Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Educational Value of Getting Arrested on Child Porn Charges
Half a dozen teenagers in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, face child pornography charges, three for taking nude or semi-nude photos of themselves and sending them to boys by cell phone, three for receiving them. The arrests follow similar cases involving a 16-year-old Florida girl and her 17-year-old boyfriend, whose child pornography convictions were upheld by a state appeals court in 2007, and a 15-year-old Ohio girl who was arrested last fall. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article about the Pennsylvania case mentions a 13-year-old boy in Texas who "was arrested on child pornography charges in October after he received a nude photo of a student on his cell phone." So I guess we have a trend.
Over at The Freedom Files, R.S. Davis worries that exhibitionist girls and horny boys across the country could end up on sex offender lists as a result of such adolescent indiscretions. He cites a recent survey in which 20 percent of 13-to-19-year-olds said they had transmitted or posted nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves. Teenagers in cases like these would not necessarily have to register as sex offenders. According to the A.P. report about the Ohio case, "an adult convicted of the child pornography charge would have to register as a sexual offender, but a judge would have flexibility on the matter with a convicted juvenile." And I'm not sure how representative the survey (PDF) mentioned by Davis is. A joint project of CosmoGirl.com and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, it was conducted by TRU ("a global leader in research on teens and 20-somethings") with respondents who were "selected from among those who have volunteered to participate in TRU's online surveys." According to TRU, they "do not constitute a probability sample."
Still, treating teenagers who have violated no one's rights like criminals who sexually exploit children is undeniably absurd, especially since the ostensible aim is to help these poor, misguided youths:
[Greensburg police Sgt. Rob] Jones said many students don't realize that by sending the photos to others, even classmates, they eventually can end up on the Internet and in the hands of pedophiles.
[Lisa] Rullo [former principal at the defendants' high school, now the school district's director of student services] said district officials regularly review the policy on the use of cell phones and other electronic devices with students.
"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.
Rullo said her experience shows that many students don't realize the consequences, even if their parents do.
"It's a shock to [parents]," she said. "The students seem desensitized."
Getting arrested and prosecuted, in other words, is like an educational field trip, intended to bring home the dangers of being an electronic exhibitionist. More likely, it will bring home the stupidity that can result from hysteria about online predators.
Radley Balko covered the Florida "child porn" case in 2006. Last year I tried to put the risk of online molestation in perspective. Yesterday Katherine Mangu-Ward noted a new report that confirms the danger has been greatly exaggerated.
|1.14.09 @ 11:42AM|#
He cites a recent survey in which 20 percent of
13-to-19-year-olds said they had transmitted or posted nude or
semi-nude pictures of themselves.
I would need to see these photos, in order to judge whether they
are actually "pornographic".
Reinmoose|1.14.09 @ 11:44AM|#
They're not old enough to consent to the picture they took of
themselves.
I'm guessing the next news story will be the arresting of 2 5-year
old boys who were engaging in indecent exposure through a "I'll
show you mine if you'll show me yours" transaction.
|1.14.09 @ 11:44AM|#
1. Older people hate it when teens do anything related to sex
because they feel like every teenager is getting 10 times the
action they ever got.
2. By hitting a few kids with a draconian punishment, they are
hoping to get all kids to think twice before doing this.
3. Don't you know that teenage girls that send nude pictures of
themselves are sluts and deserve any bad thing that happens to
them? Aren't you aware that girls aren't supposed to like sex?
|1.14.09 @ 11:47AM|#
Epi,
I'm going to have to go with,
4. If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a
nail. Prosecutors think that everybody should be convicted.
Reinmoose|1.14.09 @ 11:48AM|#
Epi -
I heard that been a pregnant teen was cool now because of...ermm...
hollywood!
And being gay is cool now too, which is why we have so many more
gays than we used to.
The social fabric of society is unraveling before our eyes. It's
all the TV and computer games and those internet sites that tell
them it's ok.
!|1.14.09 @ 11:49AM|#
I've sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
tarran|1.14.09 @ 11:51AM|#
We're going to send you to jail now to scare someone else -
because otherwise that other person may someday take a picture of
themselves that ends up being looked at by a dirty old man?
