MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Teacher Could Face Charges for 'Contributing to Delinquency of Minor' Who Stole Her Phone and Distributed Nude Photos From It

School administrators say she should have password-protected the phone.

WYFF.com/ScreenshotWYFF.com/ScreenshotA South Carolina high-school teacher may be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor after a student stole her cellphone and distributed partially nude photos from it around the school. Administrators say she should have password-protected the phone. 

The male student grabbed the phone from Union County Career and Technology Center teacher Leigh Ann Arthur's desk while she was making required hall-monitoring rounds between classes last week. After discovering the phone was unlocked, he went through Arthur's photos, eventually finding some sexually oriented shots that Arthur says she took for her husband. By the time she returned to the classroom, the student was texting the photos to other students. According to Arthur, he told her: "Your day of reckoning is coming." 

One might think that the student would at least face disciplinary action from the school, if not criminal charges of some sort. But thus far, the school has not moved to hold the 16-year-old student accountable at all. Arthur, however, is another story. After teaching in Union County for 13 years, she resigned when district officials gave her the choice to do so immediately or start the firing process. 

Interim superintendent David Eubanks said that Arthur might also be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. "I think we have a right to privacy, but when we take inappropriate information or pictures, we had best make sure it remains private," he told The State.

Of course, Arthur was trying to make sure the photos remained private, by keeping them stowed away in a folder on her personal phone. Sure, in retrospect, Arthur should have password protected that phone, or kept vigilant watch over it at all times. But she should also have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her personal effects. And a "privacy" that allows any person to pick up your phone, purse, briefcase, or laptop so long as it is public view, rifle through it, and then distribute any contents they find therein is not really a privacy right at all.

Superintendent Eubanks seems to subscribe to the idea that "if you don't want naked pictures distributed, don't take naked pictures!"—a proposition that makes about as much sense as telling people who don't want their TVs stolen not to own TVs or those who don't want their cars damaged not to park them outside their garages. We don't say this, because we rightly perceive that the blame for stolen TVs or damaged cars lies with the thief or the bad driver, not the person who had the audacity to own a TV or a car in the first place. 

Update, 3:30 p.m.: More than 1,600 people have signed an online petition created by students at the Union County Career and Technology Center in support of their former teacher. "Leigh Anne Arthur is the victim of a blatant attack of her privacy," it says. "Personal photographs were illegally obtained by a student and were sent to other students in the school."

As an educator in the school's mechatronics program, Arthur "has shown tremendous dedication to her students, but also the mechatronics program itself, often reaching out to local businesses and colleges to get materials that would not normally be available for the class," the petition states. "The circumstances in which Mrs.Arthur was let go is unacceptable, and must be corrected." 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Two things. First, she brought naked pictures of herself to school. Second, she was a Career and Technology Center teacher who doesn't know enough to throw a passcode up on her phone? So, in conclusion, she shouldn't have lost her job.

  • ||

    Waltzing right past the theft, eh, Fist?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I doubted the notion that the student should be punished would be in question here, so I didn't bother addressing it.

  • R C Dean||

    I'm not seeing that anybody is planning to punish the student.

    We're talking about firing someone because they had something stolen from them, and doing nothing to the thief. This is lunacy.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    This is lunacy.

    You're going right into the pit of school administration.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    We're talking about firing someone because they had something stolen from them...

    Why are you talking about that? This story isn't about anyone being fired for having something stolen from them. It's about someone who was fired because she was stupid enough to bring nude photos (that they were of herself is irrelevant) with her to school and irresponsible and careless enough leave them where they could be easily accessed by students (the fact that such access was an offense by the student is also irrelevant, except as it pertains to the secondary issue of also disciplining the student).

  • Tionico||

    not quite.... being her private property, and assuming (I know, HUGE quantum leap, here) that those around her would respect her reasonable presumption that theft, since illegal, woiuld not compromise her privacy. She was naif in presuming otherw would obey the law. She broke no law. Had others not done so, there would be no issue.

    the punk who STOLE here phone MUST be dealt with. Am I irresponsible when I walk up to the neighbour's house in daylight and don't lock the door? If someone breaks in, is it MY fault? No, its the fault of the one BREALING THE LAW. She broke no law. HE did.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Pics or didn't happen.

  • Tionico||

    perv

  • Jerryskids||

    Yes, it is outrageous that this lady lost her job. Only arguably more outrageous than the fact that she had the job in the first place. (That last statement could probably apply to half the "educators" in her school or any other school.)

  • Cliché Bandit||

    ***look down thread***

    ***backs away SLOOOOWWWWLY****

  • sarcasmic||

    "if you don't want naked pictures distributed, don't take naked pictures!"

    Sorry, but he's right.

  • sarcasmic||

    To elaborate, electronic files are ridiculously easy to distribute. If they fall into the wrong hands, as they often do, then they can spread like wildfire. The best way to avoid this is to not take the picture in the first place.

    By the way, ENB, can I borrow your phone?

    *wink wink*

  • IndyEleven||

    Guns are also easy to distribute. If they fall into the wrong hands, as they often do, they can cause widespread damage. The best way to avoid this is to outlaw guns in the first place.

  • Careless||

    Yes, actually.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Yep.

  • sarcasmic||

    Um, yeah. Because with a simple touch you can send a hundred exact replicas of the gun to a hundred different people at the speed of light, while still keeping the original. They're like totally the same and stuff.

  • ||

    So we should all have kept our old CRT TVs because their weight made them harder to steal?

  • IndyEleven||

    I have a (literally) 308 pound CRT TV if anyone is interested in this new line of Harder To Steal (tm) TVs.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Indy, I'd like to buy your anti-theft TV.

  • sarcasmic||

    *WHOOSH*

    that was the point flying over your head

  • IndyEleven||

    Yes, it's a silly and glib comparison. Yes, a prudent person wouldn't leave their phone lying around, but I'm not a fan of arguments that no one should ever be doing anything they don't want made public (ie don't take pics if you don't want them on amihotornot) which implies there is no type of right to privacy. Criminal charges for her, but no reprimand for the kid? Most of these stories are wildly inaccurate, so I hope that's the case here.

  • IndyEleven||

    She wasn't walking down the street, she had pics on her private property that someone took and then went through. Do I have a right to privacy in my home if the front door happens to be unlocked?

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not calling her a criminal, I'm calling her an utter fucking moron.

    Yep. If you don't want pictures like that leaked to everyone, the best way to guarantee that doesn't happen is to not take the pictures. If you're going to take the pictures anyway, take some steps to keep them private. Like a pass code on the phone. Locks keep honest people honest.

