completely unable to associate the two words??

Not children (4, Insightful)

therpham (953844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964914)

1) 16- and 17-year-olds are by no means "children." 2) These laws were made to protect minors from older perverts, not from themselves. 3) This is stupid.

Re:Not children (2, Interesting)

therpham (953844) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964950)

Oh, and by "not children" I didn't mean legally, I meant physically and emotionally and all that.
In my opinion, there should be a third legal status in between "child" and "adult" for teens so shit like this doesn't explode.

Re:Not children (3, Insightful)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965096)

In my opinion, there should be a third legal status in between "child" and "adult" for teens so shit like this doesn't explode.


Although I agree with that because there's a major difference between actual children and adolescents, that's not going to solve the problem. The problem here is not legal status but legal interpretation. A lot of freedom has been taken away from people this way because in the world of lawyers it matters not whether your actions harm anyone else or put anyone else at risk of harm. No, it solely matters whether they go against what has been written down.

Sure, technically this is child pornography and technically there's a risk these pictures made it to the public. In reality however this prosecution alone did more harm than the bit of candid photography ever could.

Re:Not children (4, Insightful)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965024)

1) 16- and 17-year-olds are by no means "children."

Some aren't. Most, maybe. But by no means all. And that is the problem. The law has to put a line somewhere. Not all kids develop at the same rate. So some are mature enough, and some aren't, at the arbitrary dividing line.

2) These laws were made to protect minors from older perverts, not from themselves.

Very true. But the letter of the law says "Anyone convicted of sending pictures of naked children..." Key word 'anyone'.

3) This is stupid.

Get the laws changed. (So that a very mature 17 year old can coerce his very immature 16 year old friend to pose nude) Problems, problems.

Re:Not children (4, Insightful)

honkycat (249849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965122)

Literal readings of the laws (e.g., your "anyone" keyword) are utterly impractical. The intention of laws is (supposed to be) upholding justice, not simply ensuring that everyone jumps through the right hoop at the right time. You don't have to have an arbitrary dividing line. There are sentient beings involved in the legal process and it's quite possible to determine whether a nominal crime (i.e., a broken law) is one that should be prosecuted.

Here, this is clearly a case that should not be prosecuted. How is justice served by throwing the book at two minors who consensually broke a law designed to protect them from exploitation by adults? If, as in your last example, one had demonstrably coerced the other, then it would be sensible to prosecute the case. Note that it would ONLY make sense to prosecute one of them -- there's NO way it's sensible to prosecute them both just because the letter of the law allows it.

Re:Not children (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965218)

If that's the case, why doesn't the statute say that? Why should the courts be allowed to make up and read things into statutes that weren't put there by the legislature?

Re:Not children (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965152)

This is the problem - laws are too arbitrary to have any meaning these days. People who are old enough to engage in certain activities are clearly not mature enough, but we say its OK because of a mere law. People who don't meet the age requirement are punished for no good reason other than "the law".

These laws serve no purpose except to further the careers of politicians and prosecutors while making a small vocal segment of the population feel good about imposing their moral will upon everybody else.

We need the kind of law where a judge or even an intelligent jury can take a look at this and say "No harm was done, Not Guilty", instead of having our hands tied to arbitrary limits that serve anybody.

There is no concept of justice in this country anymore.

Re:Not children (5, Insightful)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965136)

1) 16- and 17-year-olds are by no means "children." 2) These laws were made to protect minors from older perverts, not from themselves.

I think that all human beings should have human rights, regardless of their age. One of these rights is the right to free speech and freedom of association. Anyone should be able to share any information and anyone should be able to have any consensual contact with another.