Wow....
I have a modest proposal. Why stop at punishing girls for taking
revealing pictures of themselves? Some perverts like to look at
pictures of women walking around in public and masturbate to them,
so why not pass a law requiring teenage girls to wear some kind of
garment that obscures their faces and phsyical appearance? We could
put a fine vail over the eyes so that they could see out.
And, of course, since many clueless teenage girls might object to
wearing these garments, they must face serious punishments for
refusing to wear them, perhaps a caning for the first offence and
jail for subsequent ones.
That way, we can prevent these girls from being victimized by
having people derive sexual pleasure from looking at their
picture.
|1.14.09 @ 11:52AM|#
The social fabric of society is unraveling before our eyes.
It's all the TV and computer games and those internet sites that
tell them it's ok.
pr0n!!!
Warty, in my experience, there is always a psychological element in
stuff like this. Adults get fucking insane about teenagers having
sex. Lots of issues wrapped up there.
Jay|1.14.09 @ 11:54AM|#
I can't wait until the first time a kid is tried as an adult
because they distributed child-pornographic pictures of
themselves.
Jay
Warty|1.14.09 @ 12:00PM|#
Warty, in my experience, there is always a psychological
element in stuff like this. Adults get fucking insane about
teenagers having sex. Lots of issues wrapped up there.
LOL WUT? Were you daydreaming about my blue eyes and perky tits
again, Epi?
|1.14.09 @ 12:00PM|#
Nice one, Jay.
Along the same lines, I would also like to reiterate my suggestion
that the voting and consent age in a state be set to the age of the
youngest person they ever tried as an adult
|1.14.09 @ 12:00PM|#
"He cites a recent survey in which 20 percent of
13-to-19-year-olds said they had transmitted or posted nude or
semi-nude pictures of themselves."
13-to-19-year-olds must think it's hilarious to have someone ask
them a question like that. These self-reported surveys are about as
reliable as... They might have gotten a higher percentage if they'd
asked 'em if they'd ever stuck a tennis ball up their asses.
Which brings me to my next point. Doesn't asking 13-to-17-year-olds
questions like this constitute some kind of felony? What's the next
question on the survey--have you ever seen a grown man naked?
With all the hypersensitivity out there, I have to wonder how
surveyors get away with asking questions like this. Who out there
is letting their 13-year-old kid be questioned by the people doing
this research?
|1.14.09 @ 12:01PM|#
A true justice system would have washed their hands of this,
leaving any punishments to the school and the parents.
The consequences of lifelong registration far outweigh any
consequences of having undesired recipients see their
pictures.
Don't for one second think that the students are guaranteed to be
free from the burden of registration just because a judge decides
they don't have to register RIGHT NOW.
A law can be passed in the future mandating that anyone found
delinquent/found guilty of something like has to register.
Look at the Lautenberg amendment in 1996 and what it did to gun
owners.
Imagine a state where they barred persons convicted of/plead guilty
to domestic violence misdemeanors under certain circumstances with
a judge's discretion. Take a scenario similar to these kids-the
prosecutor discusses some prosecution of a couple who gets into a
shoving match in a bar and says that they probably won't be barred
from gun ownership because judges don't generally enact that part
of the law for first time minor offenses like this.
Just because the judge in my hypothetical case chose not to require
them to relinquish any firearms they had, doesn't mean they're
protected from any future law requiring the same thing.
These kids can be screwed at anytime by any future state/federal
legislature. Once something's on their record, it's there FOREVER.
THIS, above all else, is why we need a justice system over our
current legal system.
Tyler|1.14.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Remember, kids, sex is bad but aggressive enforcement of
arbitrary laws is good!
I'm so glad we're sending our kids the right message. They'll grow
up to be role models of citizenship: faithful to unquestionable
authority and as gleefully sexless as can be!
|1.14.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Were you daydreaming about my blue eyes and perky tits
again, Epi?
Just thinking about you in your training bra gives me a stiffy,
Warty.
