Joliet, IL teens charged with child pornography (1 Viewer)

[RedmondLonghorn]

Four suburban teenagers have been arrested on felony charges, for an explicit video they posted on Twitter. All four students attend Joliet Central High School, and are between the ages of 14 and 16. A 15-year-old girl and three of her classmates recorded consensual sex acts one week ago, and posted the video on Twitter.

The girl’s mother found out about the video, and reported the Twitter post to police, who seized the original recording.

The four teens were arrested Friday, and charged as juveniles with child pornography

Sounds like they are guilty of some very bad judgement and I understand why the girl's mother was upset, but the bolded probably wasn't what the girl's mom had in mind.

The Joliet police chief's justification for the charge is incredible:

“The child pornography offense that was charged is in place for a reason, because we don’t want to accept that type of behavior as a society,” [Joliet Police Chief Brian] Benton said. “It’s making a strong statement, and I think it’s important to do so, to send a message to others that kids shouldn’t be involved in this type of behavior, and hopefully this will serve as a deterrent.”

Benton said such behavior could seriously affect the teens’ lives “for years to come.”

“It’s an incident you may not recover from,” he said.

Chief Benton does not appear to have a finely tuned irony detector.

The prospect of the legal system ruining these kids lives for consensual behavior in order to "send a message to others that kids shouldn't be involved in this type of behavior" is sickening and completely insane.

News story

Editorial/Blog Post on the Story (pretty good, except for an egregious grammatical error in the first sentence)

 

[eoMMan]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

 

[Godsbrother]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

 

[Jobber]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

Teenagers are dumb. No need to make them all registered sex offenders for life though.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

 

[whiskey7]

Did they tweet it out for the world to see or just to each other and somehow the one mom saw it? Assuming it's the latter, then the CP charge does seem aggressive but (like eoMan says above) how dumb are these people? Old/mature enough to arrange and carry out a moresome and put the video online, then they are old/mature enough to deal with the consequences, IMO.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

What do you think the purpose of the prohibition of child pornograpghy is?

 

[Ilov80s]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

 

[whiskey7]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

Teenagers are dumb. No need to make them all registered sex offenders for life though.

Sex can lead to STD and/or pregnancy. Either or both of those can be "for life" deals. Just sayin...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

 

[Jobber]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

Teenagers are dumb. No need to make them all registered sex offenders for life though.

Sex can lead to STD and/or pregnancy. Either or both of those can be "for life" deals. Just sayin...

Last I looked, an STD wouldn't require you to inform the police of your whereabouts or limit/destroy your chances of a successful career, being part of a neighborhood, etc.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

What do you think the purpose of the prohibition of child pornograpghy is?

To prohibit child pornography. Is it OK for some pedophile to get his rocks off to 2 kids having sex if the 2 kids are cool with it? The answer to that is "no" in all 50 states and the territories. How about if a 35 year old has sex with a 16 year old who is cool with it? Again, "no".

Minors were filmed having sex -- the having sex part isn't why they've been charged. They filmed it. A problem, but perhaps not the end of the world.

And then they published it. And there's the big problem.

We don't carve out "the kids were cool with it" exceptions to child pornography -- possessing a video of 2 kids having sex is a crime whether the kids wanted to do it or not. Publishing that video is a more serious crime whether the kids wanted to do it or not.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

 

[whiskey7]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

Teenagers are dumb. No need to make them all registered sex offenders for life though.

Sex can lead to STD and/or pregnancy. Either or both of those can be "for life" deals. Just sayin...

Last I looked, an STD wouldn't require you to inform the police of your whereabouts or limit/destroy your chances of a successful career, being part of a neighborhood, etc.

You're right. But last I looked, a sex offender charge on one's record cant kill them. An STD might.

I guess I am just trying to say maybe we shouldn't be so quick to brush it off as kids being dumb kids when the reality is they are making pretty serious, adult decisions which could have major ramifications on their life.

 

[Ilov80s]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Publishing is a separate crime. These are all crimes that have multiple years and time on the sex offender list as consequences: taking picture, having picture, sending picture to someone else or asking someone for a picture.

 

[Ilov80s]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

Teenagers are dumb. No need to make them all registered sex offenders for life though.

Sex can lead to STD and/or pregnancy. Either or both of those can be "for life" deals. Just sayin...

Last I looked, an STD wouldn't require you to inform the police of your whereabouts or limit/destroy your chances of a successful career, being part of a neighborhood, etc.

You're right. But last I looked, a sex offender charge on one's record cant kill them. An STD might.I guess I am just trying to say maybe we shouldn't be so quick to brush it off as kids being dumb kids when the reality is they are making pretty serious, adult decisions which could have major ramifications on their life.

So then give them sex counseling or something, not prison time and a huge stigma.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

What do you think the purpose of the prohibition of child pornograpghy is?