  • IndyEleven||

    I ADMIT NOTHING. If I walk down the street naked everyone should immediately forget what they've seen and there can be no possible consequences beyond that. No one is ever allowed to surmise, guess, or assume anything beyond what I'm saying at that moment and if you find out anything about me that I haven't just told you, you must forget it on pain of torture.

    She's a public school teacher so I thought moron was already strongly implied and I agree one should take prudent steps to protect their information--as I've already stated. But losing her job and facing charges seems about 3 bridges too far.

  • sarcasmic||

    But losing her job and facing charges seems about 3 bridges too far.

    I ain't gonna argue with that. All I did was agree that the best way to keep naked pictures from being distributed is to not take them in the first place.

  • ||

    The best way to prevent pregnancy is to not have sex.

    Not a good answer.

  • IndyEleven||

    And I should've just stayed with my original reaction: "Where's the fun in that?"

    But apparently someone flipped my John switch to "ON" this morning...

  • Citizen X||

    But apparently someone flipped my John switch to "ON" this morning...

    My thoughts and prayers are with you.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Are you into fat chicks now?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I ain't gonna argue with that. All I did was agree that the best way to keep naked pictures from being distributed is to not take them in the first place.

    Which is great. No one is debating that tautology. However, the superintendent is using that as justification for charging her with a crime. Let's say a teacher was stupid enough to leave his wallet on his desk, and a student stole 50 dollars from it and bought booze. Then the superintendent charges the teacher with supplying alcohol to minors. Wouldn't you agree such a charge would be outrageous?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I don't see anyone making the argument that charging the teacher with a crime was the appropriate response.


    Except the superintendent.

  • sarcasmic||

    Do I have a right to privacy in my home if the front door happens to be unlocked?

    You have that right, but rights aren't magic. They don't enforce themselves. If you don't want anyone to come through the door, then lock it. Don't rely on magical privacy rights to defend the door for you.

  • IndyEleven||

    Yes, I agree with you that rights don't enforce themselves and aren't magical. My point is that this person lost her job and is facing possible criminal charges because someone else took her property illegally and found something her employers found distasteful. Rights don't defend themselves, but in this case, the 'justice' system that we depend on as a proxy to defend some rights is completely breaking down (assuming charges are filed, etc).

  • sarcasmic||

    Point out where I defended her losing her job and being charged with a crime.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    So if you don't lock your door and someone comes through it, do they then get to prosecute you for being an accessory to trespassing? How about while the person who came through it does not get prosecuted for trespassing? This entire line of discussion is a red herring.

  • Some Engineer||

    It goes beyond that. If somebody comes through my door and takes my stuff but was not legally allowed to have the thing they took, should I be held legally accountable for their theft?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    If only anyone in the story had been doing that.

    You know who else made titillating analogies?

  • IndyEleven||

    Marge Simpson on Whacking Day?

  • Tionico||

    not if I wallk down the street naked, but if I am in my own bedroom yes. If the perverted sadistic punk is hiding in the closet and sees me naked HE is the voyeur, and chargeable, not me.

    Who was that celeb had naked pics of her spread all over the place online, could not figure out where they were even taken, had no knowledge of them being taken... turns out it was a pervert found out what hotel she was staying in, ASKED the desk what room she had, and THEN asked for the room next door... removed the glass spy=-eye, and took the photos through that. SHE had a reasonable expectation of privacy inside her hotel room. HE invaded that. What, was it HER fault cause she WAS walking round her room naked? Nope... the perv is, hopefully, being charged. As should this punk.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm not a fan of arguments that no one should ever be doing anything they don't want made public

    It's the only way to be proof positive that it won't be made public. That's all.

    which implies there is no type of right to privacy

    Sure we have a right to privacy, but it doesn't enforce itself.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Because with a simple touch you can send a hundred exact replicas of the gun to a hundred different people at the speed of light

    With 3-D printing, this day is coming, inshallah.

  • coloraDOOM||

    Can't wait!

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Interesting. We get spam on our office printer, I wonder if I will get random guns printed on my 3-D printer?

  • Tionico||

    one can hope so.......

  • Jickerson||

    Bad analogy. He suggested voluntarily not taking the pictures, whereas in your example you suggest outlawing firearms. Electronic files are even easier to distribute than guns.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    She was asking for it....

    ...dressed like that.

  • IceTrey||

    So are analog pictures. Just take a picture of the picture with your phone and away it goes.

  • Adans smith||

    So,if you don't want arrested don't take naked pics and then get them stolen? There's a lot of people in Hollywood that need to be jailed then.

  • John||

    It must be terrifying to be a teacher these days, especially if you are a man. All it takes is one of your female students getting your cell phone number and texting you a picture of yourself naked and then telling the powers that be you asked her to do it and you are fucked. That is child porn. And good luck convincing anyone that you didn't ask her to do it or that you didn't give her your cell phone number.

    Yeah, you might get out of it if you immediately call the cops and everyone else in the world the moment you get the picture. But it isn't going to be pleasant even if you don't end up in prison and on a sex pervert list the rest of your life.

  • ant1sthenes||

    If she has a picture of you naked on her phone, you have bigger problems.

  • John||

    Herself.

  • ||

    It must be terrifying to be a teacher these days, especially if you are a man. All it takes is one of your female students getting your cell phone number and texting you a picture of yourself naked and then telling the powers that be you asked her to do it and you are fucked.

    Yes, clearly it is especially terrifying if you are a man. As illustrated by this post.

  • John||

    Yes this case involves a woman. So what? Other cases can and do involve men. What is your point?

  • Riven||

    Way to stay on point, John.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Hey, he's personalizing this by making it all about men. He's trying to humanize this story, it's not his fault the person the actual article references doesn't hit enough "identifiable human" triggers for him.

  • John||

    Really? Pretend it is a woman in the example if it would make you feel better. My larger point stands either way.

    Does the fact that I gave an example of a man bother you? Did it trigger you in some way? Does it violate your safe space?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    You forgot to tell me what a retard I am. You feeling okay?

  • John||

    Are you? I don't know what else to say. I have explained my point multiple times and why it is on topic. And you still seem butt hurt. What else can I do other than ask you if you are okay?

  • Riven||

    Yeah, Hamster. He's "explained" himself several times, and still no one gets it!!!

    Obviously, the problem is us, not him. Of course.