Reinmoose the schoold administ|1.14.09 @ 12:04PM|#
Why can't kids just go back to exposing themselves to old perverts in person so I don't feel obligated to deal with this shit?
Reinmoose/Jack|1.14.09 @ 12:09PM|#
What's the next question on the survey
Do you like brownies? I baked them myself.
|1.14.09 @ 12:10PM|#
Warty: 202-456-1414. Make sure
you arch your back.
Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?
Warty|1.14.09 @ 12:15PM|#
No, but I've danced with the devil in the cold moonlight. He said he had something in his front pocket for me.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 12:17PM|#
The Educational Value of Getting Arrested on Child Porn
Charges
Not for nothing, but getting arrested *is* quite educational.
There's nothing quite like it to strip away the bullshit you learn
in Civics class.
Boston|1.14.09 @ 12:19PM|#
Heres the thing i don't get from what i read of the situation. They got these kids cell phones and then went through them because they were using them in class. Like for realz? Is this standard operating procedure?
ktc2|1.14.09 @ 12:22PM|#
People just need to get over the nudity is evil thing. Just grow
the #&$@ up already.
Second, teens are not children. Deal with it.
JD|1.14.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Wait, a 13-year-old was arrested because he RECEIVED a picture on his phone? Hmm. What's the DA's phone number? I have some stuff to send him so he can get arrested too. (Ah, who am I kidding. We all know the law is different for the nobility.)
|1.14.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Still, treating teenagers who have violated no one's rights
like criminals who sexually exploit children is undeniably absurd,
especially since the ostensible aim is to help these poor,
misguided youths:
Exactly the same mindset that justifies prosecution of drug users,
so its well entrenched.
stuartl|1.14.09 @ 12:31PM|#
They got these kids cell phones and then went through them
because they were using them in class. Like for realz? Is this
standard operating procedure?
If a kid is caught texting in class, SOP around here is to
confiscate the cell phone. Depending on the phone, the image might
be visible. More likely the teachers were being voyeurs.
Of course, getting caught either indicates stupidity or
arrogance.
jtuf|1.14.09 @ 12:36PM|#
I can see the case for an officer having a talk with the teenager to explain the risk of online predators, but prosecuting minors in the name of protecting minors is rediculous. In child abuse cases, the blame goes entirely to the adult criminal, none of it goes to the minor. This principle should also protect minors who take pictures of themselves, which is less dangerous than actually getting in bed with an adult.
|1.14.09 @ 12:37PM|#
If a kid is caught texting in class, SOP around here is to
confiscate the cell phone. Depending on the phone, the image might
be visible. More likely the teachers were being voyeurs.
Have the police confiscated and examined the teachers' computers
and cellphones?
Speaking of perverts...
Boston|1.14.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Depending on the phone, the image might be
visible
Wouldnt this be depend on them
a. Looking at the picture in class
b. Having it as their background
I don't see either case being very likely. Though i have never
heard of "sexting" so what do i know. If i was the parents. I think
i would be more pissed that they can just look through the phone
when ever they want to. Then again, i am not a parent.
the innominate one|1.14.09 @ 12:44PM|#
"...TRU ("a global leader in research on teens and
20-somethings")..."
so is Barely Legal
I picked the wrong week to stop doing amphetamines.
Reinmoose|1.14.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Wait, a 13-year-old was arrested because he RECEIVED a
picture on his phone?
No, he was arrested because he probably liked it! We all know that
the DA is a grownup and would never like such a filthy thing.
stuartl|1.14.09 @ 1:05PM|#
Wouldnt this be depend on them
a. Looking at the picture in class
Yes, they receive a text from someone and open it discreetly (or
not, they are teenagers), and the teacher sees it. I'm speculating
of course. It could be the administration suspecting something even
worse than sex, Oh No! Gang Membership! Drugs!, and using that as
grounds to look through the contents of the phone.
Tacos mmm...|1.14.09 @ 1:06PM|#
I can't wait until the first time a kid is tried as an adult because they distributed child-pornographic pictures of themselves.
