Child porn in the age of teenage 'sexting'
An international child pornography ring that traded more than 400,000 illegal images and videos - some depicting pre-pubescent children in sexual and sadistic acts - is the kind of heinous behavior that makes you glad there are strict laws against such things. Seven US men were convicted of the crime on Wednesday. Then there are …
Since when did facts or logic or even truth ever factor into anything resembling the law??
That in light of the fact that the possession of an image of a naked or sexualised minor is a very serious criminal offence, it is all too easy for these kids to send their pictures, accidentally or deliberately, to someone who then would get in real trouble for having them. Many parents will have their kids' mobiles in their own name, and it is by no means a long stretch to see a parent indicted for illegal images on their child's phone or email.
Or these kids could quite easily send the photos to a hated teacher or other adult's phone or email account and then call the cops on them. Bam - instant career and life destroyed, guilty or not. If we are going to rigidly enforce laws banning the possession of these kinds of images, then it has to apply equally to all, or to none. Otherwise every adult is constantly at risk of false accusation, for no better reason than some vindictive kids decide they hate someone.
So both these cases are equally valid, in light of the law they are enforcing and the paranoid witch-hunt mentality that accompanies it.
"If the point of tough child pornography laws is to protect vulnerable kids"....
"Prosecutors who don't wake up to this new reality risk branding victims as predators"..
should read....
Prosecutors who don't wake up to this new reality risk branding *temselves* as predators...
because, after all a victim is one who gets hurt involuntarily. A predator would be someone who hurts people voluntarily. Victim=girls, predator=prosecutor.
The girls do at least own their own the rights to their own bodies right? And a such permission to publish them? I know that is not true, but it is sad that it isn't.
I can already hear the real pedos passing off their records to prospective future employers as "Oh that, it was just me being stupid with a camera-phone as a kid. Do I get the school janitor position?"
that story bout the 17 Georgian lad who got ten years for receiving the labial affections (what is the current Reg euphamism?) of a 15 year old girl at a party.
Hell, 12 year old girls were once the centre of my world- when I was 12. Just as I now love women in their late twenties like me (not as lardy as the new crop of twenty-somethings, just my preference though and nothing for rounded lasses to worry about as long as they are happy). School kids had their own social mechanisms (social mechanisms that matured just as the kids did), generally a two-year age gap in relationships was scoffed at but accepted, a larger gap (largely unheard of) would result in longer-term piss-taking etc
These girls taking snaps of themselves... some will be happy, some will suffer the resulting humilation amongst their peers and adjust their future behaviour accordingly- its called learning. If we are to be sacred about children, it has to be for the sake of allowing them to make mistakes amongst their peers without it being invaded by a peado or prosocuter.
Pennsylvania? That's in America huh? Why are people even remotely surprised when what is basically the most conservative country on Earth brings stupid charges like those against the teens in this story. Honestly, America today makes Iran look positively liberal in some ways.
If a kid refuses to leave it's room, can it be charged with kidnapping?!
I don't want to take away from the horror of child porn but it appears to be a much smaller problem than the sexualisation of children generally. If the 20% "sexting" is the indicator being used and we assume that children being involved with sex is a bad thing (as the paedophilia/child porn laws and the prosecutions indicate) then something much bigger is going wrong somewhere.
A society which celebrates, promotes, and pushes sexual activity so explicitly, publicly, frequently and so forcefully even at children (I'm looking at you, advertisers, MTV et al.) can't really expect the switch to be set to "off" until a child hits the arbitrary age of 18. You can forget peer pressure from friends when the whole culture - tv (especially soaps), films, music, billboards and fashion are all telling them sex is the ultimate experience and everyone is doing it.
If adults don't conduct themselves with modesty, what makes anyone think kids will?
Until people start evaluating what goes on in society and then do something about the things which are inappropriate, nothing will change. You don't need Daily Mail "think of the children" legislation or organised boycotts. Just don't consume from inappropriate advertisers, media channels or retailers and let them know why.