  • John||

    If you don't get what I am saying Riven, fine. Maybe I am wrong. But please tell me how so. Just explain why this is off topic. I really don't see it. I am not being a jerk, but I really don't see it and I honestly don't understand why you and others are so butt hurt about this or think it is off topic.

    If you have a reasonable explanation why it is off topic, fine, I take it back. I guess I posted something off topic. You are right. I just don't why that is the case and wish you would explain why rather than just saying it is without any reason.

  • Riven||

    I'd say there's a fair amount of butt hurt going on, John, and not all of it is other people.

    Your example is completely off base--this article has zero to do with child pornography. At all. I don't even know where that came from. It's like you take this article that's about a teacher, who had questionable judgment regarding an unlocked phone with what I'm sure were tasteful semi-noodz, and completely turn it around on itself until it reflects your own concerns and fears.

    What's the deal with that?

  • John||

    Your example is completely off base--this article has zero to do with child pornography

    I disagree. They claimed this woman corrupted minors because she let them see naked pictures of herself by not password protecting her phone. That is just the flip side of child pornography. Whether it is taking pictures of kids or letting them see naked pictures of you, society has gone nuts on the subject and think anything that can possibly be sexual and involve an adlut and child is and should be a crime.

    If you don't think that is applicable, fine. I disagree. I fail to see why my using an example you don't think is analogous warrants accusing me of posting in bad faith and trying to change the subject.

    And I am not butt hurt at all. If I was, you would sure as hell know it. I haven't accused you of anything other than not understanding my point. Does disagreeing with you count as butt hurt now?

    Can't you just back off and say "I see what you mean but I don't think that is quite applicable"? Agree to disagree?

  • Riven||

    I see what you mean, and I don't think it's really applicable. Incidentally, I have yet to see one other poster on this thread who thinks it is applicable.

    Sure, agree to disagree, John.

  • John||

    Incidentally, I have yet to see one other poster on this thread who thinks it is applicable.

    So what? Even if they are right and I am wrong, I would still like to know why my seeing it differently means I am some kind of woman hater with frail masculinity. What on earth about this post justified the kind of insults it inspired? Especially all the psycho babble and projection. Why isn't "oh that is not the same thing and would never happen" sufficient?

    It must have written this apparently because I am short and never gotten laid and my mother didn't love me enough or affirm my frail masculinity or something. Is it perhaps possible that maybe you didn't understand my larger point and overreacted a bit? maybe a little?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Incidentally, I have yet to see one other poster on this thread who thinks it is applicable.

    All I see is you whining about John for no reason. He said it would be terrifying to be a teacher now because of the insanity going on with sexting, etc, in response to a story about a teacher being fired because a student stole her sexy photos.

  • sofubar||

    I do.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    It was the Cornholio link, wasn't it. That's what helped you truly feel my pain.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    It's pretty much a non sequitur, John. It's a post about a female teacher getting fired and possibly prosecuted for having her phone stolen, and your first sentence is It must be terrifying to be a teacher these days, especially if you are a man.

  • ||

    Neither one of you is helping with "fragile masculinity".

  • Hamster of Doom||

    If it weren't fragile, it wouldn't require my help.

  • ||

    We agree that fragile is bad. Do you want to help?

  • John||

    Honest to God, you find that post in any way controversial? Really? What about it is problematic? Do you not think this could happen to a man? Is using the word offensive? Are all posts involving a woman supposed to then only relate to the problem facing women?

    I really don't understand what you point is or if you even have one.

  • ||

    Oh, I think we are.

  • John||

    It is exactly on point. This woman had one of her kids steal her cell phone and ended up being charged with a crime. That is an example of how terrifying it must be to be a teacher these days thanks to the insanity of law enforcement regarding kids and sex. I provided a hypothetical example that also illustrated it.

    How is it not on point? Why would you think it was not other than you just have a bug up your ass?

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    How does it add to the discussion to repeat the same exact scenario with the genders reversed?

  • ||

    Dumb-ass question. Diversity makes all things better.

  • John||

    It adds to the discussion by providing a hypothetical example of how dangerous this kind of stuff has become. The fact that I said man and this case involved a woman is meaningless. I think men would have a tougher time in such a case because the courts are generally biased against them in these sorts of situation. Women will usually have a better time being believed, though not always.

    Ultimately, my reversing the sexes is besides the larger point. I honestly don't understand why you people have picked up on it so much. If it bugs you pretend my example involved a woman. If I could edit it and make you feel better I would, because it is really tangential to my larger point.

  • Riven||

  • Riven||

    Aw, damn, Sugarfree'd that. Here's the actual link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRifKEf0xr8

  • Riven||

    Yeah, I'm the one with a bug up my ass, John.

    Incidentally, and you may not know this about me, but having something up there wouldn't negatively impact my mood.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    God, you're like a reverse Linda Lovelace.

  • Hamster of Doom||

  • Riven||

    I lol'd

  • John||

    Good for you. Regardless, I still don't understand why you think that my post was off topic. I really don't. If it was, I would like to hear why.

  • ||

    Fair enough, your particular preoccupation with things that are beside the point is superior to John's.

  • John||

    How is the fact that the kind of mania about child sex photos that got this woman in trouble can also get a lot of other innocent people in trouble, besides the point?

  • ||

    Mania about child sex photos? There are no child sex photos involved in this story. You came up with a 100% different example, aside from it involving a teacher and student.

  • ||

    Young teacher the subject of schoolgirl fantasy.

  • John||

    I don't see how the fact it is her photos makes a difference. If the photos hadn't been naked ones, it wouldn't have been a big deal. She got in trouble because people are nuts about kids and sex in this society. And that fact makes being a teacher terrifying. That was my point.

    There are plenty of my posts that are meant to poke you people and make you upset. This is not one of them. I am honestly flabbergasted that you choose this one to get butt hurt about. I really am.

  • Jan S.||

    THANK YOU.

    "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor" usually equals something along the lines of "I gave my 16-year-old son and his buddies a couple of six-packs to drink while they play 'Bayonetta' on the PS3 in my living room."

    "Child pornography" usually equals something along the lines of "I forced a 10-year-old to perform fellatio while I filmed it."

  • ||

    We're dealing with two things: 1) We're not "female friendly" enough (a handful of female users on, eg "the wife"/Xanthippe talk), don't pay enough attention and respect. Let's say a woman tells you that she just was robbed. Then you go "yeah, the streets are pretty dangerous; even men get robbed these days". 2) "Fragile masculinity" (Nikki): A focus on whining about how unfair the world is to men.

