PDA

View Full Version : That "sext" message may land you in jail.




Anti Federalist
03-05-2012, 09:55 PM
Three felonies a day...

See Something Say Something

Balko over at the Agitator is right, never trust a law named after a dead person.


In fight against teen sexting, lawmakers work to avoid turning kids into criminals

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/in-effort-to-curb-teen-sexting-state-lawmakers-work-to-avoid-turning-kids-into/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Interna l+-+Politics+-+Text%29#ixzz1oJ1Gz500


Sending out explicit photos from their cellphones can wreck the lives of teens, but experts say lawmakers who seek to tackle the issue often run into unintended consequences of their own.

Spurred on by cases of explicit cellphone photos gone viral and bringing dangerous shame -- and death -- to their subjects, legislators in 20 states have passed laws making so-called "sext messaging" -- sending explicit messages or photos via cellphone -- a misdemeanor or even criminal act.

Related Video

Teen sexting laws too harsh?

Dale Archer discusses the ramifications of teen sexting and whether the current consequences are too harsh.

But laws aimed at teen sexting have often criminalized the behavior of naïve teens and even unwitting recipients of the images. Some states have classified teens as sex offenders and even charged them with child pornography, all in a well-intentioned effort to save kids from their own bad behavior.

Most recently, New Hampshire joined the effort with a proposed bill that could carry criminal penalties for teens who engage in sexting.

New Hampshire state Rep. Laura Gandia authored the bill after a frustrated police chief said authorities needed "a tool to work with."

“We looked into the issue, spoke to officials at our schools and discovered that it is happening more than people may think," Gandia said.

Gandia wanted the law to have teeth, but it didn't take long to realize that charging even an unwitting recipient of an explicit message or photo might be a remedy worse than the problem. The bill has been amended, with one key change that it no longer brings juvenile charges to a recipient, provided he or she reports it to officials at their school.

Gandia and her counterparts in Legislatures around the nation cite studies such as one by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which found that one in five teens has engaged in sexting and one in 10 has forwarded the messages to people they do not know. Lawmakers are moved by high-profile incidents in which sexting has had devastating impact.

- In Ohio, 18-year-old Jessica Logan hanged herself in the bedroom of her Cincinnati home in July 2009, after her boyfriend forwarded a nude photo she sent him to pals. The image got passed along to more and more people until hundreds of students at at least seven area schools received it.

- In Tampa, 13-year-old Hope Witsell killed herself after a sexted photo of herself got sent around her middle school. Her death followed daily harassment from classmates who called her "whore" and "slut." School authorities reacted to the incident by suspending Hope for the first week of eighth grade. Like Jessica Logan, she hanged herself in her bedroom.

South Carolina Rep. Joan Brady has sponsored a bill in the Columbia statehouse that would carry fines for kids who knowingly forward a sext message.

"We want to identify this as not the right way to use your cellphone," said Brady, who has been working to get the bill passed for two years. "Young people need to know that. It seems fun. It seems innocent. But it can have far-reaching consequences."

Critics say there's a danger that legal measures aimed at those who distribute the messages can go too far.

In Orlando, then-18-year-old Philip Alpert fought with his 16-year-old high school sweetheart and sent out intimate pictures she had intended only for him. Few would defend his actions, but critics say the law went too far when he was charged with child pornography. Under terms of his 2009 guilty plea, Alpert will have to register as a sex offender until he is 48 years old.

“His life was drastically changed for what he thought a seemingly harmless act,” said Tom Jacobs, a retired Arizona judge who specializes in teen legal issues. “Child pornography laws were not made with sexting in mind.”

Jacobs says teaching kids about the perils of sexting is a more rational approach to the issue than treating them as criminals.

"It’s pretty innocuous behavior by most kids; however, they have no idea of the ramifications,” Jacobs said. “There are incidents of sexting that are criminal acts. But overall, it’s a matter of education, teaching kids about the consequences.”

Jason Stern, a New York-based attorney who focuses on civil rights and privacy law, said teens have shared explicit photos in the past, but the fact that those pictures can be blasted around the Internet with a texting thumb or the click of a mouse has caused an overreaction.

“If this was 10 years ago, it would have been a Polaroid,” Stern said. “When sexting became popular, there were no laws on this. The public had a general panic. The only thing on the books was child porn laws. So what happens as a result, laws that were in place to actually protect children are now criminalizing them.”

Ohio Gov. John Kasich last month signed the "Jessica Logan Act" into law. That law primarily puts the onus on schools to educate kids not to sext and to enact anti-bullying policies aimed at stopping distribution of the photos. Supporters say the law strikes a fair balance between education and enforcement, but critics say it doesn't go far enough to punish bullies.

Jessica's mother, Cynthia Logan, just hopes kids understand what can happen with the touch of a keypad.

"[Jessica] had been bullied most of her life, but I got her through it," Logan said in a testimony to Ohio lawmakers before the bill was passed. "But with technology today, it happened too swiftly."

donnay
03-05-2012, 10:45 PM
When I was a teen, the only thing we had to communicate with our friends were, notes shoved in the vents of our lockers between classes.

I just do not understand why parents allow their teens, especially in middle school, have phones? Parents abdicate their responsibilities to raise and discipline their children by not overseeing what their kids are doing--then when something terrible happens everyone clamors for laws to protect their children. It's really a vicious cycle of lost liberty because people do not take the responsibilities serious.

thoughtomator
03-05-2012, 10:53 PM
I just do not understand why parents allow their teens, especially in middle school, have phones?