I can't wait until a kid is tried as an adult for child
self-molestation.
|1.14.09 @ 1:11PM|#
Anyone here with teens? I mean parent of teens, not been with
them...
My limited sample size survey indicates 100% of teens have sent,
recieved, or viewed naked pictures of their girlfriends,
boyfriends, and/or friends girlfriends and boyfriends.
I am 100% confident my son has received a naked bathroom mirror
picture of a girl he had "relations" with. It's OK though, I
stabbed my eyes out with a fork after the little bragart SOB showed
it to me. Of course I told him to delete. And you just know he
did.
Tym|1.14.09 @ 1:11PM|#
I can't wait until the first time a kid is tried as an adult
because they distributed child-pornographic pictures of
themselves.
Wouldn't that be making them the victim and victimizer
simultaneously, and also a child and adult at the same time?
Monocle Mike|1.14.09 @ 1:15PM|#
So when is the girl from High School Musical going to jail (Hudgens?)? Because I'm pretty sure 25% of people with a computer saw the pictures she took of herself.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 1:16PM|#
Wouldn't that be making them the victim and victimizer
simultaneously, and also a child and adult at the same
time?
Aristotle commits suicide. Buddha laughs heartily.
The Bearded Hobbit|1.14.09 @ 1:16PM|#
I recall a book from around the '70s called Show Me
that had two naked 8 year-olds on the cover! IIRC, this
was a guide for adolescents as to the changes that their bodies
were going thru. All educational and such. I guess I'll have to
find my copy and destroy it before I get arrested for TEH
PR()N.
.. "naked under my clothes" Hobbit
|1.14.09 @ 1:29PM|#
"What you two need is a little something called Love is... It's a comic strip about two naked eight-year-old who aren't married."
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 1:32PM|#
I recall a book from around the '70s called Show Me that had
two naked 8 year-olds on the cover! IIRC, this was a guide for
adolescents as to the changes that their bodies were going thru.
All educational and such. I guess I'll have to find my copy and
destroy it before I get arrested for TEH PR()N.
There was lots of this sort of shit in the '60s and '70s. IIRC,
Jerry Rubin's goofy revolution manual Do It! had a naked
child somewhere in the pages.
Ashamed I know whom you\'re ta|1.14.09 @ 2:01PM|#
So when is the girl from High School Musical going to jail
(Hudgens?)?
Per wikipedia, she turned 18 in Dec 2006; the pics got on the
internet in Sep '07. I would say it's unlikely that they were kept
on the dl for more than 9 months.
|1.14.09 @ 2:07PM|#
The 70's were weird. My brother and I both recall a girl's birthday party we were at. Every year at the girl's birthday party the girl's dad would streak through the house. All the girls would scream/laugh. It was awkward being the only two boys there out of 10-12 kids (we were babysat by the birthday girl's mother).
|1.14.09 @ 2:09PM|#
That should have been "screem". I don't usually fix typos, but in this case somebody might have thought I meant "cream".
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 2:20PM|#
Dadgum squirrels!
I don't know. That post had an interesting sort of Zen.
|1.14.09 @ 2:27PM|#
You know, before there was an internet and digital photography,
etc., in some countries, teens used to actually show each
other their private parts.
No! No! I heard it on NPR once. It's true!
T|1.14.09 @ 2:32PM|#
Not for nothing, but getting arrested *is* quite
educational. There's nothing quite like it to strip away the
bullshit you learn in Civics class.
Yeah, nothing like sitting in the holding cell watching the drunk
guy drool and piss himself. I can do without my kid having that
kind of an education. Of course, she's 19 now, so anything she
sends these days is regular pron, not the kiddie kind.
Robert|1.14.09 @ 2:34PM|#
I do think the children should contest the issue of whether the photos were pornographic. As the example of Show Me shows, the mere use of nude models does not constitute pornography.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 2:37PM|#
I do think the children should contest the issue of whether
the photos were pornographic. As the example of Show Me shows, the
mere use of nude models does not constitute pornography.
Maybe they were teaching each other anatomy...or running a
psychological experiment...or making an ironic postmodern artistic
statement...or waging a form of political protest...
