Won't Somebody Please Think of the Children!?

02/10/2007 11:35 pm
Rate this Blog
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
A 16 year old girl and 17 year old boy got busted for the production and distribution of Child Pornography in Florida. The two face rather serious criminal charges and face a lifetime on the sexual offenders list. The catch? The pictures were of themselves.

The letter of the law makes no such provision for self portraits, a photograph of a child is kiddie porn, emailing the photos to yourself is distributing it.

I think this case is complete BS. For starters we need to get off this asinine thought that someone under the age of 18 is incapable of rational thought yet that magically changes the moment one turns 18. That however is the least of the problems with this case.

The rational behind them being in trouble for this is two fold. 1) The photos COULD be sold to pedophiles. 2) Transmitting photos over the internet and storing them on a computer is insecure.

So for those of you keeping score these kids are in trouble because of the fact that someone could potentially illegally invade their private property and steal their private photos.

The whole reason Child Pornography laws exist is to stop children from being exploited by adults. There were no adults involved in this case (save for the potential computer hackers out there.) More importantly, how can you exploit yourself?

How backwards are our laws where these 2 could have had sex together for 3 weeks solid, resulting in a teenage pregnancy, and that's all kosher. A girl sending her boyfriend a picture of her own boobs, on the other hand, is creating and distributing Child Pornography (which is about as far up the "Sex Offender-O-Meter" as it gets.)

When did this country lose its damn mind with anything relating to sex and children? For that matter when did it turn into the Minority Report? There have been numerous reports of people who's jobs put them in contact with kids losing their jobs for having sexually explicit chat with kids. No biggie? They really have sexual contact with other adults on line. They lose their jobs because of the fact that since its possible to lie about ones age on the internet they could actually be talking to a minor. No one knows, so let's err on the side that ruins your life...for the children.

Now before anyone misinterprets anything I say as "pro-Pedophilia" I want to point out that my beef is not with trying to protect children from the sickos of the world. My beef is that is has turned into a modern day witch hunt. Its gotten to the point where any male wanting to teach at the elementary school level, or do anything that involves kids, sends up red flags all over the place. We put anyone that does something criminal that may also involve sex on the sex offender list. People who get ticketed for public urination are added to the same list as child rapists because technically they exposed themselves in public.

There are 175 sex offenders in Eau Claire, WI and who knows how many of them are for offenses against kids. The problem with this list is that "offense against a child" can mean a 60 year old guy having sex with a 7 year old and getting caught with an attic full of pictures of 3 year olds. It can also mean an 18 and one day old guy had sex with his 17 and 364 day old girlfriend who's parents feel like teaching him a lesson.

Any time a "Zero Tolerance" law is passed only bad things can happen. The whole point of the list was a shameful "Scarlet letter" that has to be carried around with you forever. If 1/50th of the population is on the list it kind of takes the stigma away.

We need to focus on the 45 year olds kidnapping 4 year olds. Not on the 19 year olds hitting on the 17 year olds. In my mind a 50 year old being attracted to an 18 year old is a much bigger problem then a 18 year old that likes a 16-17 year old.

We certainly don't need to waste our time protecting "kids" from themselves.
Might_Guy.JPGBret - Haha Jeremy I'm going to try and break your website with a buffer overflow comment. Oh shoot I don't know what else to type...
02/11/2007 @ 09:56:23 PM
 Quote this comment
Obviously we need a law that fines under age teenagers who get knocked up. That'll keep those darned kids from having sex.

"Everything looks good on your yearly physical. But we did notice that you're pregnant and under age, the authorities are on their way over to write you a ticket."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
02/11/2007 @ 10:05:48 PM
 Quote this comment
I don't know of how much of a deterrent that would be.

The fact of the matter is people aren't set up biologically for having nothing sexual happen until they're 18. I'm not really hearkening back to caveman days either. It wasn't all that long ago that girls were pretty much "old maids" by 18.

Perhaps we should be teaching them about birth control in school instead of cramming naive "abstinence is your only option" Sex Ed down kids' throats. Perhaps that, however, is another debate for another time.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Might_Guy.JPGBret - Haha Jeremy I'm going to try and break your website with a buffer overflow comment. Oh shoot I don't know what else to type...
02/11/2007 @ 10:09:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Perhaps someone missed the sarcasm train as it whooshed by?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert
02/11/2007 @ 10:09:45 PM
 Quote this comment
Won't somebody please tell Jeremy to use an apostrophe?

Get it? I'm a jerk, I apologize.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist
02/11/2007 @ 10:14:46 PM
 Quote this comment
Well I got you were being sarcastic on some level, but people have posed that "solution."
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
02/11/2007 @ 10:24:18 PM
 Quote this comment
Also the gang of street toughs I recently started "hangin" with forbids apostrophes, so you might get me into some trouble here.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2862 Posts
02/11/2007 @ 10:33:11 PM
 Quote this comment
as Jeremy said, it's kind of another topic for another time maybe, but I'll let you know my feelings.