Because it's a basic communication device and it's good for the kids to have it for safety purposes if nothing else?

The real question is why are kids taking naked pictures of themselves? I never had the slightest urge to do that and I am not aware of anyone I know who has.

Son of Detroit
03-05-2012, 10:56 PM
The real question is why are kids taking naked pictures of themselves? I never had the slightest urge to do that and I am not aware of anyone I know who has.

I think the answer is obvious... We're horny.

donnay
03-05-2012, 10:58 PM
Because it's a basic communication device and it's good for the kids to have it for safety purposes if nothing else?

The real question is why are kids taking naked pictures of themselves? I never had the slightest urge to do that and I am not aware of anyone I know who has.

I wonder how we managed without? It's always put in the heads of people; "It's for the children's safety." When ever I hear those comments I always know there is an unconstitutional law that will follow. :rolleyes:

donnay
03-05-2012, 11:03 PM
I think the answer is obvious... We're horny.

You mean decadent, morally and creatively bankrupt?

heavenlyboy34
03-05-2012, 11:12 PM
When I was a teen, the only thing we had to communicate with our friends were, notes shoved in the vents of our lockers between classes.

I just do not understand why parents allow their teens, especially in middle school, have phones? Parents abdicate their responsibilities to raise and discipline their children by not overseeing what their kids are doing--then when something terrible happens everyone clamors for laws to protect their children. It's really a vicious cycle of lost liberty because people do not take the responsibilities serious.
You did that too? :D Ah, the good ol' days. /old fart

Son of Detroit
03-05-2012, 11:17 PM
You mean decadent, morally and creatively bankrupt?

Chill out brah.

speciallyblend
03-05-2012, 11:21 PM
You mean decadent, morally and creatively bankrupt?

then maybe god should have us born with clothes on. bottom line nothing wrong with nudity!

kah13176
03-05-2012, 11:27 PM
You mean decadent, morally and creatively bankrupt?

Libido is natural. There's nothing immoral about it. All true immorality involves breach of contract or theft.

Anything else that people find displeasing is a fad similar to the way Saudis want to prevent women from driving.

The Free Hornet
03-05-2012, 11:42 PM
Gandia wanted the law to have teeth, but it didn't take long to realize that charging even an unwitting recipient of an explicit message or photo might be a remedy worse than the problem. The bill has been amended, with one key change that it no longer brings juvenile charges to a recipient, provided he or she reports it to officials at their school.

I find this to be the most interesting thing. Something is not obscene until a jury says it is. A girl in a bra might be obscene but one in a bikini may get a pass, but may not. The same would apply for sexting. A rear-end photo of someone I don't find attractive might be funny or disgusting and not something I consider sexy or obscene. My opinion doesn't matter, only a jury's. The only assurance of compliance with such a law, to guarantee yourself the maximum immunity, one would need to forward ALL messages to "officials at their school". Perhaps this could be a form of protest. I'm sure if only 1% of messages from a 1000 kid school got submitted, then they would still have 100 reports a day to go through. A software tool could automate the reporting process.

It is also disturbing that they identify the "unwitting recipient" problem and try to solve it by turning the victim into a narc. This assumes that the recipient/victim knows the law, knows how a DA thinks, cares about the same, gives a shit about their messages (if it is anything like email, 90% of them won't be read), and has the time to do what TPTB are unwilling to do: censor all messages. I am not saying TPTB do not want to censor. They do but the burden is so fucking great they rely on us sheeple to do most of the work.

specsaregood
03-05-2012, 11:46 PM
This thread made me think of this episode of this show:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2048032/
LOL, it was streamable on netflix last i checked.

Invi
03-06-2012, 12:03 AM
The bill has been amended, with one key change that it no longer brings juvenile charges to a recipient, provided he or she reports it to officials at their school.

Incoming random cell phone searches, boyfriends being charged for not reporting pictures their girlfriends sent them, and vice versa.

ShaneEnochs
03-06-2012, 12:08 AM
I wonder how we managed without? It's always put in the heads of people; "It's for the children's safety." When ever I hear those comments I always know there is an unconstitutional law that will follow. :rolleyes:

Remember when you managed without computers? Would you want to do it again?

It's just phones. It's nice for parents to be able to communicate with their children regardless of where they are.

specsaregood
03-06-2012, 12:11 AM
It's just phones. It's nice for parents to be able to communicate with their children regardless of where they are.

do any cell providers off a service where the parents number is the only one the children's phone can call/text/whatever? If not, might be a good idea. parental controls for the phones.

dmo069
03-06-2012, 12:13 AM
There are too many damn laws already! Why does everything have to be legislated? This is a total waste of time!

heavenlyboy34
03-06-2012, 12:16 AM
do any cell providers off a service where the parents number is the only one the children's phone can call/text/whatever? If not, might be a good idea. parental controls for the phones.
Yes. They're designed for little tykes and only have 2 buttons-one for each parent. Don't recall who makes it, though. I just heard about it on teh radio.

