Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Just Asking Questions
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Brickbats

Brickbat: This Won't Help

Charles Oliver | 4.4.2019 4:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Teen on phone
Dragana Gordic / Dreamstime.com

Bethany, Oklahoma, police are investigating several teens for child pornography after a school resource officer found nude images on their phones. The students, three girls and two boys aged 14 and 15, reportedly admitted exchanging nude photos with one another.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Government-Mandated Paid Leave Programs Don't Work

Charles Oliver is a contributing editor at Reason.

BrickbatsSextingOklahomaPornography
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (23)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Adans smith   7 years ago

    So, why was this retard, I mean resource officer going through their phones? And how long did he look at the pics before telling anyone? I'll bet he made copies for 'evidence'.

    1. Radioactive   7 years ago

      Don't touch that dial!

    2. mamabug   7 years ago

      And what kind of parents don't teach their kids to not give a 'resource officer' their unlock code without a warrant?

  2. BettyRHall   7 years ago

    Google paid for every week online work from home 8000 to 10000 dollars.i have received first month $24961 and $35274 in my last month paycheck from Google and i work 3 to 5 hours a day in my spare time easily from home. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it..go to this site for more details...

    So I started ========>>>>>>>> http://www.payshd.com

  3. Fist of Etiquette   7 years ago

    Search warrants for the five teenagers' cell phones, three girls and two boys ages 14 and 15, sought stored information including texts, social media posts, videos and photographs, after a security officer observed each phone contained pictures of the juveniles in various stages of undress, including genitalia.

    Oh, I'm sure that search warrant was eagerly sought and readily signed.

    1. AlmightyJB   7 years ago

      They'll also need to take their own pictures of the nude teens in various poses for comparison. This is a clear case of sex trafficking.

  4. Crackers Boy   7 years ago

    So AFTER they viewed the pictures on the phones, they got search warrants to... view the pictures on the phones?

    Fruit of the poison tree?

    CB

  5. chemjeff radical individualist   7 years ago

    Yeah this is so stupid.
    Doesn't child pornography have to have an exploitation component to it? That the person sharing the indecent photos are exploiting the child by doing so?
    I'm finding it difficult to see where the exploitation factor is in this case, when the photos are voluntarily shared by the individuals involved, no matter how stupid or unwise it may be to do so.

    1. markm23   7 years ago

      All that, AND: They are probably going to charge the teens as adults, for something that is only a crime for children.

    2. C. S. P. Schofield   7 years ago

      No, child pornography does not have to have an exploitative component, at least in law. It doesn't even have to involve nudes of any actual children, photoshopped pics using nude adult bodies are enough. The laws involved are frequently sloppily written legislation passed because nobody dares oppose them.

      1. Radioactive   7 years ago

        cause who's in favor of kiddie porn?...not me that's for damn sure!

      2. MatthewSlyfield   7 years ago

        "at least in law. It doesn't even have to involve nudes of any actual children, photoshopped pics using nude adult bodies are enough."

        They don't necessarily need to be nudes, but at least in US law it does have to involve photos/video of actual children.

        The US Supreme Court allowed a first amendment exception for child pornography due to the harm done to the children used to produce it.

        In the late 1990s the US Congress passed an act to ban "virtual" child porn, drawings, animations, and photos or video produced using young looking adult actors/models. However, that law was challenged and SCOTUS refused to extend the previously granted 1A exemption and overturned the law in 2001 or 2003.

  6. chemjeff radical individualist   7 years ago

    And that's not to mention the privacy violations associated with taking people's phones and searching them and then getting the warrant afterwards.

  7. karoinson   7 years ago

    I am getting $100 to $130 consistently by wearing down facebook. i was jobless 2 years earlier , however now i have a really extraordinary occupation with which i make my own specific pay and that is adequate for me to meet my expences. I am really appreciative to God and my director. In case you have to make your life straightforward with this pay like me , you just mark on facebook and Click on big button thank you?

    c?h?e?c?k t?h?i?s l?i?n-k >>>>>>>>>> http://www.Geosalary.com

  8. Inigo Montoya   7 years ago

    Will the SRO face charges? Or is he claiming qualified immunity over his hunt for nude pics on kids' phones?

  9. Longtobefree   7 years ago

    Just for the record, all of those kids are old enough to demand life altering surgeries without parental consent. All they have to do is say they are evaluating gender reassignment, and just seeing what the options are - - - -

    1. Radioactive   7 years ago

      sooo...they were just parts shopping?

  10. Longtobefree   7 years ago

    Just for the record, all of those kids are old enough to demand life altering surgeries without parental consent. All they have to do is say they are evaluating gender reassignment, and just seeing what the options are - - - -

    1. Longtobefree   7 years ago

      Looks like this is so important, it had to be repeated

      1. Radioactive   7 years ago

        but their brains aren't developed enough, so they can't be sentenced as adults in the event of felony convictions...and the circle of stupid continues

  11. Don't look at me!   7 years ago

    An image of a nude body should not be considered indecent.

    1. Longtobefree   7 years ago

      Too true -
      If you believe God made us, it is His creation.
      If you believe we just happened, and then evolved, it is the pinnacle of evolution.
      Either way, nothing to hide.

    2. BearOdinson   7 years ago

      Depends on the body amiright?

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Utah's New Union Law Faces a Ballot Box Battle

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 10.18.2025 7:00 AM

Javier Milei's Libertarian Experiment is in Jeopardy. Argentina's Midterm Elections Will Determine Its Fate.

César Báez | 10.18.2025 6:30 AM

Needlessly Strict Federal Rules on Radiation Exposure Are Stalling Nuclear Power Development

Ronald Bailey | From the November 2025 issue

Trump Erroneously Thinks Killing Suspected Smugglers Is the Key to Winning the Drug War

Jacob Sullum | 10.17.2025 4:00 PM

Federal Judge in Chicago Demands Body Cams for Immigration Agents Amid Brutality Claims

Autumn Billings | 10.17.2025 1:31 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2025 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300
Take Reason's short survey for a chance to win $300