Children are paedophiles too... apparantly

The Corinthian

While this story is one that, while it beggars belief, has long been consigned to the status of a hysterical aberration, the following story seems to indicate that such hysteria is anything but a simple aberration:

Teens charged for nude pics on phones

GREENSBURG, Pa., Jan. 13 (UPI) -- Police in Pennsylvania said six high school students are facing pornography charges after three girls sent photos of themselves via cell phones.

Greensburg police said the three female Greensburg-Salem High School students, ages 14 and 15, have been charged in Westmoreland County with manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography after they allegedly took pictures of themselves -- two of the girls nude, the other semi-nude -- with their cell phones and sent them to other students, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported Tuesday.

Three male Greensburg-Salem students, described as 16 and 17 years old, were charged with possession of child pornography after the pictures were found on their cell phones.

Lisa Rullo, former principal of the high school and current district director of student services, said students are made aware of laws and district rules regarding pictures on cell phones.

"We inform the students that it still is child pornography (if they give or possess it) and ... this is something they don't want to have at all," she said.

Has Western democracy simply gone mad? Have we given in to valid concerns to the point that irrational fear is now ready to convict the very people we are allegedly supposed to protect?

I take it that two kids caught playing doctors and nurses will get locked away for 20 years next.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hopefully this will be thrown out by the judge. Seems nonsensical to any rational human being.

JohnK

The world has gone completely mad in regards to this. For me though, this story is the one that takes the biscuit http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650. Bloody madness.

Denver Post wrote:

Utah Supreme Court justices acknowledged Tuesday that they were struggling to wrap their minds around the concept that a 13-year-old girl could be both an offender and a victim for the same act - in this case, having consensual sex with her 12-year-old boyfriend.

The_Minister

So pictures of naked 14 and 15 year olds are ok, as long as they take them themselves?

Can a 14 year old, looking for a bit of pocket money, strip for a camera on a stand, and thats ok?

It is a bit silly to charge them, but they were sending around pictures of themselves naked. Since they are underage thats child porn.

A paedophile looking for his jollies isn't some stuck-up connoiseur thats going to check the photographer before 'appreciating' the picture.

titwank

When I was younger there was a lot of paedophiles of this sort in my class. Its so sad when the children prey on themselves

The Corinthian

The_Minister wrote: »

So pictures of naked 14 and 15 year olds are ok, as long as they take them themselves?

The whole point of the laws surrounding paedophilia and child pornography are about protecting children. They are supposed to stop exploitation and abuse, not stunt the sexual development of children.

And there's the uncomfortable truth, children have sexual urges and interests (well I had anyway, long before I was even a teen) and they do things like play doctors and nurses, and nowadays use camera phones. Adults don't like this idea - it creeps us out, but the reality is that it is part of normal growing up.

If these photos are collected by adults then there is an argument to prosecute, but if you prosecute the very children you are supposed to protect, what exactly is the point to such a law?

A paedophile looking for his jollies isn't some stuck-up connoiseur thats going to check the photographer before 'appreciating' the picture.

What has that got to do with prosecuting children in a criminal case? No adults were charged here, which is kind of the point Sherlock.

pwd

This thread is what is hysterical. They're hardly going to be treated the same as adult offenders. Charging them just makes the point that this isn't something kids should do.

It sounds like it was fairly innocuous in this case. But 14 year olds shouldn't take sexual photos of themselves. 17 year olds shouldn't think of 14 year olds in a sexual way - they probably were since they seem to have kept the photos. Children are often extremely open to peer presssure, which could be used to encourage this sort of thing even when the child involved doesn't want to participate. Hearing about this case would discourage it so that children aren't likely to be pushed into it.

If a serious punishment was handed out to the people involved, or if they end up with criminal records or on a sex offenders registrar or anything, then that would be unfair, but that hasn't happened and probably won't happen.

peasant

pwd wrote: »

But 14 year olds shouldn't take sexual photos of themselves.

Where you ever a kid?
When I was that age (and younger) we didn't have access to cameras that would make instant pictures (or pictures that we could possibly hide from the parents for that matter). We actually had to whip it out to compare sizes there and then.

Cameras are much handier

Nevyn

titwank wrote: »

When I was younger there was a lot of paedophiles of this sort in my class. Its so sad when the children prey on themselves

This is nothing new and they are experimenting for the most part.
We have made the sexuality of teenagers who are reproductively functioning
and becoming sexually aware and sexually awakening to be such a taboo
when the orginal idea was to protect them from older adults not from thier peers; but we still do not educate them about the facts, sti, contraception
or the big matter of consent.

Two aware and informed 15 year olds having consensual sex is not a bad thing. Times have changed and we need to educate young people rather then sweeping teen sexuality under the rug.

The Corinthian

pwd wrote: »

It sounds like it was fairly innocuous in this case. But 14 year olds shouldn't take sexual photos of themselves. 17 year olds shouldn't think of 14 year olds in a sexual way - they probably were since they seem to have kept the photos.

What you seem to forget is that not all of the girls are 14 and boys 17 in this case - some were 15 and 16 too. Should they also not see each other in a sexual way? So kids should keep their hands to themselves until both are 17 or suffer criminal action? I think you'd find that we'd all have criminal records by now if that were the case.

Children are often extremely open to peer presssure, which could be used to encourage this sort of thing even when the child involved doesn't want to participate.

So we should protect them by arresting them?

Hearing about this case would discourage it so that children aren't likely to be pushed into it.

Then it really should be up to the parents to regulate, not criminal law.

If a serious punishment was handed out to the people involved, or if they end up with criminal records or on a sex offenders registrar or anything, then that would be unfair, but that hasn't happened and probably won't happen.