Invi
03-06-2012, 12:23 AM
Yes. They're designed for little tykes and only have 2 buttons-one for each parent. Don't recall who makes it, though. I just heard about it on teh radio.
I think there's another with an emergency services button or some such as well.

cstarace
03-06-2012, 12:45 AM
You mean decadent, morally and creatively bankrupt?
Relax, Senator Santorum. For the most part, sexting in high school is completely harmless. It isn't a phenomenon that's limited to children, either. The real problem comes into play when you have a girl that sends a n00d to some guy and he thinks it's funny to send the picture to the entire school.

belian78
03-06-2012, 12:53 AM
When I was in school we didnt have cell phones, wide use of computers, or even pagers.. but you know what? I remember a little game called Truth or Dare that did the same thing as these 'sexting' messages but it was in real life. Kids will be kids, like someone else said, the problem is when someone decides to take a private transmission and resend it en mass.

donnay
03-06-2012, 02:15 AM
Remember when you managed without computers? Would you want to do it again?

It's just phones. It's nice for parents to be able to communicate with their children regardless of where they are.

I also remember when kids were taught good grammar and learned how to spell and made complete sentences. I see some of these text messages and it makes my head hurt--You have to have a decipher code book handy to understand what the hell is being texted. It would be different if this was some secret language to stop the Feds from reading our texts. I suppose the Feds freak out when someone texts using proper spelling and grammar.

u r 2 sweet. Thanx 4 the flowers. Plz call b4 u stop bi. nm TTYL l8t3r I <3 u. bfn.


Grammatically challenged generation...I weep for the future.

angelatc
03-06-2012, 02:27 AM
When I was a teen, the only thing we had to communicate with our friends were, notes shoved in the vents of our lockers between classes.

I just do not understand why parents allow their teens, especially in middle school, have phones? Parents abdicate their responsibilities to raise and discipline their children by not overseeing what their kids are doing--then when something terrible happens everyone clamors for laws to protect their children. It's really a vicious cycle of lost liberty because people do not take the responsibilities serious.

Because they believe it makes their kids safer. I think it is horrible - kids don't need to assume any responsibility, because they're always just a phone call away now, but I'm the odd Mom out. Everybody else thinks they need to be able to contact their kids every second.

BamaAla
03-06-2012, 03:23 AM
Remember when you managed without computers? Would you want to do it again?

It's just phones. It's nice for parents to be able to communicate with their children regardless of where they are.

LOL that's exactly what I was thinking: mankind did alright before the invention of that car, but that doesn't mean we all need to go back to mules and buggies. My cell phone got me out of more than a few cracks when I was a teenager (although camera phones weren't widely available yet.)


do any cell providers off a service where the parents number is the only one the children's phone can call/text/whatever? If not, might be a good idea. parental controls for the phones.

Verizon used to have one that had, I think, 4 buttons for parents, police/emergency, and a pre-set alternate emergency contact. I'm sure there are others.

Rothbardian Girl
03-06-2012, 03:31 AM
I also remember when kids were taught good grammar and learned how to spell and made complete sentences. I see some of these text messages and it makes my head hurt--You have to have a decipher code book handy to understand what the hell is being texted. It would be different if this was some secret language to stop the Feds from reading our texts. I suppose the Feds freak out when someone texts using proper spelling and grammar.

u r 2 sweet. Thanx 4 the flowers. Plz call b4 u stop bi. nm TTYL l8t3r I <3 u. bfn.


Grammatically challenged generation...I weep for the future.
How about all the adults who haven't learned the difference between your and you're, or who have horrible spelling habits in general? Plus, the kids aren't the only ones using the text-speak. Plenty of adults type like what you are describing, too.

I'm sorry, but to characterize all teenagers as "morally bankrupt" and deficient in grammar skills is both collectivist and acting like the "problems" are limited to youth.

Don Lapre
03-06-2012, 04:31 AM
stop bi


Hateful homophobe.

donnay
03-06-2012, 10:17 AM
Because they believe it makes their kids safer. I think it is horrible - kids don't need to assume any responsibility, because they're always just a phone call away now, but I'm the odd Mom out. Everybody else thinks they need to be able to contact their kids every second.

The next step will be the microchips. Parents will anxiously want their child chipped so they can be assured that they know the whereabouts of their kids 24/7. :rolleyes:

pcosmar
03-06-2012, 10:23 AM
Remember when you managed without computers? Would you want to do it again?

It's just phones. It's nice for parents to be able to communicate with their children regardless of where they are.

My folks had one of these,,

http://weblog.911cellphonebank.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Megaphone.jpg

in was the "kid caller".
Worked fine for years.

donnay
03-06-2012, 10:24 AM
How about all the adults who haven't learned the difference between your and you're, or who have horrible spelling habits in general? Plus, the kids aren't the only ones using the text-speak. Plenty of adults type like what you are describing, too.

I'm sorry, but to characterize all teenagers as "morally bankrupt" and deficient in grammar skills is both collectivist and acting like the "problems" are limited to youth.

I was just making an off-the-cuff remark. You're right, I have come across many young adults who are grammatically challenged as well. The sad thing is this is all done by design.

TonySutton
03-06-2012, 10:30 AM
Who remembers when it was funny to spell BOOBS on a calculator. I am glad it was never declared illegal.

Intoxiklown
03-06-2012, 10:42 AM
You mean decadent, morally and creatively bankrupt?

You didn't want to see the girls/boys you liked naked when you was a teen? I'm sorry, but to say no is a lie. We've just made it easier to facilitate that with technology. But as a teen boy, I was doing anything I could to get a girl to let me go as far as I could.

donnay
03-06-2012, 10:57 AM
You didn't want to see the girls/boys you liked naked when you was a teen? I'm sorry, but to say no is a lie. We've just made it easier to facilitate that with technology. But as a teen boy, I was doing anything I could to get a girl to let me go as far as I could.