People think that it's uncommon to prosecute minors for sexually abusing themselves under statutory rape or child porn laws. This actually happens all the time. Child porn laws are not designed to protect minors at all. Most images and videos of minors having sex are made by teens in consensual relationships. Anyone who has been in high school in the age of digital cameras knows this. These laws are made by extreme religious fundamentalists who think that any sex outside of marriage is wrong. Since adults can vote, they have largely been unsuccessful in restricting adult sex (at least in the past few decades), however (even mature) minors have no say in government, so they can freely be subjected to to one of the sickest, most twisted sexual fetishes: abstinence.

KILL'EM ALL LET GOD SORT'EM OUT!11 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17964916)

'nuff said.

So.... (5, Insightful)

EGSonikku (519478) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964922)

Now if I try to commit suicide will I be charged with Attempted Murder?

Re:So.... (1)

eneville (745111) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965056)

Now if I try to commit suicide will I be charged with Attempted Murder?
attempted suicide is an offense, and you will be charged. succeeding is ok though... just your insurance wont payout, get someone else to do it for you.

Re:So.... (1)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965060)

Hmm... but what if you decline to press charges against the offender?

Typo in your sig (1)

dsanfte (443781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965300)

Just fyi, "nisp" should be "nisi", I think.

Re:So.... (1)

mrcaseyj (902945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965310)

If someone grabs your laptop and throws it on the ground smashing it to pieces they are guilty of a crime. But if you smash your own laptop you haven't committed a crime. They're punishing the victims for hurting themselves. But if the victims are hurting themselves, that should be punishment enough. There are other laws to protect victims from themselves like seatbelt and helmet laws, but those are usually justified on the grounds that society would have to pay their medical bills.

Necessary... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17964926)

Pics or it didn't happen.

Single biggest problem with our leagal system (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964930)

The courts are only allowed to consider letter of the law and not intent. Given how poorly most laws are written it leads to this kind of abuse.

Re:Single biggest problem with our leagal system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965022)

Clearly you're not a lawyer, a judge, or at all involved in the legal field.

Courts are very much allowed to look at the intent of a law. More often than not, judges simply decide what the outcome should be and then mold the law to fit that decision.

Now, it is possible that kiddie pr0n falls under strict liability in Fla., or that the appeals court is following a precedent from a higher court, but even in those cases your statement is false.

Re:Single biggest problem with our leagal system (1)

troll -1 (956834) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965120)

The courts are only allowed to consider letter of the law and not intent.

I thought the courts were allowed to consider intent. If there's a difference between a hunting accident resulting in criminal negligence or attempted murder, isn't intent a determining factor?

Re:Single biggest problem with our leagal system (1)

MikeJ9919 (48520) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965234)

Depends on the statutory language. Crimes like possession of drugs and (I would assume) child pornography are frequently strict liability...you're holding it and you can't demonstrate that someone planted it on you, you're guilty. No intent required. I'm a first-year law student, so if someone more knowledgeable than me (namely, a lawyer with some familiarity with Florida law) wants to rebut this, feel free.

Re:Single biggest problem with our leagal system (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965236)

You are talking about the intent of the accused. Grandparent is talking about the intent of the lawmakers.

TUWP (0, Offtopic)

imgod2u (812837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964964)

This thread is totally useless without....oh wait, this is /.

The real reason for these stupid prosecutions (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17964980)

Prosecuting teenagers for taking pictures of themselves naked and sharing strikes many as absolutely stupid. This is a victimless crime. Now, prosecuting others for sharing someone elses picture I can understand.

So why are these laws being applied when the photographer is the subject?

It's quite simple. If the uptight authorities don't do this, why, then you'd have teenagers all over the place taking naked pictures of themselves and passing them along. The whole world would be flooded with naked pics of teens!

Can you possible imagine what such a world would be like? Why, why, ahhh, oh nevermind.

Anyway, the religious authorities don't like this. That's what it boils down to.

Oh my. Now we're starting to sound like Iran.

Wrong tag, should be Politics not YRO (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964986)

How is this related to your rights "online" ? If they took polaroids of themselves, the issue would be the same - minors in Florida are allowed to have sex, but cannot document it. This is a social and political problem, it has nothing to do with being "online".