OK, I'm out of ideas/excuses.
|1.14.09 @ 2:38PM|#
So when is the girl from High School Musical going to jail
(Hudgens?)?
Per wikipedia, she turned 18 in Dec 2006; the pics got on the
internet in Sep '07.
Well, then, linkee linkee, dammit!
|1.14.09 @ 2:42PM|#
Jock Sturges just had a new book come out in November. Maybe the
FBI will visit him again.
What a dumb fucking country we have become.
Robert|1.14.09 @ 2:58PM|#
No, seriously, it has to be more than mere exposure of genitals to constitute porn. If you're holding a camera and shooting your reflection in a mirror, it's got to be hard even to assume a pornographic pose.
Elemenope|1.14.09 @ 3:00PM|#
Yeah, nothing like sitting in the holding cell watching the
drunk guy drool and piss himself. I can do without my kid having
that kind of an education. Of course, she's 19 now, so anything she
sends these days is regular pron, not the kiddie kind.
I don't have kids yet, so I can't speak to that, but I have been
arrested and it isn't the worst thing in the world. And the court
part of things is undeniably educational, and things look very
different from the point of view of the defendant than from the guy
sitting in the back pew bench.
Abe S|1.14.09 @ 3:04PM|#
I'm just jumping into this, but here's an interesting
question:
Suppose a 17 year old kid takes a photo of himself naked, and
decides to sell the photo when he turns 18. Is this a crime? My
understanding is that child pornography laws are in place in order
to protect minors from possible abuse by other adults - not to
protect them from themselves. But when the minor gives their full
consent as an adult to publish photos of themselves when they were
younger, is punishment even warranted? Who is being taken advantage
of? No one.
Here, we get into the question of WHY child pornography is illegal
in the first place. Granted, if such technicalities were allowed to
go unpunished - i.e. if the above-mentioned photo was considered
legal - we would have a greater influx of "legal" child
pornography. We must ask: would this be a problem? Should such
materials be outlawed even if they were created without coercion
and with the full knowledge and consent of all parties
involved.
People seem to believe that the very existence of such materials
would produce pedophiles, which is akin to assuming that violent
television produces murderers. Does it? Really? Even if it does,
isn't child molestation the crime that should be punished, and not
the mere thought of said crime? Isn't that "thought crime?"
I am reminded of "To Catch a Predator." How can we arrest people
for their (assumed) intentions and not their specific actions?
Since when is it illegal to be about-to-have-sex-with-a-minor? How
is it legal to arrest someone for wanting to have sex with a minor?
For thinking about it? It is the ACT which is punishable, not the
intention. If we arrested people for thinking about murder, for
watching films depicting murder, can you imagine the number of
people who would be in jail?
dhex|1.14.09 @ 3:06PM|#
"Every year at the girl's birthday party the girl's dad would
streak through the house."
i dunno if you can blame that on the 70s alone. that's just plain
weird in any decade.
|1.14.09 @ 6:05PM|#
i dunno if you can blame that on the 70s alone. that's just
plain weird in any decade.
To everybody else it was an expected "surprise". To me and my bro,
it was more like "WTF was that all about?" As far as we could tell
there was nothing unusual about this family. Well, aside from dad
running around naked for special occasions.
I don't think this was officially OK in the 70's (happened about
1978), but I certainly could not picture anyone doing this any time
from say mid 1980's to present without facing jail-time. My brother
and I never mentioned it to our parents - we've wondered since then
if anyone else did. We'll probably never know.
cuernimus|1.14.09 @ 7:35PM|#
He cites a recent survey in which 20 percent of 13-to-19-year-olds said they had transmitted or posted nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves
Numbers like this make me wish that I was a high school teacher who
gave his students his cell phone number for "homework help." Also
the only reason this is such a big issue for
prosecutors is so they can justify looking at pics of jailbait for
days on end.