No I did not. You want to know why, because that is where creativity comes in. The mind is a very powerful tool. No one gets hurt and no one is mortified to the point of committing suicide. It's one thing to be a prank but it's another to be a malicious prank. I was raised to respect others and treat people the way I wanted to be treated. Lots of kids/adults today are devoid of that.

cstarace
03-06-2012, 01:43 PM
No I did not. You want to know why, because that is where creativity comes in. The mind is a very powerful tool. No one gets hurt and no one is mortified to the point of committing suicide. It's one thing to be a prank but it's another to be a malicious prank. I was raised to respect others and treat people the way I wanted to be treated. Lot's of kids/adults today are devoid of that.
The fuck does this have to do with sexting?

also... *Lots. Whose generation is grammatically challenged, again?

tfurrh
03-06-2012, 01:50 PM
These things we say are Evil Urges..... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv7v7lQ3Gas)

Honestly though, I can't interject between consenting adults, but damn, some of these kids are too young to be doing this.

pcosmar
03-06-2012, 02:08 PM
These things we say are Evil Urges..... (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv7v7lQ3Gas)

Honestly though, I can't interject between consenting adults, but damn, some of these kids are too young to be doing this.

Were you ever a kid?
I think I was 4 when the 6yr old girl next door wanted to "show me something".

I really don't get the whole sexting thing. But I never understood the whole "phone sex" thing either.

There has always been too much talk about it and too little DO IT.

tfurrh
03-06-2012, 02:15 PM
Were you ever a kid?
Never.

Hey, I'm not saying kids won't be kids; there's nothing anyone could ever do to stop that. But when pictures of underage teens get uploaded online, or mass-texted to other classmates, don't we have laws against child porn distribution? This is the stuff that is problematic.

donnay
03-06-2012, 02:19 PM
The fuck does this have to do with sexting?

also... *Lots. Whose generation is grammatically challenged, again?

Go back and look at the question that Intoxiklown specifically asked.

Thank you for correcting my grammatical error. Mea culpa! :o


Also using profanity, as you did in the first sentence, tells me you have a very limited vocabulary, but I digress.

Yieu
03-06-2012, 02:45 PM
Gandia wanted the law to have teeth, but it didn't take long to realize that charging even an unwitting recipient of an explicit message or photo might be a remedy worse than the problem. The bill has been amended, with one key change that it no longer brings juvenile charges to a recipient, provided he or she reports it to officials at their school.

So they located a problem with the bill, and their proposed solution is to add "See something, Say something" to it? To qualify for immunity, you must cause someone to get charged.

RickyJ
03-06-2012, 02:47 PM
Because it's a basic communication device and it's good for the kids to have it for safety purposes if nothing else?

The real question is why are kids taking naked pictures of themselves? I never had the slightest urge to do that and I am not aware of anyone I know who has.

You are right, why are they taking naked pictures of themselves and then sending them out? You could do this before cell phones and the Internet too, just put a picture in the mail. It would be harder to pass around, but it could still be done and copied many times and eventually have the same number of people see it. Anyone sending anything like that out should know before they do it that there is a possibility that the whole world could see it. It is after all going out over a unsecured cell network!

pcosmar
03-06-2012, 02:57 PM
Never.

Hey, I'm not saying kids won't be kids; there's nothing anyone could ever do to stop that. But when pictures of underage teens get uploaded online, or mass-texted to other classmates, don't we have laws against child porn distribution? This is the stuff that is problematic.

I believe it is the laws that are problematic. the rest is pretty much natural and normal.

tfurrh
03-06-2012, 03:09 PM
I believe it is the laws that are problematic. the rest is pretty much natural and normal.

I believe that society viz. parents or family members, should protect the innocence of our children, and when it doesn't, it is very problematic. When a society is okay with my (hypothetical) 12yr old daughter or sister's naked body online, with god knows who looking at it or searching for it, and says that is pretty much natural and normal, then it is very problematic. I'm okay with saying live & let live for consenting adults, but when anything goes even with children.....it's too much for me. But ultimately, I am not crying for more laws. Gov't cannot change the morality of the people. But, we've got to be grown up enough to protect our children. Parents need to be involved.

Working Poor
03-06-2012, 03:11 PM
Would it be easier to just not allow teens to have phones with photo and video capabilities?

pcosmar
03-06-2012, 03:14 PM
I believe that society viz. parents or family members, should protect the innocence of our children, and when it doesn't, it is very problematic.
Parents should educate and discipline. True enough.
Girls and boys have been chasing after and peaking at each other for thousands of years.

Laws won't change that.
Sexual repression only creates more sexual deviance.. (nature will out)
the technology is irrelevant,, and more laws will only create more problems.

Yieu
03-06-2012, 03:15 PM
Would it be easier to just not allow teens to have phones with photo and video capabilities?

Yes, although that is a decision a parent would have to make.

tfurrh
03-06-2012, 03:19 PM
Parents should educate and discipline. True enough.
Girls and boys have been chasing after and peaking at each other for thousands of years.

Laws won't change that.
Sexual repression only creates more sexual deviance.. (nature will out)
the technology is irrelevant,, and more laws will only create more problems.