Re:Wrong tag, should be Politics not YRO (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965000)

the photos were emailed. it says so at the top of the very page you posted on.

Re:Wrong tag, should be Politics not YRO (3, Insightful)

Orozco (639667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965186)

Also, the majority opinion makes a big deal about the ease with which the pictures could have been obtained by a third party because they were emailed. The judge who wrote the opinion talks about how the teens' computers could have been hacked, their ISPs could have retained copies of the email, the email could have been intercepted by hackers, and also that "Computers also allow for long-term storage of information which may then be disseminated at some later date." The majority opinion seems to have decided that since computers were involved, this is somehow more serious than using traditional photography. The minority opinion says that this rationale is stupid (paraphrased :).

It's actually much, much worse than that... (2, Interesting)

Chmcginn (201645) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965354)

Reading the full majority decision [politechbot.com] , the judge effectively wrote that there's not a reasonable expectation of privacy on any pictures/video/whatever placed on one computer & transferred to another. With no reasonable expectation of privacy, you don't even need a warrant in order to search it.

So it's Florida that leads us to the police state... I woulda guessed California or Boston, at least after the last few months...

Re:Wrong tag, should be Politics not YRO (1)

DebateG (1001165) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965346)

The fact that they were electronic photos is one of the core arguments used by the majority opinion [politechbot.com] :

In addition, the two defendants placed the photos on a computer and then, using the internet, transferred them to another computer. Not only can the two computers be hacked, but by transferring the photos using the net, the photos may have been and perhaps still are accessible to the provider and/or other individuals. Computers also allow for long-term storage of information which may then be disseminated at some later date. The State has a compelling interest in seeing that material which will have such negative consequences is never produced.

But this argument is really irrelevant to the Court's logic. The court essentially argues that minors have no expectation of privacy because they're too immature to establish adult relationships or keep secrets. Moreover, they argue that since minors cannot legally consent to having pornographic photos of themselves, they are being exploited, and the State has an interest in preventing this. This very much parallels the arguments for prosecuting two minors for statutory rape.

Our society held hostage (1, Troll)

dotslashdot (694478) | more than 7 years ago | (#17964990)

Soon everything we think and do will be illegal and we will all be criminals under Christian sharia law.

Re:Our society held hostage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965094)

You schmuck. Do you really think this is a product of the religious right? The Nanny State agenda is primarily advocated by the liberal democrats.

Florida Age of Consent (4, Informative)

Catmeat (20653) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965002)

According to the Wikipedia article on age of consent in North America - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_No rth_America [wikipedia.org] two 17 year-olds in Florida can legally have sex. It's just they can't take and send dirty pictures to each other.

Re:Florida Age of Consent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965116)

This relates to a talk I saw a professor make a week or so on Canada's anti-Child pron laws. Apparently, in Canada there's a relatively new law against literature that talks about sex with minors. This makes it legal for two 17-year-olds to have sex, but illegal for them to write a poem about it.

Re:Florida Age of Consent (1)

Rob Kaper (5960) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965214)

So it would also be illegal to publish any kind of sexual education? (school books, adolescent magazines with write-in advice columns)

Smart minority opinion. (1)

YoungHack (36385) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965012)

That minority opinion was especially clear and sensible. It is unfortunate that common sense so often goes out the window when computers become involved.

Re:Smart minority opinion. (1)

O'Laochdha (962474) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965382)

I don't think so. This clearly is not what the law was intended to prosecute, but if the law states that minors can be prosecuted, minors can be prosecuted. Whether it was meant for them or not, they broke the law. It's the decision of the officials (or the governor), not the appeals court, to ignore this because it wasn't so intended (as it clearly wasn't).

Madness! (1)

Valtor (34080) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965016)

This is just madness! Children exchanging photos of them selfs naked is perhaps inappropriate. But it is certainly not child pornography! How can anyone with any common sens pretend it is otherwise? I can't even think where the court is trying to go with this. How could child pornography laws be applied to this case as a proper punishment for those children???