Personally, I'm all for sex ed. I think the schools I've attended have done a decent job talking about all sorts of birth control. But then again, tons of people from my class have had a kid since then and I doubt many of them were "planned" pregnancies. People will always make bad decisions on anything, and I think the idea of impending sex only leads to people making worse decisions.

As far as the abstinence education thing goes, I don't know much about how that looks when carried out. I've heard people talk about that being taught as the only option, without anything else being mentioned, but I have a hard time believing that actaully takes place. Maybe I'm being naive though. What should be taught though, because it is a fact, is that abstinence IS your only option if you want to assure yourself of not becoming pregnant (or getting someone pregnant) or contracting an STD. I think THAT fact is one that students either don't get, don't care about, or haven't had explained to them properly. Maybe they're just not good enough at math to realize that 95% isn't equal to 100%.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children.
02/12/2007 @ 12:04:22 AM
 Quote this comment
I think that kids need to be told the truth. Obviously abstinence is preferred and should be made clear is the only foolproof way to avoid babies and STI's.

Bush's administration pushes "abstinence only programs" very hard. I can't find anything that says definitively that it's the ONLY thing they will fund, but everything points that way.

The problem with these programs isn't even the naivety of them, or the fact that they deprive kids of information they need. The problem is that they outright lie.

One of the more widely used programs teaches kids that: a fetus at 43 days gestation is a "thinking person," that a boy or man can impregnate a woman or girl by touching her genitals, that women who undergo abortion are "more prone to suicide," that 10% of women who undergo abortion become sterile, that 50% of gay male teenagers are HIV-positive, that HIV can be spread through sweat and tears and that condoms fail to prevent sexually transmitted diseases 31% of the time when used during heterosexual intercourse

In reality condoms are 97% effective and most of the remaining 3% is people being morons and not using them properly to begin with.

In other words it's not about the program being ineffective, it's that they are actively counter productive.

Kids get halfway into it, decide they've already made out for a while and there for already traded any std's. They've already touched each others fun zones. The damage is done, they may as well just go for broke now and condoms fail 30% of the time anyway. So they go on with the Chlorophyll.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 02/12/2007 12:06:17 am
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
02/12/2007 @ 12:13:02 AM
 Quote this comment
Furthermore, depending on the state, Sex Educators are not allowed to answer direct questions posed to them by students if it involves discussing anything other then "just don't do that"
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
02/12/2007 @ 08:32:03 AM
 Quote this comment
Chlorophyll, more like borophyll.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
question_mark.gifStrix (Guest)
02/20/2007 @ 05:49:14 PM
 Quote this comment
Here's hoping thousands of Florida teens send nude pics of themselves, faces blacked out if shy, to the judges in question in an act of civil disobedience.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 3 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8968 Posts
02/20/2007 @ 06:05:31 PM
 Quote this comment
Hmm...

The funny thing about that is I wouldn't doubt, knowing now paranoid the country is, that simply by receiving the emails (over which one has no control) is still considered possession of child pronography.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8968 Posts
01/21/2009 @ 03:01:06 PM
 Quote this comment
"In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular practice known as “sexting,” six Pennsylvania high school students are facing child pornography charges after three teenage girls allegedly took nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and shared them with male classmates via their cell phones."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/

Also, who wants to bet that this has been called "sexting" like 3 times by one group of people.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Super Chocolate Bear
01/26/2009 @ 03:18:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Just when you start wondering if there's nothing dumber the government can do with their time.

http://techfragments.com/news/318/Tech/New_Law_Will_Require_Camera_Phones_to_Click.html
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8968 Posts
01/26/2009 @ 03:37:37 PM
 Quote this comment
Ok, seriously though. The ONLY reason these people can come up with why the noise should ever be turned off on a camera is so that child predators can take naked pictures of kids? Really? They think every phone maker got together to decide how to make sneaking a naked pic of your girlfriend easier? Traditional "Libertarian-esq" argument aside, this is a baffling level of stupidity. Churches (Baptisms, weddings, etc), lectures, meetings, etc, would all be an ideal use. Really any situation you wouldn't want the ringer to go off, of which there are many, you might want to take a picture of something. Why take notes when you can snap a picture of the slide/whiteboard with minimal effort?

So, what do they suggest for the video function all phones offer, a continuous high pitched tone? What about all the phones that already have a silent option? My phone uses the camera as an ambient light meter to determine how bright to make the backlight, would that need to click too?

If a 40 year old is in a position to take a pic of a naked 5 year old, the camera making, or not making, noise is almost assuredly irrelevant. (In the sense that the REAL problem is probably the situation itself.)
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 01/26/2009 3:42:37 pm
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.