The prosecutions are ridiculous - its all just PR for the business that is government, so don't consume what they have to offer. Write and tell them you are offended at their crass attempts at advertising/manipulation and won't be voting for them in future.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favour of sex - just not in front of the children!
So, if a 14yr old boy has a quick "date with Mrs Palm", then can he be charged with having sexual relations with a minor? Good thing teenage boys don't masturbate then, isn't it...
This is getting silly, like the boy who was convicted of child rape for sleeping with his 14yo girlfriend... when he was 15. Have these people nothng better to do than to ruin children's lives?
I take it you mean Genarlow Wilson, who was banged up for ten years for getting a blow job from a fifteen year old (he was 17), as well as being put on the sex offenders register?
The sorry tale of Georgia vs Wilson here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson_v._State_of_Georgia
I don't really _usually_ pay much attention to all the alarm of "sex in society". And I think this particular case is daft.
However, I recently saw a series of ads, on big outdoor billboards, for racy underwear. The model was about 13-14, tops and looking pretty slutty, even for that kind of ads. It just left a bad taste in my mouth, even though I generally think morality is overrated.
Without panicking about depravity in general, why is it that common sense can't be applied to give that clothing company a well-deserved rap on its fingers? Rather than going after what is a natural, if slightly premature (sigh, why didn't that happen to me when I was 15?) naughty message between two consenting teens???
And additionally, at how much risk of real abuse will those poor kids be in juvenile reform house or whatever slimy place they are liable to end up?
Smart folks would vote those idiotic D.A.s and police bosses out of office first chance they get. Not holding my breath though.
I understand what you're saying, and I agree with most of it. I can certainly see your point. However, as much I would love all laws to be black and white, it's not that simple. The law needs to take things in the proper context. Black and white laws, the kind you mention, would brand all parents as sex offenders. Most parents have nude photos of their children, they disrobe and "fondle" their children (bathing), they force multiple children to be nude together (bathing, changing, etc), and they even sleep in the same bed as their children. Then there are those parents who record the birth of their children, which is blatant pornography of the mother and the children, and which probably counts as "extreme pornography" in the UK (especially if the mother requires an episiotomy). And what of the schools that require students to disrobe together for physical education, which (in many US schools, at least) includes completely disrobing to change into swimwear for swimming classes?
True child pornography, the kind that does actually prey on and victimize children, is a pathetic and vile activity, and if it can be proven (not beyond a reasonable doubt, but actually proven 100%) that a person partook in it, I would volunteer to execute them myself. But to brand teenagers as sex offenders merely for photographing themselves is definitely crossing the line. If you think about it, it's very similar to the UK banning "hacking" tools -- banning something simply because it *MIGHT* be used illegally does nobody any good; it only punishes the innocent.
In my opinion BOTH of those stories highlight the fundamental flaw in anti child porn laws. It's just a bit more glaring in the second one. Neither the seven men*, nor the six teens were actually abusing any children. But in the minds of many people, possessing child pornography is synonymous with abusing children. This cognitive distortion is reflected in the laws which punish child pornography as severely as, sometimes more severely than, actual child abuse.
Maybe at one time it as true (to some extent). Before the Internet if you had child porn you probably either molested a kid yourself or paid for it, which directly supports more child abuse. Nowadays most people in possession of child porn are NOT supporting child abuse. They either got it for free (remember all the talk about file sharing in the first story?) or, with ever increasing regularity they are children who willingly and happily made it themselves.
If I were king (a real king that is, not like your pretend monarch) I'd abolish laws against possession, distribution and making** of child porn. They're a huge waste of time, and all too often shockingly unjust. Buying it, or selling it would remain illegal, though.
To head off a couple flames before they come:
*Yes I know some of the pics were (allegedly) pretty nasty, doing it and looking at it still aren't the same.
**That is, where no other crime occurs, like with the teens making their own.
I suppose there are already exemptions for images that aren't counted as pornography (medical textbooks for example - for now at least...) but it's really not realistic for the law to distinguish between "good child pornography" and "bad child pornography" - things would be even more absurd than now (the court arguments would be akin to the Chris Morris "Good AIDS / Bad AIDS routine) and there would probably be the result that child abusers would make sure all their photographs looked as if they were taken by the subject/timer.