SHUT DOWN MYSPACE.com (5, Funny)

celardore (844933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965026)

This is the next step forwards. It is obviously only teenagers and pedophiles using this site. Best stop it at source. Shut down Myspace, faceparty, and anything else that teens can be involved with on the net. If we stop children using these sites, then we stop pedophiles using them too. Problem solved, right?

AC because this post will likely be moderated troll, when in fact I intended it to be insightful. id: 844933

Re:SHUT DOWN MYSPACE.com (5, Funny)

celardore (844933) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965052)

when wanting to post as AC, remember to check the 'anonymous' option.....

Re:SHUT DOWN MYSPACE.com (2, Funny)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965224)

Don't worry. I like the phrase "Faceparty." I think I'll host one next weekend.

Re:SHUT DOWN MYSPACE.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965266)

Ow! I've got to stop replying to myself! At least this time I'll remember the checkbox!

The saddest part is. . . (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965040)

Now they will probably have to be listed on "registered sex offender" registries. How fucked up is that?

The DA should be ashamed (5, Insightful)

Kaboom13 (235759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965050)

I can understand how these charges could be upheld, after all, a judges job is to uphold the law as it is written, not as they would like it to be. The person who should be ashamed of himself is the district attorney who is pressing charges on what obviously is an unintended consequence of a poorly written law. Is he so desperate for work, he has nothing better to do then go after two teens who are only guilty of being young and stupid? His job is to serve the public and see that justice is done, not waste their time and money on witch hunts. I wonder how many criminal cases got ignored or plea bargained so 2 dumb kids who took pictures of themselves could learn their lesson.

I can only assume he wants to pad the numbers, so he can claim he busted another "kiddie-porn ring" and kept our children safe. It really scares me that in the article, the judges use a lot of reasoning along the line of the pictures "may have" been shown to others later, or the computers "may have" been hacked laster, or something, somehow "may have" gone wrong. When did abstract possibilities becomes illegal? I believe people should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions, but I don't see how they can be held accountable for what happens only in the wild speculation of some judge.

Re:The DA should be ashamed (5, Insightful)

kharchenko (303729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965206)

I usually sympathetic to the judges that are bound by the letter of the law, but quotes from the judges opinion in this case left me fuming:

"Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own."

They could've ended up selling photos ? Well for that matter this judge could've ended up buying them! Since when have we started punishing people for things they could potentially do (but clearly have not attempted to)?

Or how about lacking "maturity" - the whole case is built on the fact that they are minors ... how hypocritical it is to punish them for lack of maturity!

Re:The DA should be ashamed (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965238)

When did abstract possibilities becomes illegal?

September 11, 2001

You dirty rat... (1)

thegnu (557446) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965402)

You could've killed my brother.

*BANG!*

Tough Call (3, Funny)

mathmathrevolution (813581) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965070)

There's really no way to speculate about whether or not a crime occured without actually seeing the allegedly obscene images. For the sake of clarity can somebody post these so-called "racy pix" or email them to me (mfoley@hotmail). thx

Re:Tough Call (2, Funny)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965244)

Sorry, Senator. They were girls.

Out of date (1, Offtopic)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965080)

A minority opinion argued that the laws were intended to protect children from exploitative adults, not from other children.

That's fine in a world where we don't have underage rapists and killers. But that's not our world sadly.

Re:Out of date (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965134)

That's fine and dandy, except no one got raped or killed. This was consensual.

I love this part of the majority opinion: (3, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965090)

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives.


Yes, let's protect potential future damage to their lives or careers by ending them early! What the fuck???? I can't believe that this was an actual reasoning.

This is unbelievable on so many levels. As the monitory opinion states, it's ok to have sex, as long as you don't document it. Protection from hypothetical damage allows for doing actual damage. Consensual, legimitate and accepted practices can lead to association with scum of the earth practices.