To prohibit child pornography. Is it OK for some pedophile to get his rocks off to 2 kids having sex if the 2 kids are cool with it? The answer to that is "no" in all 50 states and the territories. How about if a 35 year old has sex with a 16 year old who is cool with it? Again, "no".

Minors were filmed having sex -- the having sex part isn't why they've been charged. They filmed it. A problem, but perhaps not the end of the world.

And then they published it. And there's the big problem.

We don't carve out "the kids were cool with it" exceptions to child pornography -- possessing a video of 2 kids having sex is a crime whether the kids wanted to do it or not. Publishing that video is a more serious crime whether the kids wanted to do it or not.

The core reason we all agree that child pornography should be illegal is to prevent the exploitation of children.

There are a number of reasons to see what these teenagers did as irresponsible, stupid and even immoral (if you are into that sort of judgement). They probably deserve some consequences for their actions. But using laws that are intended to prevent predators from using children against children, is a perversion of justice.

 

[Jobber]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

Teenagers are dumb. No need to make them all registered sex offenders for life though.

Sex can lead to STD and/or pregnancy. Either or both of those can be "for life" deals. Just sayin...

Last I looked, an STD wouldn't require you to inform the police of your whereabouts or limit/destroy your chances of a successful career, being part of a neighborhood, etc.

You're right. But last I looked, a sex offender charge on one's record cant kill them. An STD might.I guess I am just trying to say maybe we shouldn't be so quick to brush it off as kids being dumb kids when the reality is they are making pretty serious, adult decisions which could have major ramifications on their life.

I agree, to a pointn I think punishment is in order, so long as their records are expunged at age 18.

 

[Ilov80s]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

 

[whiskey7]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

Teenagers are dumb. No need to make them all registered sex offenders for life though.

Sex can lead to STD and/or pregnancy. Either or both of those can be "for life" deals. Just sayin...

Last I looked, an STD wouldn't require you to inform the police of your whereabouts or limit/destroy your chances of a successful career, being part of a neighborhood, etc.

You're right. But last I looked, a sex offender charge on one's record cant kill them. An STD might.I guess I am just trying to say maybe we shouldn't be so quick to brush it off as kids being dumb kids when the reality is they are making pretty serious, adult decisions which could have major ramifications on their life.

So then give them sex counseling or something, not prison time and a huge stigma.

You don't really think they're going to jail for this, do you? Probation is my guess and some sort of SO record.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

 

[Ilov80s]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

Teenagers are dumb. No need to make them all registered sex offenders for life though.

Sex can lead to STD and/or pregnancy. Either or both of those can be "for life" deals. Just sayin...

Last I looked, an STD wouldn't require you to inform the police of your whereabouts or limit/destroy your chances of a successful career, being part of a neighborhood, etc.

You're right. But last I looked, a sex offender charge on one's record cant kill them. An STD might.I guess I am just trying to say maybe we shouldn't be so quick to brush it off as kids being dumb kids when the reality is they are making pretty serious, adult decisions which could have major ramifications on their life.

So then give them sex counseling or something, not prison time and a huge stigma.

You don't really think they're going to jail for this, do you? Probation is my guess and some sort of SO record.

I am pretty sure it carries a minimum 5 year sentence.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

Is this a really bad straw man or are you really that stupid?

 

[Limp Ditka]

Note to self: the most important phrase I'll ever teach my child will be 'Get that ####### camera away from me'

 

[Ilov80s]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone. What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

Is this a really bad straw man or are you really that stupid?

Friend, I can be pretty dense, I admit.

But maybe I don't get the whole picture. So let me see if I have this right - someone, child or adult, can make and send an all-child sex video out via twitter. This is what the argument is for?

Or am I missing something?

 

[whiskey7]

I agree that CP is an extreme charge but how dumb must you be to post the video on Twitter.

Teenagers are dumb. No need to make them all registered sex offenders for life though.

Sex can lead to STD and/or pregnancy. Either or both of those can be "for life" deals. Just sayin...

Last I looked, an STD wouldn't require you to inform the police of your whereabouts or limit/destroy your chances of a successful career, being part of a neighborhood, etc.

You're right. But last I looked, a sex offender charge on one's record cant kill them. An STD might.I guess I am just trying to say maybe we shouldn't be so quick to brush it off as kids being dumb kids when the reality is they are making pretty serious, adult decisions which could have major ramifications on their life.

So then give them sex counseling or something, not prison time and a huge stigma.

You don't really think they're going to jail for this, do you? Probation is my guess and some sort of SO record.

I am pretty sure it carries a minimum 5 year sentence.

From the article linked in the OP...

"Possible punishments range from probation to being locked up in juvenile detention until the age of 21.

On April 13, a Will County judge will hold a hearing to determine if the teens should stay in juvenile detention, or be released."