The fact that it is *possible* for a teenage girl to be considered a sexual offender for taking a pornographic image of herself is sort of a proof-by-contradiction that the law has it wrong.
I don't know what the solution is, but it has to involve making a big distinction between cases of actual child abuse and normal teenage silliness. Going after the genuine child abusers with 20+ year sentences should surely still be possible, it just requires much more emphasis on *acts* of abuse rather than evidence of abuse.
Note that I'm certainly not suggesting the distribution of child pornography should be legal - it's still a massive and unacceptable invasion of privacy for the subject (who should be the only person able to decide who gets to see it and who doesn't - I expect most would prefer to have it destroyed), and should be treated as such in law.
prosecuted for opening a MMS (text message with media) that would have had no idea of the contents of prior to opening it ??
Someone should suggest those girls send a copy of said photographs to the prosecutor and judge.
And reading on another site: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20090114-teens-send-nude-pics-to-one-other-face-kiddie-porn-charges.html
the photographs were discovered by a teacher who confiscated a phone and promptly started rooting through it invading her privacy without any right to do so at all? Surely he should face a charge of some kind for that, one for viewing the "porn" and then get the case thrown out as the images were the result of an 'illegal search'.. this is all assuming there is Justice in law, I can dream right?)
Its an insane case which if it goes to trial will just make America look even more retarded and insane than it does at times already (times being constantly ofc). What will be criminal is essentially destroying these kids lives for an indiscretion and a mistake they should learn from but not be destroyed by.
Icon because its what the prosecutor should be picking up on his way out from being fired.
So how is this any different to the old way of doing things, the innocent "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"? I mean sure, go after the 40 year old bloke harvesting images and all, that's just fine (as the article mentions) but if both parties are that young, the age difference is negligible and the source of the messages sent them on purpose, what's the problem?
Paris, because if monitors worked both ways, she'd have seen almost as many as have seen her...
At least the individuals involved in this case were under the age of consent, so the images were of a minor. We have much to look forward to in the UK when a 17 year old is charged in a similar manner for sending pictures or his/her self to their partner, maybe even engaged in a legal act. Under 18, they're a minor, over 16, above the age of consent, extreme porn - no pics of under 18s. Hey presto, the UK have a law even more screwed up than even the US managed.
I kind of like the scarlet letter idea though, but not for sex offenders. Perhaps we could require all MPs, MEPs, Assembly Members, in fact anyone in charge of creating legislation, to wear a big red letter, so we know who to throw the rotted vegetables at. Perhaps they'd then think about what they're doing, instead of just turning up to duck their head in the trough.
"what is the current Reg euphamism?"
Maybe "receiving a round of applause"?
Seriously, prosecuting these kids achieves nothing and serves no useful purpose, except to waste taxpayers money and ruin the lives of the teenagers involved.
Please, let sanity prevail.
Of course you have to be careful. I could picture the sicko's storing their stuff on their victems mobiles and claiming its theirs.
The poster above is right to comment about teh sexualisation of younger people. the media calling it Getting older younger. There is something seriously wrong about seeing a 8 year old girl in slutty clothes.
O well, come the revolution we can line up the fashion designers and marketers with the lawyers.
The only thing new about teenagers flashing each other is that they're using cellphones for their perceived privacy instead of the school stationary cupboard for its actual privacy.
When I was at school in the early 90s I remember three couples being caught and punished for hiding away together. A fourth got seen by me personally and I turned and walked away.
the lawyers sitting in their offices...
"We're not getting many child abuse cases in now are we....I know lets take the law to its limits to make more money, doesn't metter who we hurt in the process as long as we get our money for new cars/pols/houses/girlfriends*"
It makes me sick the the world has become so litigious, I am all for there being laws that protect people but when they are used so irresponsibly I think we need to step back and take stock of where we really want all this to head. My father-in-law was nearly branded a Peado solely for the fact he had taken photos of his granddaughter whilst she bathed as many of us have done and had done to us as children. I know there are photos of me in the bath as a child that my parents have, does that now class them as deviants??? I hope not!!!