  • John||

    Sevens,

    Neither one of those things crossed my mind when i wrote the post. If you want to project them on me, have fun. But I am nothing if not plain spoken and if I thought those things I would happily tell you.

    The post is what it is. If you want to read into it some kind of psychbabble about my fragile masculinity, there is nothing I can say to that. If you think my masculinity if fragile, good for you. How am I supposed to debate that? I obviously disagree and put little or no stock into yours or anyone else's opinion of my masculinity. If that is delusional on my part, well I guess not realizing it is part of being delusional. so why worry?

  • ||

    John, I'm pointing out two currents. And I claim Riven's "not entirely serious" disclaimer for myself. I'm not saying you are fragile, delusional, or generally "unattentive"/"disrespectful" of women. What I affirm is that your switch to "man" does stand out. It's not terrible, it doesn't necessarily have deep implications, but it is a notable instance, whatever the independent qualities of your comment.

  • John||

    What I affirm is that your switch to "man" does stand out.

    Why? Do you think this case would be any different if it were a man? Suppose the teacher were a man who had naked pictures of his wife. Do you think the school would have gone any less crazy? I don't think so. In fact, they might have gone more crazy.

    We will never know. I don't think the sex in this case matters. so I don't see why the switch to a man should stick out. Beyond that, I think even you have to admit, men have a much harder time when accused of "corrupting" youth via sex than women do. As a man, there are few things that scare me more than the thought of a young woman accusing me of anything related to sex and as a result I am very careful about never placing myself in a situation where any such allegation can be made. That is not because I am some kind of pervert who doesn't trust myself. It is because if I were ever unlucky enough to run into the wrong person, as a man I better be able to prove my innocence or I am likely screwed.

  • ||

    As a man, there are few things that scare me more than the thought of a young woman accusing me of anything related to sex (...).

    And that's what Nicole picked up. You indeed made a mental and expressed switch to "man", to a qualitatively different case and the increased risk of men. It's rational to care about what affects you more. And I agree that men face specific risks, in some ways greater risks than women. (Simplified: in matters of sex, legal risk is greater for men, physical risk is greater for women). Still, you payed little to no attention to that woman's problem, but made it about specifically male problems. (Again, not saying that's bad.) This would be the attention/respect for women "current" I mentioned. And you showed considerable concern for yourself as a man. Which connects with the "fragile masculinity" current.

    I appreciate your thoughts, but nonetheless, Nicole is not mistaken, as unpleasant as that is.

  • John||

    And you showed considerable concern for yourself as a man. Which connects with the "fragile masculinity" current.

    If thinking "damn that could happen to me too" makes my masculinity fragile as opposed to just showing I have a rational concern for myself and see how what happens to others can happen to me, then I guess it is "fragile". I have no idea why that means anything. But whatever works for you.

  • ||

    What I affirm is that your switch to "man" does stand out. It's not terrible, it doesn't necessarily have deep implications, but it is a notable instance, whatever the independent qualities of your comment.

    This. I mean, I am still laughing my ass off about it.

  • John||

    Apparently the voices in your head are quite funny Niiki. Maybe they should get their own act.

  • ||

    Apparently the voices in your head are quite funny Niiki. Maybe they should get their own act.

    Fairly sure that, for Nicole, this falls under "fragile masculinity". Still not sure how she's helping.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Except this would be more like a woman telling you she was robbed and you saying "yeah, the streets are pretty dangerous, especially for men" and then going on a 200 word rant about how much worse it would've been if she were a man.

  • ||

    Except this would be more like a woman telling you she was robbed and you saying "yeah, the streets are pretty dangerous, especially for men"

    Depends on your understanding of whether the influence of the law of sex is more dangerous to men than to women, and on your understanding of the sex-specific dangers of "the streets". I maintain what I've written.

  • Riven||

    Honestly Sevens, I take very few of these discussions seriously. I mostly lurk, but when I post, it's either because 1) seriously, someone has to say something, or B) entertainment value.

  • ||

    Riven, 1) and B) (...) cover pretty much any possible motivation. And they're not even mutually exclusive -- as you know. I'm not sure what you wanted just now, but it's nice that you don't have a stick up your ass, given the right context

  • Riven||

    but it's nice that you don't have a stick up your ass, given the right context

    Nice for whom? Definitely not nice for me!

  • ||

    Riven,

    I deliberately added "given the right context".

  • Riven||

    Fair point. ... /sigh

  • ||

    Hm, I like sticking it to you.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "Incidentally, and you may not know this about me, but having something up there wouldn't negatively impact my mood."

    Female libertarians are proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

  • Citizen X||

    Why do you think i've worked so hard to convert my wife?

  • Charles Easterly||

    Never give up,

    Never surrender.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

  • Charles Easterly||

    Nice.

    Fighting the good fight, and all that....

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "It must be terrifying to be a teacher these days, especially if you are a man. All it takes is one of your female students getting your cell phone number and texting you a picture of yourself naked and then telling the powers that be you asked her to do it and you are fucked. That is child porn. And good luck convincing anyone that you didn't ask her to do it or that you didn't give her your cell phone number."

    I can't stop laughing.

    Female teacher could be charged with a crime because male student stole her phone and sent out private pictures of her and you make this about men being victimized by something completely hypothetical that has nothing to do with this story.

  • John||

    No I make it about teachers. As I say above, pretend it is a woman in my example if it makes you feel better. God knows if there was an edit function, I would change the sex because it doesn't matter to my larger point.

    All I can say is wow. Really, I have no idea why you or anyone would react that way.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    It was the especially if you are a man part, which was completely gratuitous, that bothered people, John. It may have been unintentional, but you have to admit it was at best a non sequitur.

  • ||

    Look, Irish, men were totally victimized in this story. That's why the male student is the one being protected by authorities!

  • John||

    Nice to know you can read my mind and just know I have malevolent intentions.

    As much as we disagree, do you honestly think if I thought that I wouldn't just say it? Since when do I ever hold back on my opinions?

  • ||

    No, I don't think you think that at all. I simply found it striking that you personalized the entire story by making it about something completely different so it could focus on a man being victimized.

  • John||

    As I explained to Riven above, I don't view it as something completely different. It all goes back to the danger that our society's insanity surrounding kids and sex has create for any adult who tries to work with or help kids. Whether it is getting you fired because they saw naked pictures of you on your phone or getting put on a sex pervert list because some vindictive student sexed you, both examples show the way this attitude is destroying our society.

    I thought that went without saying. I guess I should have explained it better. All I can tell you is that I didn't and don't consider my example to be something completely different. To me both this and my example are both examples of the same kind of insanity.