I think we're on the same page.

azxd
03-06-2012, 03:20 PM
Some people just don't want to deal with the simple solution ... Get a contract that lets the phone ring, and you answer it ... Period !!!
That's how mine is, nothing but a phone, and it's much cheaper than the price of full-blown services.

Parents could do this for their kids, and there would be no problems.

thoughtomator
03-06-2012, 03:21 PM
Kids, don't let this happen to you:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/chris-lee1.png

cstarace
03-06-2012, 04:01 PM
Go back and look at the question that Intoxiklown specifically asked.

Thank you for correcting my grammatical error. Mea culpa! :o


Also using profanity, as you did in the first sentence, tells me you have a very limited vocabulary, but I digress.
I received a 720 on the "critical reading" section of my SAT (that's the part with the vocab) and have been enrolled in honors English since I began high school. I don't mean to come across as pompous, and usually I'm pretty critical of myself, but "limited" is hardly the word I would use to describe my range of vocabulary.

Old-timers might not like it, but profanity is an extremely effective tool in communicating emotion. Had I phrased my question differently, you probably wouldn't have fully understood just how baffled your post left me. For example:


"What does this have to do with sexting?"
"What the fuck does this have to do with sexting?"

The first example reads as nonchalantly asking a question. The second example is more forceful and better expresses my bewilderment, while still posing the same question.

Back on topic: I read Intoxiklown's question. It dealt with teenage lust/libido. You said you had no sexual desires as a teenager and starting ranting and raving about how sex/sexting is somehow uncreative and is immoral. I still don't get it.

Anti Federalist
03-06-2012, 04:21 PM
Chill out brah.

Oh lord have mercy, here we go.

donnay
03-06-2012, 06:00 PM
I received a 720 on the "critical reading" section of my SAT (that's the part with the vocab) and have been enrolled in honors English since I began high school. I don't mean to come across as pompous, and usually I'm pretty critical of myself, but "limited" is hardly the word I would use to describe my range of vocabulary.

Pompous is exactly how you come off...





Old-timers might not like it, but profanity is an extremely effective tool in communicating emotion. Had I phrased my question differently, you probably wouldn't have fully understood just how baffled your post left me. For example:

"What does this have to do with sexting?"
"What the fuck does this have to do with sexting?"

Really? We old-timers know that when you are trying to communicated emotion you can type ALL CAPS, and exclamation points [!]. Your first example would have sufficed. :rolleyes:


Back on topic: I read Intoxiklown's question. It dealt with teenage lust/libido. You said you had no sexual desires as a teenager and starting ranting and raving about how sex/sexting is somehow uncreative and is immoral. I still don't get it.

Learn how not to take things out of context and you'll do just fine. If I were ranting and raving, sonny boy, you would have known it!

Carry on!

cstarace
03-06-2012, 06:17 PM
Pompous is exactly how you come off...
It's called being defensive. Next time don't make assumptions about someone that you don't know. If anyone's pompous, it's you. Especially considering you continue to make grammatical errors and errors in sentence structure, all while complaining about how illiterate the younger generation is.


Really? We old-timers know that when you are trying to communicated emotion you can type ALL CAPS, and exclamation points [!]. Your first example would have sufficed. :rolleyes:
What?


Learn how not to take things out of context and you'll do just fine. If I were ranting and raving, sonny boy, would have known it!Carry on!
Pretty sure I didn't take anything out of context. I read the question and commented on your irrational response.

donnay
03-06-2012, 07:00 PM
It's called being defensive. Next time don't make assumptions about someone that you don't know. If anyone's pompous, it's you. Especially considering you continue to make grammatical errors and errors in sentence structure, all while complaining about how illiterate the younger generation is.

Pompous is not being defensive. Pompous describes someone who has excessive self-esteem.

I would more describe your actions as being a condescending pompous ass. Nevertheless...from my vantage point this discussion is over. I am sure you have better things to do like sexting someone. Now run along!

heavenlyboy34
03-06-2012, 07:07 PM
Pompous is not being defensive. Pompous describes someone who has excessive self-esteem.

I would more describe your actions as being a condescending pompous ass. Nevertheless...from my vantage point this discussion is over. I am sure you have better things to do like sexting someone. Now run along!
lolz! :D

cstarace
03-06-2012, 07:20 PM
Pompous is not being defensive. Pompous describes someone who has excessive self-esteem.

I would more describe your actions as being a condescending pompous ass. Nevertheless...from my vantage point this discussion is over. I am sure you have better things to do like sexting someone. Now run along!
Except I wasn't being pompous, I was simply demonstrating how you make yourself look like an ass when you make generalizations and assumptions about people you don't know. Which you did.

The prevalence of collectivism on a forum dedicated to Ron Paul is incredibly annoying. Might I suggest you're part of the wrong social movement?

tttppp
03-06-2012, 07:35 PM
Aren't there already civil laws that address this? If someone spreads nude photos of you to the whole school, isn't that intentional infliction of emotional harm? Wouldn't that person be liable for monetary damages. It seems more reasonable to handle this issue in civil court than convicting kids of child pornography and sending them to jail where pedophiles are loved.