*delete as appropriate
Seriously, these kids are 15 - 17yrs old and they want to brand them peados.WHY??? At the end of the day, if they had not had phones the girls might have shown them everything in some bus stop or woodland area...where is the difference?
I'm tired of this sue everything that moves because we can twist the law.
/soap box
What's to stop a girl sending a text/email pic of herself to somebody who's annoyed her, then calling the police?
Reason #34341 for not being a teacher methinx
Twenty years for abusing children might be reasonable, but twenty years for the victimless crime of distributing images? That's insane. Two months suspended would be more appropriate.
Meanwhile, murderers only a get a few years.
Moron legislators. Moron voters.
Just something I've noticed here, both the author and the comments have jumped to a conclusion that everyone consented. If these were all consenting teens, how come the authorities found out? Who blew the whistle?
Or - perhaps - there's something amiss here. Perhaps the girls are being vindictive, as a previous comment states the laws could be used to make someone a sex offender by sending them an image of yourself, all you need is the phone number. Or the boys could be pressuring/bullying the girls into taking the pictures.
*If* both parties consented, both should recieve a slap on the wrist and sent on their way. But if something darker is going on here, then certainly one of them deserves to be brought to justice.
Are the powers that be now so scared of appearing soft, that they are prepared to sqander huge resourses pursuing what is clearly a non crime.
After all how many real distibuters of child porn went about their business whilst the police and lawers wasted their time with this sort of trivial nonsense?
A culture of sending proof of one's sexual maturity and availability at an aged deemed below the socially acceptable limit?
Some of those states hold the threshold as no sex until you are 21 do they not?
It is a very sad situation. But I have no sympathy. At 14, people who don't know what they are doing should be under constant supervision. The morons.
"Or these kids could quite easily send the photos to a hated teacher or other adult's phone or email account and then call the cops on them. Bam - instant career and life destroyed"
could equally count if you sent pics of your kids in the bath to your favourite cyclopean PM
wonder how the cnut would manage to wriggle out of that one
especially if you encrypted them & didn't let him have the key?
As a genealogist I've come across marriages involving 30yr olds and 15yr olds that occur not that far back in the past, the latest being around 1900. Society changes, which is why we now have a higher age of consent. But having a higher AoC doesn't change actual human nature. There isn't a switch that tells the human body at age 18 (or whatever), OK now go procreate and enjoy yourself. It's human nature to experiment and try things out and no law can stop that from happening. To think so is more abusive and harmful than the actual act itself.
While I abhor depraved acts of real pedos, I also think criminalising experimenting teens is just plain stupid. However, this is coming from one of the least literate nations of the west. The US is sliding backwards into 17th century conservatism + litigation culture- what a f*ck up.
I am glad that I do not, and will not ever have to live or visit there. Staying in the UK where people are at least somewhat more reasonable than those morons.
The authors makes the same kind of ignorant over-simplification as the court system in grouping actions together where they might not need to be.
As far as the author is concerned the fact that a 14 year old voluntarily sends a sexual image of themselves to a 16 year old should lead to no crime being commited. However if that 16 year old forwards it to his 18 year old friend who does not delete them image then that 18 year old friend deserves to be branded as a sex offender and put in prison for 20 years to life.
The author may contest that the above is not his true position, but it is exactly the view he expressed in his article (while also branding the 18 year old in this example as a 'monster'). Having an faked image, having an real image, taking an image of someone who permits, having an image of someone being abused and actually abusing someone should not be banded together as the same 'monsterous' offence, in the same way the example of the children in the article shouldn't be either.
As long as people choose to ignore the fact that sex offending, including that involving children is not simply a result of people being born evil they will get a justice system that achieves no justice.
A picture should be merely evidence that a crime has been committed - not a crime in itself!
Does having an image of the planes flying into the Twin Towers make you guilty of terrorism?
I'm sure many sicko's get their kicks from violent images in news footage - but that doesn't make them murderers.