    And I am still utterly puzzled why that point is so controversial much less evidence that I hate women and have a fragile masculinity (whatever that means) and all the various other insults that have been hurled at me in this thread.

  • Social Contractor||

    I'd say it's a normal part of conversation. The only thing at all that stands out about the comment is a few posters getting the vapors about it being off topic. Because every comment is always on topic and never discussed similar hypotheticals.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The response to John's comment is insane.

    Sometimes he does go off on a barely related rant, but talking about how terrifying it would be to be a teacher given the current climate regarding kids and anything remotely sexual in regards to a story of a teacher getting in trouble for a student stealing her sexy photos is about as on topic as you can get. Are we now off topic if we mention a different instance when a teacher is getting charged for photos of themselves on their private phone (and heaven forbid this teacher happens to be male!)?

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    Teacher at my school was let go for accidentally showing inappropriate pictures. As I understand it, phone pictures of a tattoo that had some inadvertent junk. I don't know how this got projected to a class but that's the story. Stupid, for sure. Necessary firing? I dunno, your mileage may vary.

    You know I think it goes straight to firing because the district fears a lawsuit. Which makes me wonder, should the woman in this story have refused to quit and been fired so she could sue the district for termination without just cause?

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    Female teacher could be charged with a crime because male student stole her phone and sent out private pictures of her and you make this about men being victimized by something completely hypothetical that has nothing to do with this story.

    That's funny, because this story is also NOT about a teacher potentially facing charges because a "male student stole her phone and sent out private pictures of her".

  • Haskell_Hunter||

    Superintendent Eubanks would probably see things differently if a student too his phone and circulated Superintendent Eubanks's gay porn.

  • Caput Lupinum||

    Superintendent Eubanks's gay pederasty porn

    C'mon, if you're going to go there, go for the gold man.

  • Eman||

    that cross-out wasnt necessary

  • Doctor Whom||

    She absolutely should have password-protected her phone, but it doesn't follow that a criminal charge against her makes sense.

  • ||

    It doesn't. This was just a stupid mistake on her part for leaving the pics on an unlocked phone that she then just left laying around. The embarrassment is the correct punishment for her mistake. She shouldn't lose her job, although that's up to the school, but criminal charges? When the fuck are we going to get out of this new dark ages?

  • Charles Easterly||

    When are we going to get out of this new dark age?

    *Hands Hyperion a replica of Diogenes' Lantern*

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Whom the fuck are you to say what someone else should "absolutely" have done (when initiating no force)?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Ok, she should probably have password-protected her phone if she had nude pics on it that she didn't want distributed.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    She should absolutely have eaten some food in the past month.

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    I don't not where ENB gets the headline 'Teacher Could Face Charges for 'Contributing to Delinquency of Minor...' from the links she provided. The one link says the Sheriff's office is considering charges against the student. The other provides the quote of the superintendent who casts blame on the teacher. It appears that the idiot superintendent did force her resignation, but nowhere is there any indication that criminal charges are being considered against the teacher.

  • Charles Easterly||

    "... but nowhere is there any indication that criminal charges are being considered against the teacher."

    Roger,

    Contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a punishable crime in South Carolina.

    This article mentions a few additional points of interest.

    "The pupil took a a picture of Mrs. Arthur's photo with his own phone, then said he would send it to any of his classmates that wanted to see thier teacher's private image. It was also shared on social media."

  • Roger the Shrubber||

    Chas - I believe that contributing to the delinquency of a minor is a crime in every state so I don't see your point

    And inane accusations by a school superintendent are not equivalent to law enforcement investigations or charges. ENB's headline and you misrepresent the situation.

  • Adans smith||

    The kid committed robbery,case closed..The student did harm to another, ,which is what laws should always be based on

  • Lee G||

    This. The phone is private property.

  • Riven||

    Exactly. Fuck that kid. What a dick.

  • ||

    Fuck that kid. What a dick.

    I am proud of you, my protege.

  • Riven||

    I hoped you would be.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    Let's say a different teacher brings a binder full of explicit photos of himself and his wife engaged in all manner of sexual activity (said photos having been taken with the full consent of both parties) to school with him. He then leaves the binder sitting on his classroom desk. At some point a student grabs the binder, shoves it in his backpack and, after school, makes numerous copies of the photos and distributes them to his classmates the next day.

    The binder was private property and the student committed a theft. Is the teacher in the clear?

  • Tionico||

    VERY different scenario. Such a folder is, in and of itself, a serious risk to violation of something. It has no other function but to contain the images mentioned. On the other hand, this teacher's phone is a common tool, used almost universally for many things other than holding those pictures, private between herself and her husband. Thos files may be a small percentage of the total contents of the phone's data files.

  • Chipwooder||

    Not only that, but the kid was clearly doing it with the intention of causing exactly this problem for the teacher...."your day of reckoning is coming". So the superintendent clearly doesn't mind being manipulated by some asshole teenager. What a clown.

  • Eman||

    strange. it's usually only the best and brightest who go on to careers in education

  • See Double You||

    I'm with y'all. The kid should be charged with theft, and the teacher should be let alone.

  • dantheserene||

    Actually, it was more of a burglary since no force or threat of force was involved. Otherwise, I agree completely. the teacher is the victim. Without a criminal act by the student, none of this would have happened.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Solid pedantry.

  • Zeb||

    Or even just put it in her pocket. The firing and criminal charges are totally unreasonable. She is the wronged party here. But it was dumb to leave it lying around.

  • Adans smith||

    True,but, being dumb is not a crime,theft is

  • ||

    But what she did is only dumb because some administrator believes photos can be "inappropriate" and that thieves are victims.

  • ||

    Unprotected seems beside the point. To you question about McDonalds above--I still don't want my phone stolen, whether it's passcode-protected or not, because I'm out hundreds of dollars. This seems way more about theft than about privacy at all.

  • Zeb||

    Not sure why that justifies firing. A lot of people are stupid in some ways and very smart in others. She may be an idiot all around. But simply being clueless or distracted enough to leave a phone sitting around doesn't tell us that at all.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    But what she did is only dumb because some administrator believes photos can be "inappropriate"...

    Every state in the union has laws regarding minors and the "inappropriateness" of certain types of graphic materials, and any adult with an above-room-temperature IQ knows that. Whether she, you, I or anyone else agrees with those laws doesn't make her actions any less stupid.

  • Adans smith||

    With your name you should not call any one dumb.Socialism is evil,there for,so are you.

