Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    • CommentAuthoromer333
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2008
     (640.1)
    I'm posting this on the Zoo, because I don't know if it would be on the Electric Telegraph:

    ALLENTOWN, Pennsylvania - Police tried to stop the spread of pornographic video and photos of two U.S. high school girls, images that were transmitted by cell phone to dozens of the girls' classmates and then to the wider world.

    At least 40 Parkland High School students believed to have received the images must show their phones to police by Tuesday to ensure the images have been erased, or they could be prosecuted in juvenile court for possession of child pornography, District Attorney James B. Martin said Thursday.


    Read more here.
  1.  (640.2)
    I love that the girls were accused of publishing child porn by taking and distributing pictures of THEMSELVES.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2008
     (640.3)
    Not necessarily, Richard. The media coverage of it is, of course, stunningly ridiculous, but there's some question of whether one of the girls knew she was being photographed at all. And, perhaps she did, perhaps she didn't -- kids do strange and stupid things all the time -- but I'm not terribly upset that someone's looking into it.
  2.  (640.4)
    Interesting. the article I read didn't mention anything about anyone not being aware that she was performing for the camera.

    I have no doubt underage kids take shots of themselves and pass them around all the time. Cell phones are the Polaroid cameras of my generation. I have a side career as a photographer and I've had plenty of sub-18 models trying to talk me into shooting them. Call me on yer birthday, kid, and not a day before.
  3.  (640.5)
    "Show me your phones, that's right, let me see - yep, no kiddie porn. And you certainly wouldn't download the pics to your computer and spread them on P2P networks, would you? Of course not. Off you go now. Study hard."
  4.  (640.6)
    And you certainly wouldn't post a million naked shots of yourself on IShotMyself or its dozens of clones.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhyim
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2008
     (640.7)
    @kardey : i don't understand how taking explicit pictures of yourself if you are underaged and distributing them doesn't qualify as child porn. Surely in the end the pics still show an underage in an explicit posture, or is there a specific in the definition i am not getting in this peculiar case.
  5.  (640.8)
    Don't misunderstand me, I'm talking about a philosophical point, not a legal one. The kids' shots probably did meet some technical definition of kiddie porn, but it will always strike me as strange when Johnny Law steps out of the shadows to protect us from using our bodies in ways the State disapproves of. I can't think of anything more disembodying than governments telling people, even kids, that it has more of a right to their flesh than they do.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhyim
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2008 edited
     (640.9)
    gotcha. the article said one of the girls was shown performing a sex act on a boy, so it is quite explicit and i think we can all picture said act.

    Actually i think in this case the district attorney is waving the bloody legal stick to teach these little horny bastards what's the difference between public and private sphere. Keep it in your pants you dumb younglings, and stop wasting my time, i have cars to buy. and so on.
  6.  (640.10)
    The point of laws against kiddie porn is to prevent children from being sexually exploited by manipulative pedophilic adults. Things get murkier when, a) the child truly desires to exploit herself, and especially when b) the "child" is 16 and could easily pass for 18.

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.