Wait for more crimes where possession of a real (or even fantasy) depiction of it is penalised. Just give it another term of Nu Labour.
"You watched a speeding clip on YouTube - that's your license Sonny Jim."
Paris - because (sadly) watching an mpeg of her being shagged isn't the same as shagging her.
We have laws that make it illegal to sell a pointy object to anyone under 18.. so I take it kids these days don't dabble in electronics anymore?
@Xander
"Just something I've noticed here, both the author and the comments have jumped to a conclusion that everyone consented. If these were all consenting teens, how come the authorities found out? Who blew the whistle?"
According to the article I posted a link to previously, it was a teacher who confiscated a phone off one of the children and I suspect illegally searched through it, after all what right would a teacher have for going into a childs phone to look at the photographs on it, can we say "Expectation of privacy"
This certainly would appear to be a complete waste of time and money for what should be simply a misjudgement on the girls part. Did Psycho Girl get prosecuted or any others that have previously sent their pics/video over the internets (thats the only one I can think of top of my head), smack them on the wrist and move on, nothing more should be needed, just the embarrasment should be enough of a lesson.
Well obviously they are but with all this pushing for contraceptive inplants for 13yr olds and free pills for preteens aren't they incouraging and condoning this?
(Still, I'd prefer that approach to the US pretend it doesn't happen and push abstinance and ignorance approach!)
@ "Yet another proof of US stupidity"
...and to all the people "blaming" the US... it happens in the UK too you know, we ain't exempt. I know for a fact that kids of 15 have been charged because they had sex with their underaged partners.
Genarlow Wilson is black. Hardly surprising, is it, that the authorities in Georgia wanted to make an example of him? I expect they had the tree, the noose and the horse waiting...
"Staying in the UK where people are at least somewhat more reasonable than those morons"...
Sadly we have morons here too. I know a young man, somewhat naive and young for his age, who is in prison for exactly this sort of behaviour involving a 14-year-old. Sometimes chronological age is not the best guide to culpability on the one hand, or to sexual and emotional development on the other... But of course there are *guidelines* for judges, and some judges will slavishly follow them rather than waste time applying mature judgment to the matter.
The real problem is not the law, but the utter moron, hugely paid as a judge, who decided to hijack it and make it a tool of teen abuse, by interpreting very literally the text, apparently unworried there was no victim whatsoever.
Apprently, this person is so hugely deranged with the concept of sex, that he used it as a repression towards the teens.
In a normal country, the ruling would be appealed, and the judge would be disciplined or kicked out.
In this case, apparently nothing happened, which means a lot of the mindset of the rest of the authorities. Mad.
I can't believe that nobody noticed the name of the school. Greensburg-SALEM? Now who can name another example of mass hysteria leading to ridiculous convictions.... Anyone?
I'll give you a hint... Burnt at the stake!
Hmm.. I don;t think the girls are being arrested for taking the pictures. That isn't illegal (as far as I can tell). Once they send them to another person they are then guilty of sending pictures of underage kids. The fact that it is a picture of themselves is moot. Once someone else gets them they might send them on... and then what?
If you allow an underage person to take a picture of themselves *and* be allowed to send it to another, then how do you prevent grooming? A paedophile could groom an underage person to send them 'durty' pictures.
You had me laughing so hard no people at the office think I am bipolar. This is the kind of comment I would make. Cheers !
At some point in the process I would have thought someone with a sense of proportion would have been in a position to put the brakes on. The law works best when a bit of common sense is applied - something sadly lacking these days. Could this be a At some point in the process I would have thought someone with a sense of proportion would have been in a position to put the brakes on. The law works best when a bit of common sense is applied - something sadly lacking these days. Could this be an example of a flaw in the American insistence on electing everyone short of the office cleaner? A pending election gives those in law enforcement a strong incentive to rack up the numbers, whatever the lack of natural justice or collateral damage.
And I do find it odd that the author of this piece goes out of his way to label teenagers who photograph themselves nude as doing so "misguidedly". While posting the images to others may indeed be naive, taking them surely is merely the modern equivalent of having a look at your own bits in the mirror - which I think has been a normal part of teenage development since the mirror was new-tech, even in the rather puritanical US.