  • Adans smith||

    I didn't,my view on socialism is well documented.

  • Adans smith||

    But,if you name is a parody,well,sorry about that,if not......

  • Citizen X||

    I got your "brochure." It was just a screed about the Bilderbergs and then a bunch of P90X ads.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    You got ads? I just got a bunch of pictures of *somebodys* micropenis.

  • Tionico||

    smallish town, high level of trust, no paranoia running about..... I've only started locking my doors these past five years and I've lived in this smalish town thirty years. What, is she supposed to be going about bearing evil thoughts against her students at every turn? I know a family built a new home in 1982. When they moved out in 2014 they literally could not find the keys to the front door. WHY? Thay had never needed it. Never locked the house. In thirty plus years. Never thought twice about it. Some places that works fine.

  • Tionico||

    and the reason it does not work fine everywhere ie because punks like this can steal things and face no consequences. So they do it again. And again. Then bigger things. Pretty soon there is a rsh of housebreakings in a neighbourhood. And the Neighbourhood Watch begins to be vigilant. And one of them notices someone not known to him lurking about near several of the homes have been burgled. And takes action. And the punk jumps him. Then the punk happens across the man's handgun as the punk is trying to bash the guy's head open against the concrete.... and something happens so the kid wil NEVER do that again. And everyone blames the man who was just looking out for his friends and neignbours whose houses were getting broken into....... THIS is the society we are building for ourselves precisely by NOT bringing consequences upon brats like this 16 year old thief.

  • Zeb||

    Indeed. I find it particularly odd that the student who unquestionably is in the wrong hasn't been charged with theft or even disciplined by the school. I would have expected some harsh punishment for distributing nudie pics. That seems like just the sort of thing they'd be all over these days.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    You'll wind up on a sex offender registry if you're 18 and take naked consensual naked pics of your 17 year old girlfriend, but distribute illegally obtained naked photos and you're in the clear.

    American criminal justice rules.

  • ||

    Theft -- of the phone? I saw no indication that he kept or intended to keep it. He merely used it. If you want to make this about "theft", it would be in respect to the pictures -- and I assume you wouldn't call "piracy" - duplication - "theft".

  • Zeb||

    Yes, it is unquestionably theft. Giving the thing that you stole back later doesn't make it not theft. And it is not parallel to copyright piracy. There is only one phone. The student had possession of someone else's physical property without permission. That's pretty much the definition of theft. Try walking out of a store with something you didn't pay for and see if they think it's not theft because you intended to bring it back later.

  • ||

    Intention to permanently deprive. Given the circumstances, it's unlikely that the student intended to keep the phone. "People walking out of the store" commonly intend to keep the stuff they carry.

  • Zeb||

    "People walking out of the store" commonly intend to keep the stuff they carry.

    Right because people know that if you walk out of the store with something you didn't pay for, you will get arrested for shoplifting, whether or not you intend to permanently deprive the store of its property.
    Is taking someone's car for a joyride also not theft if you bring it back? I would consider it so and I'm pretty sure the law does as well.

  • ||

    Right because people know that if you walk out of the store with something you didn't pay for, you will get arrested for shoplifting [because people assume that "people walking out of the store" commonly intend to keep the stuff they carry], whether or not you intend to permanently deprive the store of its property.

    There even are specific statutes that define joyride's as theft (legal fiction, possibly), precisely because these usually don't involve intent to permanently deprive.

  • Zeb||

    Well, I'm going to believe RC Dean below that it is in fact theft.

  • Tionico||

    he took physical possession of something to which he had no right, title, or interest. Theft. Further, he violated copyright by reproducing and distributing those photos without grant by the one who created or owned them. The physical property he may have returned. He cannot recall every copy of those photos he also stole. Yes, theft. Under law, that's what he committed.

    If I take your car without your permission, return it some time later in perfect condition, I have still stolen it.

  • ||

    Those who can't, teach...

  • Adans smith||

    And those that can't teach become superintendents.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Those who can't superintend become what?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Someone has to teach phys ed.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    In my experience those someones were lesbians.

    And not porn lesbians. Not even Lilith Fair lesbians.

  • Zeb||

    You would have thought that my female middle and high-school gym teachers were lesbians, but they surprisingly weren't (and they were pretty cool people). The male gym teacher from middle school was a bit of a creep.

  • Jerryskids||

    Educational consultants.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Brilliant! And sadly true.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Those who can't superintend become what?

    Trump supporters?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Secretary of Education?

  • Tionico||

    politicians.

  • ||

    "I think we have a right to privacy, but when we take inappropriate information or pictures, we had best make sure it remains private," he said.

    What is "inappropriate information or pictures"?

  • Adans smith||

    They said semi nude,like at the beach?

  • straffinrun||

    WTH is "semi nude"? They'd have to arrest half of Walmart shoppers if this is the standard.

  • Adans smith||

    It's like kinda pregnant.And the Walmart thing is just gross.

  • Jerryskids||

    WTH is "semi nude"? They'd have to arrest half of Walmart shoppers if this is the standard.

    Walmart shoppers travel on 4 wheels, a semi travels on 18. I can't imagine where you'd find somebody who looks four-and-a-half times worse than a Walmart shopper, so I'm going to guess that "semi-nude" means something to do with the size of the mudflaps.

  • WTF||

    You mean the size of the mutton flaps.

  • straffinrun||

    Not sure if I'm pleased with that stickin' to me.

  • Tionico||

    next time check BOTH mirrors, that stuff has a way of sneaking up on you from the blind side.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    I'm thinking "semi-nude" means something like showing in lingerie or naked but covering up the "naughty bits".

  • Zeb||

    That jumped out at me as well. Pictures can't be inherently inappropriate. I'm sure they were perfectly appropriate to send to her husband. Why do so many people appear to believe that things can be inherently inappropriate or offensive?

    And the notion that seeing some nude pictures does any harm to high school students is laughable as well.

  • ||

    And what's less appropriate than stealing?

  • Zeb||

    Murder and rape.

  • Some Engineer||

    Attending a Nickleback concert.

  • ||

    Sending female teachers to prison for having sex with male teenagers is about as ridiculous and inhumane as it gets, in "civil society".

    "Why do so many people appear to believe that things can be inherently inappropriate or offensive?" Essentialism, and a desire for certain truth.

  • Riven||

    Same. Jumped out a mile at me. "Inappropriate pictures"? Fuck you, dude.

  • ||

    Naked pictures are a SIN.

  • Riven||

    That's not what you said last night

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Am I not on the list anymore?

