Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Darth Biscuit

Is 'sexting' child pornography?

8 posts in this topic

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/08/galanos.sexting/index.html

Pretty good commentary on this subject... I've been concerned about this for some time. DA's around the country are charging teenagers with child pornography for 'sexting' pictures of themselves to their boyfriends and girlfriends.

I think there should be consequences for this kind of thing, but felony charges and assignments as "sex offenders" for kids being stupid? Come on...

A great illustration of why change is needed now is the story of Phillip Alpert, of Orlando, Florida. He didn't ask, but his girlfriend sexted him naked pictures of herself, according to the Orlando Sentinel. When they broke up, he mass e-mailed the photos to get back at her. Alpert, 18, was convicted of transmission of child porn and he will carry the label of "sex offender" until he is 43. He lost friends, was kicked out of school, he can't even move in with his dad because his dad lives near a school.

Should Phillip be punished? Yes. Should the six teens in Pennsylvania face consequences? Yes. But let's kick them off cheerleading squads and sports teams. Make them do community service and take classes on sex crimes. Educate other teens on the dangers of sexting. Pay a price, yes, but these young people shouldn't pay for this for the rest of their lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be in jail for life if they tried this crap when I was in high school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Touchy subject. I think in general a lot of 'sex offenders' are being painted with a very broad brush and this is a good example. I think, almost by definition, that it's impossible for a teenager to be a sex offender(with exceptions of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean if a 17 year old boy is coercing a 13 year old girl to send him pictures so he can distribute them, that's completely different than a 13 year old girl sending her 14 or 15 year old boyfriend pictures of herself for him... it's stupid and the kids shouldn't be doing it, but that's just it, they're kids and they do stupid stuff...

Even a boy sending out pics of his ex-girlfriend to "get back" at her is NOT the same as what the child pornography laws were written to protect against. There should be a punishment for this kind of thing, but not felonies and having them listed for years as a "sex offender."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to realize that whatever their intentions were for sending out the pics that it cant be undone and those can eventually end up in the hands of real pervs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to realize that whatever their intentions were for sending out the pics that it cant be undone and those can eventually end up in the hands of real pervs.

I agree, but telling most kids to think about the consequences of their actions is pissing in the wind... they just don't think about things like that... I didn't when I was that age. It's a wonder me and some of my friends lived to be 18 some of the stupid crap that we did. It's like Husker said too, if this tech was available when I was 15, I'm sure I would have been partaking of it too...

This is something parents need to be dealing with, not the courts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something parents need to be dealing with, not the courts...

I agree. The problem is that fewer parents are interested in actually raising their kids these days.

Whether the parents or the kids are paying for a cell, and the child is 13-17 the parents need to monitor it. Big time. Put restrictions on it from the cell provider that they aren't allowed to do attachments. If the phone is deemed necessary for security/safety purposes, the child does not need any of that extra stuff or internet access. Or at least tell the kids they WILL monitor it and at least do cursory checks now and then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like teenagers are going to stop doing it regardless of what kind of consequences come with getting caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Looks like our DE depth is developing nicely.  Let's see his swim move--no wait--if he starts drowning, we'll never get him back in the boat. I still say they were a bit upset with him last season.  Remember the benching during the game following the altercationwith the coach?  Some people never recover fully from a knee injury, especially if they lack the discipline to rehab properly.  I wounder if that is the case? Seriously--he is a TE.
    • http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/carrier-plant-where-trump-saved-jobs-plans-layoffs/ar-BBBsNjX?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp A plant where jobs were purportedly saved by Donald Trump ahead of his inauguration is set to make at least 600 staff cuts, many before Christmas. Carrier had opted in December 2016 not to move a number of jobs to Mexico from its Indianapolis furnace factory, following a visit to the plant by Trump. The president claimed he had convinced Carrier to retain 1,100 jobs in Indianapolis rather than outsourcing them in Mexico. And of those 1,100 jobs Trump spoke of, 300 had reportedly never been threatened with a move to Mexico—meaning a total of 800 jobs had been saved. But the company has since announced that at least 600 employees at the factory will still be laid off, with the final 290 job cuts coming just ahead of Christmas. In a filing seen by CNN, the company announced it would be making an initial 338 job cuts in July, four in October and a further 290 jobs on December 22, just three days before Christmas. During a press conference at Carrier, Trump said: “that big, big beautiful plant behind us… will be even more beautiful in about seven months from now. They're so happy. They're going to have a great Christmas. That's most important. He added: “And that these companies aren't going to be leaving anymore. They're not going to be taking people's hearts out. They're not going to be announcing, like they did at Carrier, that they're closing up and they're moving to Mexico, over 1,100 jobs. “And by the way, that number is going to go up very substantially as they expand this area, this plant. So the 1,100 is going to be a minimum number,” he said. The plant said at the time the number of jobs saved was closer to 800, but explained it would be replacing some of the jobs that were saved with an automated system in order to save money, although CEO Greg Hayes did say there would be less money saved by the company in doing so than if they moved production to Mexico. Carrier did not immediately respond to Newsweek’s request for comment. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm thinking of another person I'd like to see get laid off, or fired.
    • Shep, Curtis Samuel, maybe Charles Johnson--Funchess in year 3--that could be solid.  Move KB to TE (or keep him away from the Krispy Kremes) and this could be a special group.