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone.

What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone.What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

And what's the distinction being made here, that it's self-published, is that why?

- ETA - I can see the point about having the image on the phone, maybe, if consensual. I'm talking about the twitter aspect.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

Is this a really bad straw man or are you really that stupid?

Friend, I can be pretty dense, I admit.

But maybe I don't get the whole picture. So let me see if I have this right - someone, child or adult, can make and send an all-child sex video out via twitter. This is what the argument is for?

Or am I missing something?

You appear to be missing a lot of somethings.

 

[Ilov80s]

I am arguing that there is a difference between a 30 year old man possessing and distributing child porn and a 15 year old possessing it. The laws should reflect what seem like obvious differences.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

Is this a really bad straw man or are you really that stupid?

Friend, I can be pretty dense, I admit.

But maybe I don't get the whole picture. So let me see if I have this right - someone, child or adult, can make and send an all-child sex video out via twitter. This is what the argument is for?

Or am I missing something?

You appear to be missing a lot of somethings.

How many people receiving this via twitter are we talking about? A hundred? Just those four?

 

[Ilov80s]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone.What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

And what's the distinction being made here, that it's self-published, is that why?

- ETA - I can see the point about having the image on the phone, maybe, if consensual. I'm talking about the twitter aspect.

Published? Ok you are messing with me now.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

"I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them."

"We had to destroy that village in order to save it from Communism."

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

I am arguing that there is a difference between a 30 year old man possessing and distributing child porn and a 15 year old possessing it. The laws should reflect what seem like obvious differences.

I really wouldn't think this would be difficult to grasp.

 

[ghostguy123]

If you only knew how many kids do this. Wow, just wow. I have plenty to say on this subject just based on my job. Will add more when i get a chance.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

What do you think the purpose of the prohibition of child pornograpghy is?

To prohibit child pornography. Is it OK for some pedophile to get his rocks off to 2 kids having sex if the 2 kids are cool with it? The answer to that is "no" in all 50 states and the territories. How about if a 35 year old has sex with a 16 year old who is cool with it? Again, "no".

Minors were filmed having sex -- the having sex part isn't why they've been charged. They filmed it. A problem, but perhaps not the end of the world.

And then they published it. And there's the big problem.

We don't carve out "the kids were cool with it" exceptions to child pornography -- possessing a video of 2 kids having sex is a crime whether the kids wanted to do it or not. Publishing that video is a more serious crime whether the kids wanted to do it or not.

The core reason we all agree that child pornography should be illegal is to prevent the exploitation of children.

There are a number of reasons to see what these teenagers did as irresponsible, stupid and even immoral (if you are into that sort of judgement). They probably deserve some consequences for their actions. But using laws that are intended to prevent predators from using children against children, is a perversion of justice.

So some perv who has a video of 2 16-year-old kids having sex can use the defense of "the kids wanted to have sex and filmed it themselves", so they weren't being "exploited"!? What you're advocating defies common sense. Who gives a #### if the kids wanted to do it or not? It's a crime. A lawyer in the next county over is facing charges for sexually exploiting minors because they let him watch them having sex while he and his wife would get their rocks off to it (allegedly). Reportedly the kids agreed to it all. What you're advocating would make that lawyer and his wife innocent because they literally weren't "exploiting the children" since the kids were good with it.

What these kids did -- by possession explicit images of other minors AND by publishing those explicit images -- is a straight-up felony. It doesn't matter that their idiots. Most of the people incarcerated for felonies are idiots.

 

[zed2283]

It's illegal and these kids should be charged. Serving jail time, etc. is probably a different matter.

So people here are saying it's ok for a 16-year old to take a naked pic of herself? Shouldn't be a crime, right? Then she texts that pic to her 30-year old teacher and guess who's going to jail.

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone.What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

If a kid has an explicit photo of another kid on his phone -- that's possession of child pornography. There isn't even any grey area there. You seem to think that consent somehow makes it OK. It doesn't. In the alternative, you seem to think that since the possessor is also a minor it somehow makes it OK. It doesn't.

 

[Ilov80s]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone.What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

If a kid has an explicit photo of another kid on his phone -- that's possession of child pornography. There isn't even any grey area there. You seem to think that consent somehow makes it OK. It doesn't. In the alternative, you seem to think that since the possessor is also a minor it somehow makes it OK. It doesn't.

I said a picture of themself. A teen can't posses or take a naked picture of themself.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

So some perv who has a video of 2 16-year-old kids having sex can use the defense of "the kids wanted to have sex and filmed it themselves", so they weren't being "exploited"!?

I never suggested such a thing. The fact you are trying to make that leap confuses me.

A lawyer in the next county over is facing charges for sexually exploiting minors because they let him watch them having sex while he and his wife would get their rocks off to it (allegedly). Reportedly the kids agreed to it all.