  • See Double You||

    Do you really want nuded pics of me?

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Yes

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I can trade them to Jesse for food.

  • Riven||

    It's a very exclusive list, Playa.

  • Adans smith||

    Because she's to old for you?

  • ||

    Yes. Riven is already past her sell-by date as well.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    It's all downhill after 15.

  • John||

    It goes back to the fact that "child porn" possession is a thought crime but we are not honest enough to admit it. You are right. there is nothing good or bad about a picture of a naked body, child or adult. What makes it "bad" is either the circumstances surrounding how it was taken (i.e. someone having it taken without their consent) or the thoughts that the picture inspires in the viewer.

    Clearly, taking pictures of anyone, especially minors without their consent is and should be a crime. But possessing those pictures has nothing to do with that. The only thing "bad" there is your thoughts.

  • See Double You||

    Pffft, mens rea? Who needs that in this age of burdensome bureaucracy and passionate prosecution?

  • Zeb||

    That is definitely true about child porn (possession, not creation). But in this case, her taking and having the pictures was in no way illegal or immoral (even religious sexual moralists can't say much if the pics were for her husband), making it more ridiculous still.

  • John||

    I think that the reason they flipped out about it is rooted in the same crazy attitude. Why do they think the pictures "corrupted" the kids? The reason is that it got the kids to think about sex with an adult. The mere thinking about that subject is now criminal.

    This case is no different than if the kids had peaked in her window and saw her naked. Kids I presume have been doing such things forever. And if this were the 1960s and they had been caught doing that, they would have been punished and no one would have ever thought that the woman corrupted them because she close her blinds tightly. That was before we went crazy about the entire subject.

    To me it is all the same crazy stew.

  • tarran||

    Burkas for everyone!

  • Zeb||

    Ah, I see your point.

  • ||

    I wouldn't call her an attractive nuisance. But I would like to see this argued legally. It'd mean that a woman's sexiness sets the required standard of care/due diligence, and courts would have to determine that fact.

    (Talk about framing the victim.)

  • ||

    Indeed, frame it as sexual assault, sexual harassment against that teacher, and the thing takes a different turn. It still makes more sense than the "two people who are drunk rape each other" matter. The "thief" harassed her, and the recipients. She is "implicated" in the thief's harassment of the recipients, and possibly also harmed the thief, in some kind of negligence/strict liability scheme.

  • Tionico||

    the punk thief obviously thought she was sufficiently (fill in the blank) to steal her phone (criminal on its face) and search it to see if there wasn't something "of interest" with which he could harm her. His hunch was correct. HE had the mens rea, she did not.

  • straffinrun||

    A South Carolina high-school teacher may be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor...

    I thought for sure she was going to be an economics teacher.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    As if they teach that these days.

  • straffinrun||

    Sure they do. "How great would it be if the Federal Govt mandated a $15 minimum wage? Please show your work. Extra credit if you call for Gov Walker's execution."

  • Adans smith||

    The lass is called 'free shit'.

  • ||

    I can't really say one way or the other about this case until I see the photos.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    I agree. Principles over principals, you know.

  • Jordan||

    So, now we know what it takes to fire a teacher. Get got with bags of drugs in a courthouse or molesting a student? Nope. Have your private pictures stolen? Yep.

    Somebody should plant a gun-shaped poptart in the superintendent's office.

  • John||

    Or steal his cell phone and send a text with a gun shaped emoji. That might get him hard time if you are in the right state.

  • Chipwooder||

    What if she had actual photo prints of herself, and the kid had broken into her house, stolen them, and plastered copies of them all over the school? "Get better locks if you want to have nude photos of yourself in your house!"

  • ||

    ^This

  • ||

    ...but, that being SC they would still have fired her.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    The kid installs spy cameras in her house and takes video of her having sex.

    "Look bitch, you've gotta be more careful! Have fun in prison!"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Mustang||

    So we're blaming the victim now?

  • Riven||

    Do we not usually? :P

  • Mustang||

    No. I see a lot of people who think that a lot of people blame the victim though.

    Car got stolen? Should have locked it up better.
    Person got raped? Shouldn't have looked like that.
    Friend got mugged? Shouldn't have been walking down that alley unarmed.

    Telling someone to be prepared for the worst is not blaming the victim.

    "Hey, don't leave your phone laying around." "Don't drink so much that you aren't aware of your surroundings." "Carry a gun." "Shred your files." "Vote Libertarian."

    These are sensible pieces of advice, but ultimately the blame is on the perpetrator.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Get the fuck out of here with your understanding of nuance and advocacy for prudence and maturity! We don't cotton to that stuff around these parts!

  • Mustang||

    *hangs head*

    Can't even make it with the people who want to leave me alone...

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Ah, now you understand what it is to be a libertarian, Grasshopper.

    *bows*

  • Adans smith||

    Take the bit coin from my hand.

  • Mustang||

    Ah, but there is no bitcoin. That's the beauty in it.

  • gaoxiaen||

  • Adans smith||

    Hold on HM,he ani't hurten no buddy.

  • Citizen X||

    "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel."

  • Hamster of Doom||

    What a shame. The real ass in this picture is Superintendent Eubanks.

  • Adans smith||

    BTW,seeing her face pic,would.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    Pig.

    But, yeah.

  • Riven||

    Absolutely would.

  • Adans smith||

    She has a perrty mouth,so,there's that.

  • Adans smith||

    Oh,and if this would have happened to a coed by some guy at collage what do you think would happen,huh?

  • ||

    Given that this is SC, of course they went ballistic about the nudity. I'm guessing they didn't touch the student out of fear of a lawsuit that the school had, somehow, "exposed" him to damaging, traumatizing nude pictures. Also, Career and Technical Center equals school for the truly stupid.

  • Tundra, well-chilled.||

    It was called Vo-Tech when I was a small Yeti.

  • Adans smith||

    I've been to Myrtle Beach,lots on skin there.I prefer Nags Head in the fall.

  • straffinrun||

    I hate chicks that don't store sensitive material on easily accessible files.

  • Jerryskids||

    She should have just said she was working undercover for the FBI, they hate everybody that doesn't store sensitive material on easily accessible files. Come to think of it - does the superintendent have a password-protected phone? If so, what's he trying to hide? What kind of pics does he have that he's so worried about anybody else seeing? Show us your phone, Supernintendo Eubanks!

  • straffinrun||

    Maybe this?