The more I see, the less I think I'll raise kids in the US.

Re:I love this part of the majority opinion: (1)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965286)

Hah, this is a good point. When I applied for a job, they asked me if I had a criminal record, not if I had NUDE TEEN PIXXX of myself. So, let's give these kids a rap sheet "to protect their careers."

Insane... (5, Insightful)

flajann (658201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965126)

This is yet another example of how insane the laws are. In reading the article, the opinions read like "could have sold them" or "could have caused trauma/harm to the 'minors'".

Of course, prosecuting the minors in this way for what was an innocent act on their parts, throwing them in jail for years, sticking them on sex offenders lists, and marring them for live will cause no harm to them at all.

This is just beyond crazy. A sheer sign that our country has gone way down hill. And you know what? These prosecutors will probably get a pat on the back, promotions, and the like. It's nothing to them to destroy the lives of these two teenagers just to forward their own careers.

Re:Insane... (1)

Valtor (34080) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965278)

...This is just beyond crazy. A sheer sign that our country has gone way down hill. And you know what? These prosecutors will probably get a pat on the back, promotions, and the like. It's nothing to them to destroy the lives of these two teenagers just to forward their own careers.
Exactly! It sickens me too... I can only hope this craziness does not reach Canada too fast.

Time to worry (5, Insightful)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965132)

What happens when some smart ones start emailing photos to their teachers along with a message saying "here are the photos you demanded not to tank my grades" and BCCing the FBI?

That's the kind of scary crap you get when you don't consider intent when deciding on guilt.

this is a start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965156)

but I won't be satisfied until we really start cracking down on all those infants that are suckling breasts - it's downright lewd!

wake me up when people remember what human rights are.

What about free speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965162)

Never mind taking pictures of each other, does a 17 year old have a constitutionally protected right to take pictures of HERSELF?

After all, it's her body. She should have the right to document how it looks at age 17 or even 7 for posterity's sake.

Just Wait Until Your District Attorney Gets Home (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965164)

The laws are to protect children from exploitation, whether by adults, other children, other children acting for adults, or whoever. It's not a "gotcha" for adults, it's protection of children.

However, parents are to protect children. Disciplining children by the law is a total failure of the parents. While that happens, it must always be the last resort. And always include legal charges against the parents.

Re:Just Wait Until Your District Attorney Gets Hom (2, Interesting)

flajann (658201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965260)

So in order to protect these two kids you'd throw them both in jail? They took pictures of themselves, not other kids. They only distributed the pictures to each other, not to the world. Can you please explain to me how their acts constitutes "exploitation"? I'm missing something here.

Why is this on Slashdot again? (3, Insightful)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965198)

Is "this news for nerds" because they used email? Or because of racy nude teen photos? The density of posts designed to whip up righteous nerd frenzy is getting old.

Yes yes, the law can affect nerds too. I can also get that news anywhere.

Pics or it didn't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965258)

...just sayin.

Evil, sick people! (1)

Brian Ribbon (986353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965264)

First they had sex without being married, then they made photographs of it! I imagine they also worship other Gods and lie about things. I feel so disgusted that I need to ask you all to donate to my Church which will fight for a 50,000 year sentence to protect our country from non-believers. Thank You, Manipulative Religious Idiot

Let each of us be the judge... (1)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965268)

But first, we should examine the evidence.

URL for pictures, anyone?

think of the children (with a lawyer) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965272)

Won't someone PLEASE subpoena the children?

haha i love it-- (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965284)

Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.

So instead of "if these pictures are ultimately released", they are doing them the favor of damaging their careers and personal lives FOR SURE by the inevitable registration as sex offenders they will be branded for the rest of their lives. Instead of "if these pictures are ultimately released", let's instead have "no living next to schools, being around minors unsupervised, and let's just keep an eye on where you're living for the next 70 years if you dont mind, because you are a foul perversion of a human who doesn't deserve rights." Yeah that makes sense.