I remember watching a show on TLC around the year 2000 that showed
body progression with full frontal on newborns to about 10 years
old then panned up for the 11ish to 20 years old then went back to
full frontal from there to about 90. Despite the unnecessary
panning, it was a highly intelligent and informative show, and
something that I could probably never find on television today.
|1.14.09 @ 8:28PM|#
Episiarch, you wrote: ... in my experience, there is always
a psychological element in stuff like this. Adults get fucking
insane about teenagers having sex. Lots of issues wrapped up
there.
You push this theme a lot here. (OK, maybe not "a lot," but I know
I've seen it here before.)
Which adults are you talking about, exactly? It's true that
parents, with teenagers, might get insane about teenagers
having sex -- their teenagers, at least. But what basic
psychological issue are you attributing to adults as a class? Sure
you're not generalizing from something specific to yourself? (And I
don't mean that as a criticism... just asking
straightforward.)
Because I've not encountered this built-in "adults have issues with
teen sex" thing you allude to. Not in my conversations with adults,
not in my reading of adults' words, not in the basic vibes one
picks up on simply by being around other humans.
Rather, the sense I get is that nobody, like, gives a shit. I don't
sense any jealousy, or resentment, or regret, or whatever it is
you're saying plagues the ex-teen population. Now, parents with
teenagers -- that's a different story. But their angst stems from a
totally different place.
|1.14.09 @ 10:33PM|#
"Because I've not encountered this built-in "adults have
issues with teen sex" thing you allude to."
Oh we got trouble,
right here in River City!
With a capital "T"
and that rhymes with "C"
and that stands for Cellphone!
Our children's children gonna have trouble, trouble,
trouble...
Devil's Tool!
Seriously, gettin' crazy about what the kids are getting away with
right under our noses is about as American as baseball or apple
pie.
cunnivore|1.14.09 @ 10:58PM|#
[Greensburg police Sgt. Rob] Jones said many students don't
realize that by sending the photos to others, even classmates, they
eventually can end up on the Internet and in the hands of
pedophiles.
And this is the part of the show where we forget that the purpose
of kiddie porn laws is to keep kids from being abused for profit,
and instead think that they're designed to keep pedophiles from
getting their rocks off.
Tom|1.15.09 @ 3:04AM|#
Seriously, gettin' crazy about what the kids are getting
away with right under our noses is about as American as baseball or
apple pie.
Well, of course it is. But Episiarch is claiming that adults have
major "psychological" "issues" about teens having sex.
Adults have plenty of beefs about the stuff kids do, often for
really stupid reasons. But psychological issues about teen sex? Say
what? I'm trying to figure out what Episiarch has gleaned that I
haven't gleaned.
He/she is assigning some sort of "jealousy," for one. I'm just
curious where that assessment is coming from. Because I've never
picked up on anything like it in my long life of dealing with other
human beings.
The only adults I know who have any real opinions about teen sex
are those with teen kids, at least the ones with daughters. I've
never sensed any sort of personal hangup about the topic from
anybody else.
In other words, I think stuff like this goofy school arrest is
driven by the class of humans called "parents," not the ones called
"adults."
heretic|1.15.09 @ 4:12AM|#
Jones said many students don't realize that by sending the
photos to others, even classmates, they eventually can end up on
the Internet and in the hands of pedophiles.
Uh, someone who get's off on pictures of teens isn't a "pedophile"
(which is someone who is turned on by pre-pubescent children).
They're not even "hebephiles" (unless they're ONLY turned on by
teenagers). There's not much difference between the body of miley
cyrus and madonna, if you've got enough common sense to think about
it.
These are just normal kids, doing what normal kids have done since
time immemorial. The insanity and cheap sentiment fostered by the
rape and molestation hysteria is part and parcel of the slow
infantilization of the public in general and just another example
of our "enlightened" and "progressive" masters trying to
micro-manage the lives of the citizenry through nanny-state
legislation.
|1.15.09 @ 2:07PM|#
"It's a shock to [parents]," she said. "The students seem
desensitized."
No, former principal Rullo, they were never sensitized---taught to
be shocked---in the first place. They exhibited the normal
reactions of sexually developing humans to visual stimulus of a
sexual nature. If you had done your job, they would have learned
that sex is bad, bad, bad.
You're a slouch, Rullo. Get on the ball.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245