What if it isn't vindictive? Schoolgirl wants to seem "grown up", passing through "that stage" and mms's a pic of herself to a teacher.
Teacher didn't ask. Doesn't know what it is. Now is a paedophile and a schoolteacher.
Lucky to live another year.
'"can we say "Expectation of privacy"[?]'
In a word -- no. Given the way we treat under-18s who take nudey snaps of themselves, what leads you to believe that under-18s in America would have the privilege of what we laughingly call a 'right to privacy'?
Besides which, American primary and secondary schools operate in a special legal situation which severely curtails even the few scanty rights American minors are considered to possess. There's precedent that kids in school don't have a right to privacy in their possessions, so I'm sure it was perfectly legal for Ms. Longnose to go ferreting through her student's phone.
Those teens are contributing to the problem of children being exploited. They know the law the same as any one else and they are responsible for their actions. Why shouldn't they be punished?
Yeah. Sadly that post hadn't been moderated when I submitted mine. Principle still stands though.
Does raise the question of the teacher though. He knew there was child porn on the phone, so he roots through it like a pig for truffles. I wonder if he went on to "confiscate" the phone... ahem.
"...In my opinion BOTH of those stories highlight the fundamental flaw in anti child porn laws. It's just a bit more glaring in the second one. Neither the seven men*, nor the six teens were actually abusing any children. But in the minds of many people, possessing child pornography is synonymous with abusing children. This cognitive distortion is reflected in the laws which punish child pornography as severely as, sometimes more severely than, actual child abuse..."
DOES NOT COMPUTE! Seriously, you are not allowed to say such things. How dare you point out the bleedin' obvious! Especially after Governments, Advocates and LEA's have invested so much time and effort in trying to convince everyone (especially the gutter press) that possession = abusing. Repeat it often enough and it WILL become fact. THERE WILL BE NO ARGUMENT!
Miss a turn and Go To Jail!
Remember when you were 15 and tried to get off with your classmate? The law says you're a pedophile then.
Want to see a nude baby photograph of myself showing an involuntary erection?, I guarantee it involved no child abuse, and which as an adult, I give you my permission to view, and do with as you please? Then the law says you're a pedophile.
If you're 15 and want to see your genitals in detail, and use your mobile phone, then the law considers you a pedophile.
If you're 18, and dress "down" so that you look like a 15-year-old, then anyone viewing them will be considered a pedophile.
Get a sexual thrill out of white underwear? If it child is wearing them in a clothes catalgue, them the law considers you a pedophile.
Thank goodness it's still legal to smoke in the presence of children and potentially give them secondary cancer, and teachers can still get speeding tickets (but not be nudists), and there is no alcoholics register of offenders.
"...In my opinion BOTH of those stories highlight the fundamental flaw in anti child porn laws. It's just a bit more glaring in the second one. Neither the seven men*, nor the six teens were actually abusing any children. But in the minds of many people, possessing child pornography is synonymous with abusing children. This cognitive distortion is reflected in the laws which punish child pornography as severely as, sometimes more severely than, actual child abuse..."
That's not a flaw, of course they were abusing children, by allowing lewd images of them to circulate the internet. You're trying to make it sound like a victimless crime, like file sharing - if I download a movie I wasn't going to watch anyway, that's not wrong because it doesn't harm anyone...
The victim is the kid whose photos you propagate on the internet.
Imagine if mine was the coat with nude photos of your underage daughter. Flawed? I think not.
It's happened. Todd Bertrang and his partner were charged with making indecent images of minors when police found that the kids were unclothed in some of the family photos. They were also charged with conspiracy to commit female genital mutilation on a minor (an undercover FBI agent posing as an Egyptian businessman had been offering Todd increasingly large sums to do this procedure on his "daughter" - Todd had refused repeatedly, but eventually said he'd "think about it").
Sign up, sign up for The Register's weekly mobile & wireless newsletter - click here