So what's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965290)

Sexual harassment suites for finding out your toddler played 'doctor' with another toddler?

Does no one actually remember how kids are, or what it was to be a child?

In Finland... (1)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965304)

From what I can remember about Finnish legislature we have a law that prohibits child porn, obviously, but also takes into account that teens can, will, and should express themselves sexually. Thus, inter-teen stuff of this nature is not illegal, as long as it stays private, of course.

Boggles my mind (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965308)

How can they be charged as adults, but not have "foresight or maturity" as the trial judge claimed ?

Reminds me of an interesting case I read once (3, Interesting)

bouis (198138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965324)

A guy over the age of majority sleeps with a girl under the statutory age. He's charged with statutory rape-- after she snuck into his house and quite literally slipped into his bed naked. She got charged and convicted of... conspiracy to commit statutory rape and as an accessory to her own rape. The appeals court in that case overturned the conviction and held that as a matter of law she couldn't be charged, because, you guessed it, the laws were intended to protect her.

However, I somehow doubt that that's going to be the holding in this case. If being under 18 gave you license to take and distribute nude photographs of yourself, you can only imagine the consequences. Actually, I think they did an episode of Law & Order about this.

Give (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965330)

40 or 50 lashes to both of the delinquents and let them go.

They are sick evil people! (0, Troll)

Brian Ribbon (986353) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965332)

First they had sex without being married, then they made photographs of it! I imagine they also worship other Gods and lie about things.

I feel so disgusted that I need to ask you all to donate to my Church which will fight for a 50,000 year sentence to protect our country from non-believers.

Thank You,
Manipulative Religious Idiot

What if... (5, Interesting)

flajann (658201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965362)

What if I took a picture of myself when I was 16 and decided to distribute the picture once I became an adult? One cannot argue that it's to "protect me", since I am no longer a "child". The child is no more. Exploiting myself? I'm no longer a child. It's my body; am I not allowed to do with it whatever I want?

This is just hypothetical, of course, but it does illustrates many issues here. The teen case is similar to this scenario; and perhaps we'll need an actual case to make the laws sane again. Of course, anyone who does this will risk everything.

But then again, this old song of "protecting the children" is a wash, anyway, made worthless by those who have the power to judge and prosecute, but do not exercise sound judgement.

And the really sad fact? There are real children who are really being exploited, and these silly laws do nothing to help them. It's all a joke-- a wash, where the guilty goes free and the innocent are punished to make it appear as though the system "works".

Gotta love the USA.

Just more proof that it's not about the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17965380)

Yet another example of how these draconian child porn laws are often completely abused, to the point of punishing the very people they were designed to protect. These legislators and zealots who pass oppressive "think of the children" laws often aren't thinking about the children at all. They've lost sight of their goals, and act like a rabid mob.

The Majority Opinion...Even more insane (1)

MedicinalMan (1061338) | more than 7 years ago | (#17965396)

I am at a loss of words. From TFA:

"Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.In addition, the two defendants placed the photos on a computer and then, using the Internet, transferred them to another computer. Not only can the two computers be hacked, but by transferring the photos using the Net, the photos may have been and perhaps still are accessible to the provider and/or other individuals."

In the name of protecting them from future damage to careers and personal lives, they will now be labeled as Sex Offenders for the rest of their lives? This is an appleals court and this is the best they can come up with? The concept of justice is fleeting since logic does not seem to matter anymore. Bet the prosecutor and the judges are real proud for catching these dangerous predators. What is not clear is how they were caught.
Also interesting is the "transferring ...using the net" part. He just assumes email is accessible to everyone, with no mention of possible security they employed. And yes the computers can be hacked, so is any adult with porn guilty of making it available to minors since a computer can be hacked? The potential for a computer to be "hacked" makes lots of people and companies guilty of lots of crimes.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...