There are some pretty big dissimilarities in the two situations, aren't there?

What you're advocating would make that lawyer and his wife innocent because they literally weren't "exploiting the children" since the kids were good with it.

How you got there from what I said is puzzling.

 

[Henry Ford]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

What do you think the purpose of the prohibition of child pornograpghy is?

To prevent the proliferation of recorded images of underage sex acts?

 

[mquinnjr]

The double edged sword of technology. If you're dumb enough to post a video like that online, you need to be made an example of.

What if we just dismiss as "kids being kids"? Are we really trying to set the precedent that it's OK to post kiddie porn on the internet, because it's "kids being kids"?

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

But how do you define publishing child pornography other than, you know, publishing child pornography? I mean, isn't that EXACTLY what they did? I get that it may feel like an odd result, but they literally published a video of children engaged in explicit sex on the Internet.

What do you think the purpose of the prohibition of child pornograpghy is?

To prevent the proliferation of recorded images of underage sex acts?

That is certainly one of its purposes. What is the core moral, ethical and public policy reason for that being important though?

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

What if we just dismiss as "kids being kids"? Are we really trying to set the precedent that it's OK to post kiddie porn on the internet, because it's "kids being kids"?

Why do so many people assume that if somebody says X is wrong that the opposite of X (-X, if you are into that whole math thing) must be right?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone.What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

And what's the distinction being made here, that it's self-published, is that why?

- ETA - I can see the point about having the image on the phone, maybe, if consensual. I'm talking about the twitter aspect.

Published? Ok you are messing with me now.

Hypothetically - girl takes explicit pic of herself and twitters it out to 1000 followers.

CP or not?

 

[Tennessee_ATO]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone.What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

If a kid has an explicit photo of another kid on his phone -- that's possession of child pornography. There isn't even any grey area there. You seem to think that consent somehow makes it OK. It doesn't. In the alternative, you seem to think that since the possessor is also a minor it somehow makes it OK. It doesn't.

I said a picture of themself. A teen can't posses or take a naked picture of themself.

First of all, the story pretty clearly involves more than 1 kid having sex, so your hypothetical isn't applicable to the situation at hand.

As for the whole "selfie" issue, it's something that law enforcement has been trying to wrestle with. I don't think any minor has actually been charged for simply having a nude selfie on his/her phone. The problem comes from the sharing of said nude photo or posting said nude photo to Twitter, etc. If you are actually aware of a kid being charged with possession of child pornography simply by virtue of having that photo and not sharing it with anyone else, I'm all ears. I don't think you'll find that anywhere though.

EDIT: Made it clear that I was referring to a selfie.

 

[whiskey7]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone.What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

If a kid has an explicit photo of another kid on his phone -- that's possession of child pornography. There isn't even any grey area there. You seem to think that consent somehow makes it OK. It doesn't. In the alternative, you seem to think that since the possessor is also a minor it somehow makes it OK. It doesn't.

I said a picture of themself. A teen can't posses or take a naked picture of themself.

I realize its always dangerous to assume, but (in a case of someone having a nekkid pic of themself on their phone) isn't intent to distribute a pretty safe assumption? I mean...everyone knows what they look like without clothes. If you take a pic of yourself with no clothes, you're either some kind of narcissist or you're planning to share that pic at some point. And no, I am not saying you can really charge someone based on assumed intent, but lets not act like having a naked pic of yourself on your own phone is all that innocent.

 

[Ilov80s]

I took naked pictures of a high school girlfriend. I'm glad nobody found them and charged me with child porn. The thought never crossed my mind that it was child porn. I thought that was for old guys. It's even crazier that it is child porn if a 16 year old takes a nude picture of themself.

I think it's the publishing part that's at issue here.

Under these laws it is conceivable that a minor could be charged with possession of child pornography for having pictures on a phone or something, even if the pics were of his/her self.

What are we talking about here? The publishing via twitter.

Are we actually advocating this be allowed?

If you were 16 and took a naked picture of yourself, you have committed two crimes. If someone were to find it, you could be charged with taking and possessing child porn.

Wait - we're talking about someone sending an all-child group sex video out over twitter.

Just so we're clear - no objections as far as legality as you see?

I am talking about if you take the picture and just have it on your phone and never send it to anyone.What the kids did should be punished. I don't think they should be labeled sex offenders.

And what's the distinction being made here, that it's self-published, is that why?

- ETA - I can see the point about having the image on the phone, maybe, if consensual. I'm talking about the twitter aspect.

Published? Ok you are messing with me now.

Hypothetically - girl takes explicit pic of herself and twitters it out to 1000 followers.

CP or not?

Yes, distribution. The argument I am making is that the specific charges and sentencing should have more nuance. I know judges have flexibility in sentencing, but some have significant mandatory sentences. I'm not sure I agree with them all.