Austrian Econ Disciple
03-06-2012, 07:43 PM
How is this a crime? Adults do the same shit. Ever heard of someone making a home video and it getting released when they're divorced / fight? I've never heard of this ever being criminal. This is so fucking petty and stupid, and add this to the 129871927189027891759812759817891278 laws that steal or kidnap you. Ridiculous.

cstarace
03-06-2012, 07:45 PM
Aren't there already civil laws that address this? If someone spreads nude photos of you to the whole school, isn't that intentional infliction of emotional harm? Wouldn't that person be liable for monetary damages. It seems more reasonable to handle this issue in civil court than convicting kids of child pornography and sending them to jail where pedophiles are loved.
Yup. Moralists like to make issues out of nothing.

Anti Federalist
03-06-2012, 09:30 PM
You said you had no sexual desires as a teenager and starting ranting and raving about how sex/sexting is somehow uncreative and is immoral. I still don't get it.

You're new, so you don't know why that is so funny to me.

Or why me saying that will get me in a whole bucket of hot water.

But it is and it will.

:D:toady::D

Seraphim
03-06-2012, 09:32 PM
The law has become a joke.

Fuck the law.

Brian4Liberty
03-06-2012, 09:38 PM
The real question is why are kids taking naked pictures of themselves?

Because you Sir, are not a Congress member...

1330

Brian4Liberty
03-06-2012, 09:39 PM
The human body is a crime. Shut up or go to jail for your crime.

Seraphim
03-06-2012, 09:44 PM
Are you an FDA employee?

If so, GTFO. We don't like your kind around these parts.


The human body is a crime. Shut up or go to jail for your crime.

cstarace
03-06-2012, 09:45 PM
You're new, so you don't know why that is so funny to me.

Or why me saying that will get me in a whole bucket of hot water.

But it is and it will.

:D:toady::D
Pfft...inside jokes are lame. >.>

Austrian Econ Disciple
03-06-2012, 09:50 PM
I believe that society viz. parents or family members, should protect the innocence of our children, and when it doesn't, it is very problematic. When a society is okay with my (hypothetical) 12yr old daughter or sister's naked body online, with god knows who looking at it or searching for it, and says that is pretty much natural and normal, then it is very problematic. I'm okay with saying live & let live for consenting adults, but when anything goes even with children.....it's too much for me. But ultimately, I am not crying for more laws. Gov't cannot change the morality of the people. But, we've got to be grown up enough to protect our children. Parents need to be involved.

Oh Geeze. Another one of these 'for the children' rants. I think it's been lost on folks that children are actual HUMAN BEINGS with the same inalienable rights as any other. Just because you gave birth to them doesn't make them your slave. You have guardianship as long as they have not exercised / capable of exercising their natural rights. This means -- yes, sex, and other consenting acts. You're his/her parent, not their slave-master. There is nothing magical about being 18.

I don't think anyone's innocence...perhaps calling it the correct word -- inexperience -- should be 'protected' at your discretion. Each individual should make their own choices with their own lives. What is life without experience, and why should you deny life's experiences? They will experience everything eventually; you might as well educate and give them as much as your wisdom as possible. This sheltering BS hurts way more folks than it ever 'helps'. Another one of those dumb ass 'good intentions' gone wrong.

As far as the human body -- it should be celebrated, not reviled, exiled, and shunned. In this regard the Stoics are far more superior than what came after it -- and I'll say what everyone is thinking. F^&( censorship that is Christianity. Yeah, yeah, -- rep me.

Brian4Liberty
03-06-2012, 09:54 PM
We don't like your kind around these parts.

Your parts are not legal. Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

cstarace
03-06-2012, 09:59 PM
Oh Geeze. Another one of these 'for the children' rants. I think it's been lost on folks that children are actual HUMAN BEINGS with the same inalienable rights as any other. Just because you gave birth to them doesn't make them your slave. You have guardianship as long as they have not exercised / capable of exercising their natural rights. This means -- yes, sex, and other consenting acts. You're his/her parent, not their slave-master. There is nothing magical about being 18.

I don't think anyone's innocence...perhaps calling it the correct word -- inexperience -- should be 'protected' at your discretion. Each individual should make their own choices with their own lives. What is life without experience, and why should you deny life's experiences? They will experience everything eventually; you might as well educate and give them as much as your wisdom as possible. This sheltering BS hurts way more folks than it ever 'helps'. Another one of those dumb ass 'good intentions' gone wrong.

As far as the human body -- it should be celebrated, not reviled, exiled, and shunned. In this regard the Stoics are far more superior than what came after it -- and I'll say what everyone is thinking. F^&( censorship that is Christianity. Yeah, yeah, -- rep me.

Greatest post I've seen since I joined. Well done man.

Domalais
03-06-2012, 10:02 PM
I believe that society viz. parents or family members, should protect the innocence of our children, and when it doesn't, it is very problematic. When a society is okay with my (hypothetical) 12yr old daughter or sister's naked body online, with god knows who looking at it or searching for it, and says that is pretty much natural and normal, then it is very problematic. I'm okay with saying live & let live for consenting adults, but when anything goes even with children.....it's too much for me. But ultimately, I am not crying for more laws. Gov't cannot change the morality of the people. But, we've got to be grown up enough to protect our children. Parents need to be involved.

It's perfectly legal for me to have, view, and share pictures, video, and audio of your hypothetical daughter or sister being tortured and murdered.


Unless she's naked.


Please explain this to me.

Anti Federalist
03-06-2012, 10:08 PM
It's perfectly legal for me to have, view, and share pictures, video, and audio of your hypothetical daughter or sister being tortured and murdered.


Unless she's naked.


Please explain this to me.

Because the law makes little sense.