How do you know it probably won't happen? It's already bizarre that criminal charges have been levied against 14-year olds, so anything's still possible at this stage.

AARRRGH

They broke the law, so the police are correct.

The problem is the law needs to be updated so it is about an adult taking pictures of a minor, rather than anyone (i.e. a minor) taking pictures of a minor. Or something like that.

Sam Vimes

The_Minister wrote: »

So pictures of naked 14 and 15 year olds are ok, as long as they take them themselves?

Can a 14 year old, looking for a bit of pocket money, strip for a camera on a stand, and thats ok?

It is a bit silly to charge them, but they were sending around pictures of themselves naked. Since they are underage thats child porn.

A paedophile looking for his jollies isn't some stuck-up connoiseur thats going to check the photographer before 'appreciating' the picture.

The problem with child pornography is not people looking at pictures, no one is hurt when someone looks at a picture. The problem is that a child must generally be abused in order for the picture to be taken. If the child willingly takes a picture of herself and gives it to her boyfriend, where's the abuse? Who's the victim?

And if a crime does not have a victim, why is it a crime in the first place?

AARRRGH

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And if a crime does not have a victim, why is it a crime in the first place?

Lots of crimes don't have victims... basically any law based on morals. For example, the woman who wants to advertise her sexual services in Ireland... illegal.

I guess the thinking is the girl doesn't realise she might become a victim if someone else gets their hands on her picture. She is, after all, a kid.

The Corinthian

AARRRGH wrote: »

I guess the thinking is the girl doesn't realise she might become a victim if someone else gets their hands on her picture. She is, after all, a kid.

So she was arrested so that she wouldn't become a victim...

AARRRGH

The Corinthian wrote: »

So she was arrested so that she wouldn't become a victim...

No I said earlier that she was arrested because she broke the law. I know it seems like a no brainer, but I prefer the police stick to the laws instead of using their own judgement. The judge can throw it out of court...

JohnK

AARRRGH wrote: »

The judge can throw it out of court...

By which time her reputation is in tatters...

AARRRGH

JohnK wrote: »

By which time her reputation is in tatters...

The law might need some work, but the police are right to make the arrests. If we start allowing police to ignore laws because they disagree with them, then we're gonna have big problems.

It's a silly* law though, made by dumbos who didn't think it through.

* By silly I mean it's too general

JohnK

I suppose the question becomes how does one go about getting laws like that changed to reflect a bit of common sense but thats probably a discussion better suited to the Legal Discussion forum.



Freaky. I just got an email from a crowd called Childwatch asking me to respond to a survey asking Should there be an “Age of Understanding” that defines the lower limit at which it is acceptable for a child to share personal data and/or personal images through a computer. Who the hell are these people? I wonder if someones been reading this thread and taking a peak at my profile :eek:

Sam Vimes

AARRRGH wrote: »

Lots of crimes don't have victims... basically any law based on morals. For example, the woman who wants to advertise her sexual services in Ireland... illegal.

I guess the thinking is the girl doesn't realise she might become a victim if someone else gets their hands on her picture. She is, after all, a kid.

Tbh i don't think that should be illegal either and in lots of countries it isn't because they recognise that, as long as it's done right, there's no victim and therefore no reason for it to be illegal

Belfast

The Corinthian wrote: »

While this story is one that, while it beggars belief, has long been consigned to the status of a hysterical aberration, the following story seems to indicate that such hysteria is anything but a simple aberration:

Has Western democracy simply gone mad? Have we given in to valid concerns to the point that irrational fear is now ready to convict the very people we are allegedly supposed to protect?

I take it that two kids caught playing doctors and nurses will get locked away for 20 years next.

How long before that start charging Parents for taking photos of the babies in the bath tub.
or charging people for permission of those embarrassing baby photos they too in the 1960's.

JohnK

Belfast wrote: »

How long before that start charging Parents for taking photos of the babies in the bath tub.
or charging people for permission of those embarrassing baby photos they too in the 1960's.

Have a read off the link below, it mentions a grandmother in the US who was arrested for production of child porn because of pictures of her grandchild. She was arrested and charged for this and it was only 15 months later she was cleared - by which time no doubt her reputation was in tatters. Granted the article overall is about how prosecutors are beginning to see sense but its still ridiculous that something like this could have happened in the first place.

http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_12279963
http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_12279968

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sam Vimes

Belfast wrote: »

How long before that start charging Parents for taking photos of the babies in the bath tub.
or charging people for permission of those embarrassing baby photos they too in the 1960's.

Not to mention pampers ads:



OMG CHILD PORN!!!!! :eek:

Davidth88

There was the highly publisied case in the UK back in the 90's.

Julia Summerville ( at the time a newsreader ) sent some photo's into be developed . In there were some totally innocent photo's of her young children in the bath.

When they went to pick them up , her and her boyfriend were arrested and questioned by the child porn squad.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/julia-somerville-defends-innocent-family-photos-1538516.html

Common sense should prevail .

RealEstateKing

that need to be made here: One is the difference between an adult taking a photo of a child, and 2 is the difference between peadophilia and pederasty.

This is obviously not a legal issue, this is teenagers taking photos of each other.

Secondly, we fix 'the age of consent' at 16 for the sake of protecting children, and rightly so: We needed to pick a number so we picked that one.

But there is a massive difference in my opinion between being sexually interested in a 15 year old and being sexually interested in somebody who hasnt reached the age of puberty yet. The former is actually perfectly natural and normal, if a little sad, whereas the latter is an indication that your sexuality is seriously ****ed up.

The law should reflect this somehow. There is a world of difference between a 17 year old guy getting it on with a 15 year old, and some perv lusting after kids in a playground, but legally its the same thing.