Why was a constitutional amendment required to ban alcohol, but a naturally occurring North American weed did not?

Why is illegal to pay for sex, unless you are filming it?

Lishy
03-06-2012, 10:11 PM
What if my GF wants a pic of my Dick?

Yeah, funny example, but why shouldn't I be able to text my GF a pic of my dick if she wants to jerk off to it while I'm not home?

Pfffft, bwahahaha, the sad part is, as humorous as this example, it's really a realistic scenario!

Domalais
03-06-2012, 10:12 PM
Because the law makes little sense.

Why was a constitutional amendment required to ban alcohol, but a naturally occurring North American weed did not?

Why is illegal to pay for sex, unless you are filming it?

Ooh, oh, I know both of these.

Because a large, vocal group of Americans believes that America should be a theocracy?

Anti Federalist
03-06-2012, 10:15 PM
Ooh, oh, I know both of these.

Because a large, vocal group of Americans believes that America should be a theocracy?

That would imply that a large group of Americans give a shit about what government is doing or doing to them.

I think it's much more grim.

The "authorities" told them this is how it will be, and they blindly and without question, accept it.

cstarace
03-06-2012, 10:15 PM
What if my GF wants a pic of my Dick?

Yeah, funny example, but why shouldn't I be able to text my GF a pic of my dick if she wants to jerk off to it while I'm not home?

Pfffft, bwahahaha, the sad part is, as humorous as this example, it's really a realistic scenario!
I don't even find it funny, its just normal. People who consider sexting a taboo and a danger to society are as dumb as the newscasters who snicker everytime the subject matter of marijuana is discussed. I don't find it funny, it just is what it is.

Anti Federalist
03-06-2012, 10:16 PM
What if my GF wants a pic of my Dick?

Yeah, funny example, but why shouldn't I be able to text my GF a pic of my dick if she wants to jerk off to it while I'm not home?
Pfffft, bwahahaha, the sad part is, as humorous as this example, it's really a realistic scenario!

:confused:

cstarace
03-06-2012, 10:18 PM
:confused:
Either he calls his boyfriend his girlfriend or he meant to say 'finger'...

Lishy
03-06-2012, 10:20 PM
Either he calls his boyfriend his girlfriend or he meant to say 'finger'...

Well I was being half-serious. But it just goes to show how stupid the law is.

And also, how do you even enforce this!?

specsaregood
03-06-2012, 10:24 PM
:confused:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdsU9BVNwFI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVXVrIQ-io4

Tod
03-06-2012, 10:29 PM
Since nearly all cell phones have cameras now, I wonder if any parents have taken sandpaper & paint to the lens to disable it?

cstarace
03-06-2012, 10:33 PM
Well I was being half-serious. But it just goes to show how stupid the law is.

And also, how do you even enforce this!?
You can't. I don't think anyone is arguing that sexting should be illegal, but when it comes to shit like this the morality police come out in droves.

Domalais
03-06-2012, 10:36 PM
You can't. I don't think anyone is arguing that sexting should be illegal, but when it comes to shit like this the morality police come out in droves.

First they say that we should think of the children, and then they throw us in jail for thinking of the children! :confused:

jwhitmore
03-07-2012, 01:09 AM
I hate articles like this becuase they do no followup.

The fact of the matter is, NO teen is actually a registered sex offender simply for sexting their boyfriend or girlfriend.

These articles stupidly tell the story when the investigation continues and say "If convicted on the most seriously charges, thye face XXXX years in jail and sex offender status." And then even MORE stupid people run with that and start screaming " I can't beleive these kids got XXXX years in jail for this!"

Wwell...of course if they did any follow up, they would know that like ALL first time offenders, these kids get plea deals that carries no jail time, no registry requirement, and will get wiped from their records after a couple years, Many cases are dropped altogether.

People need to stop acting like first time (or even second time) offenders are being handed down the maximum sentences. They aren't.

Austrian Econ Disciple
03-07-2012, 02:00 AM
I hate articles like this becuase they do no followup.

The fact of the matter is, NO teen is actually a registered sex offender simply for sexting their boyfriend or girlfriend.

These articles stupidly tell the story when the investigation continues and say "If convicted on the most seriously charges, thye face XXXX years in jail and sex offender status." And then even MORE stupid people run with that and start screaming " I can't beleive these kids got XXXX years in jail for this!"

Wwell...of course if they did any follow up, they would know that like ALL first time offenders, these kids get plea deals that carries no jail time, no registry requirement, and will get wiped from their records after a couple years, Many cases are dropped altogether.

People need to stop acting like first time (or even second time) offenders are being handed down the maximum sentences. They aren't.

Way to miss the point. The point if I may so bluntly spell it out: There shouldn't be any of these laws in the first place! Capiche. Get it, got it, good.

The Free Hornet
03-07-2012, 05:17 PM
The fact of the matter is, NO teen is actually a registered sex offender simply for sexting their boyfriend or girlfriend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/us/21sexting.html?_r=1
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-07/justice/sexting.busts_1_phillip-alpert-offender-list-offender-registry?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001082-504083.html

I don't know how many cases there are and the 2nd one was sent beyond the girlfriend/boyfriend relationship but was sexting.


Wwell...of course if they did any follow up, they would know that like ALL first time offenders, these kids get plea deals that carries no jail time, no registry requirement, and will get wiped from their records after a couple years, Many cases are dropped altogether.

You're in effing lala land. These kids could have to register for life. If you roll over and plea like a good dog, you may get less or you may get a surprise added to your plea agreement and ex post facto fucked.

Anti Federalist
03-07-2012, 05:43 PM
I hate articles like this becuase they do no followup.

The fact of the matter is, NO teen is actually a registered sex offender simply for sexting their boyfriend or girlfriend.

These articles stupidly tell the story when the investigation continues and say "If convicted on the most seriously charges, thye face XXXX years in jail and sex offender status." And then even MORE stupid people run with that and start screaming " I can't beleive these kids got XXXX years in jail for this!"

Wwell...of course if they did any follow up, they would know that like ALL first time offenders, these kids get plea deals that carries no jail time, no registry requirement, and will get wiped from their records after a couple years, Many cases are dropped altogether.

People need to stop acting like first time (or even second time) offenders are being handed down the maximum sentences. They aren't.

LoL - Wut?

From the OP:


In Orlando, then-18-year-old Philip Alpert fought with his 16-year-old high school sweetheart and sent out intimate pictures she had intended only for him. Few would defend his actions, but critics say the law went too far when he was charged with child pornography. Under terms of his 2009 guilty plea, Alpert will have to register as a sex offender until he is 48 years old.

pcosmar
03-07-2012, 05:44 PM
LoL - Wut?

From the OP:

Reading is Fundamental.

Do they still teach that?

Anti Federalist
03-07-2012, 05:46 PM
Reading is Fundamental.

Do they still teach that?

It would appear not, sheesh...I mean, FFS it was right there.

donnay
03-07-2012, 05:49 PM
Reading is Fundamental.

Do they still teach that?

Nope. That is why this country is in the dire straights that it's in.

LibertyRevolution
03-07-2012, 08:42 PM
Girl takes naked pic of herself. Its her body, should she not be allowed to take pics of her own body?
Girl sends pic to boyfriend, its her pic, she can do what she wants with it.
Boy now has pic, now it is now his pic, he can do with as he pleases.
He sends it to his friends, they send it to their friends.
Who is to blame?

I say the girl is to blame. If she didn't want her nude pic all over the net, then she shouldn't have sent it out at all.
I say its time these kids learn a little personal responsibility.

To people saying buy your kids phones without cameras...
Your kid doesn't want to be the only one in class with a crappy phone with no camera. They will get made fun of.
Parents want there kids to be happy, so they get them phones like their friends.

To me this all comes down to bad parenting. Parents need to teach their children better.
They need to understand that once you upload something, it is there forever, and there is no taking it back.

tttppp
03-07-2012, 08:47 PM
Girl takes naked pic of herself. Its her body, should she not be allowed to take pics of her own body?
Girl sends pic to boyfriend, its her pic, she can do what she wants with it.
Boy now has pic, now it is now his pic, he can do with as he pleases.
He sends it to his friends, they send it to their friends.
Who is to blame?

I say the girl is to blame. If she didn't want her nude pic all over the net, then she shouldn't have sent it out at all.
I say its time these kids learn a little personal responsibility.

To people saying buy your kids phones without cameras...
Your kid doesn't want to be the only one in class with a crappy phone with no camera. They will get made fun of.
Parents want there kids to be happy, so they get them phones like their friends.

To me this all comes down to bad parenting. Parents need to teach their children better.
They need to understand that once you upload something, it is there forever, and there is no taking it back.

The best way to teach these kids is through experience. If a girl sends someone a naked pic and it ends up getting sent to everyone in her school, I'll bet thats the last time she sends a naked pic of herself to anyone.

donnay
03-07-2012, 09:02 PM
Girl takes naked pic of herself. Its her body, should she not be allowed to take pics of her own body?
Girl sends pic to boyfriend, its her pic, she can do what she wants with it.
Boy now has pic, now it is now his pic, he can do with as he pleases.
He sends it to his friends, they send it to their friends.
Who is to blame?

I say the girl is to blame. If she didn't want her nude pic all over the net, then she shouldn't have sent it out at all.
I say its time these kids learn a little personal responsibility.

To people saying buy your kids phones without cameras...
Your kid doesn't want to be the only one in class with a crappy phone with no camera. They will get made fun of.
Parents want there kids to be happy, so they get them phones like their friends.

To me this all comes down to bad parenting. Parents need to teach their children better.
They need to understand that once you upload something, it is there forever, and there is no taking it back.



Sounds like you would want your children to be followers rather than independent individuals. The problem with this country is far too many people are trying to keep up with the Joneses! Responsibility begins in the home. Hard to teach responsibility when people buy their kids love. That certainly doesn't help them later on in life.

If my high school age child wants the latest and greatest phone, they can go out and get a job and buy one!! I would not give my younger children a cell phone just because EVERYONE else has one. I am not the parent of everyone else!

donnay
03-07-2012, 09:04 PM
The best way to teach these kids is through experience. If a girl sends someone a naked pic and it ends up getting sent to everyone in her school, I'll bet thats the last time she sends a naked pic of herself to anyone.

You're right it was the last time she sends a naked picture to anyone since she committed suicide.

tttppp
03-08-2012, 01:56 AM
You're right it was the last time she sends a naked picture to anyone since she committed suicide.

Anyone who commits suicide over something as stupid as that was bound to commit suicide at some point. Your life is not really over if someone sees you naked. There are many people with much worse lives that don't kill themselves.