  • Joe_in_Indiana||

    Can we have a picture of the 16-year old who stole the phone? That seems reasonable-he feels he is an adult.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    "One might think that the student would at least face disciplinary action from the school, if not criminal charges of some sort. But thus far, the school has not moved to hold the 16-year-old student accountable at all. Arthur, however, is another story. After teaching in Union County for 13 years, she resigned when district officials gave her the choice to do so immediately or start the firing process. "

    Amazing. In New York City, grossly incompetent teachers with tenure get to sit around doing nothing all day and still get paid because the city doesn't want them teaching kids but also can't fire them. Meanwhile, in South Carolina they force teachers out for private naked pictures that get stolen by a student.

    I feel like there has to be a happy medium somewhere.

  • See Double You||

    That happy medium is sanity. Ain't none of that in this world.

  • Adans smith||

    With a upcoming race between Trump and Hillary that door is closed.

  • See Double You||

    Where were these hot teachers with easily-accessible nude pics in MY day?!

    I keed, I keed.

  • Adans smith||

    Marrying well.

  • straffinrun||

    Well Youngin', let me show you what I found when I swiped my school marm's file.

  • Jerryskids||

  • straffinrun||

    Hey kiddo, want your collon packed with fudge?

  • sarcasmic||

    Mens rea continues to roll in its grave.

  • Adans smith||

    That's a dead language spoken by white slave holders like George Washington.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    What about brown slave holders like Augustine of Hippo's family?

  • Adans smith||

    You know that don't count,like all the slavery in the Arab world.

  • See Double You||

    Mens rea sounds like some heterocisshitlord term. It even has "men" in it!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Maybe resigning makes it easier for her to get hired elsewhere.

    Otherwise, she shouldn't have resigned.

    She should press criminal charges against the kid. "Your day of reckoning"? That's criminal intent.

    The kid stole her personal property. If she'd left her front door unlocked, and the kid walked into her house and stole photos out of her desk, they'd prosecute him for it.

  • Adans smith||

    She should press charges against the kid and sue the fucking school.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    THIS!

  • jmg09||

    How am I supposed to form an intelligent opinion on this if the media refused to reprint the actual photographs in question? Irresponsible journalism, I say.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Wow. A woman lost her job and could be charged with a crime because of nude pictures on her private phone and the first reaction of some people is to criticize her.

    "Be careful with naked pictures on your phone" is sensible advice, but that's so minor compared to the mistreatment of the teacher, that I can't understand why anyone even cares about that aspect of the story.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, she's the only victim here. If you don't want your nudie pics to get out, you need to protect them better. But that's irrelevant here. Even if she didn't care if the pics got out of her control, the kid still stole her damn phone and invaded her privacy.

  • See Double You||

    That's my take, too, Irish. Hell, we're all guilty of negligence at some point or another. In most cases, such as here, that should not ruin one's life.

    I hope the kid could be charged with more than petty theft - his malice is an aggravating circumstance.

  • Mustang||

    No kidding. The kid committed an actual crime with intent (at least according to the teacher) and somehow we're focused on blaming the teacher.

    A Clockwork Orange was weird when I first read it, but it makes more sense every day.

  • Jerryskids||

    Do you know for a fact that this isn't a black teacher? Maybe it is totally her fault! (I kid.)

    For me, and I assume most of us here, it literally goes without saying that the main point is that there was a crime committed against this teacher and she is the victim and it's outrageous she's now being victimized a second time. That's why we're not saying it - it goes without saying. But that being not said, there's a secondary point that leaving a phone with nude pics on it just sitting around like that is pretty stupid - and this stupidity was perpetrated by a teacher, a teacher in some kind of computer class, and holy crap! is this who we're entrusting our kids' education to?

  • FreeRadical||

    Kind of off topic, but speaking of naughty pictures in the intertubes...

    Three University of Minnesota basketball players have been suspended for the rest of the season after they posted videos of themselves having threesomes with a girl on twitter.

    Evidently, there were two videos, both showing simultaneous front door/back door action.

    The level of stupidity is unfathomable, unless someone got their phones and put it on twitter without their knowledge.

  • straffinrun||

    The old golden gopher. You should see the Crimson Tide.

  • Jerryskids||

    You don't want to see the Florida State Semenholes.

  • Citizen X||

    The latest stats from PornHub suggest otherwise.

  • Adans smith||

    'After viewing these videos for several hours ,we have cum to the decision that the three students must be suspended'.

  • FreeRadical||

    And sadly, I have not been able to closely analyse the videos to come up with my own dispassionate and objective opinion of whether they should be suspended or not.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    You just described dp. Are you sure you're using "front door" properly? Or were you trying to describe a spit-roast?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I believe there was a short video of an "eiffel tower," as the kids call it.

  • Jerryskids||

    The last threesome I was in, Warty told me front door/back door action involved me and her front door and Warty and my back door.

  • Je suis Woodchipper||

    I have no idea what that is.

  • Fried||

    I believe the kids call that one a 'happy Pierre'.

  • Zeb||

    jesse had an excellent SFW GIF to illustrate it. But I can't find it right now.

  • Zeb||

    I'm not sure what that has to do with basketball. I guess maybe they have to agree to some morality contract to join the team or something.

  • Riven||

    A lot of sportsball teams have bologna codes of conduct. Sometimes you actually sign something, but more often I'd say it's just implied.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Randall "Pink" Floyd had something to say about that.

  • Riven||

    You're goddamn right he did. Such a fabulous movie. Also, it's the reason I can't take Matthew McC...whatever seriously. Every time I see him, in any role, I just think of this

  • gaoxiaen||

    Why? It's true.

  • BearOdinson||

    Does SC have a "revenge porn" law? I know several states do. Wouldn't this fall under that?

    (Not trying to be lazy. I am at work so I don't feel real comfortable about google searches with the word "porn" in it.)

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I did not actually read the article, but allow me to chime in: I am outraged that ENB thinks this woman does not deserve privacy. OUTRAGED!

  • GILMORE™||

    I see no link to pics here. I am disappoint

  • Loki||

    Administrators say she should have password-protected the phone.

    Well, technically: yes, she should have. But being a dumbass isn't "contributing to the delinquency of a minor." A minor who apparently hasn't been charged or held accountable for his actions in anyway. I can't even follow the logic there. Shouldn't the minor be actually charged with something in order to be "delinquent"? And if he hasn't been, then how is what she did ""contributing to the delinquency of a minor"? Something tells me she pissed off someone in the school's administration and probably the teacher's union (which explains why they haven't come to her defense).

    According to Arthur, he told her: "Your day of reckoning is coming."

    What 16 year old talks like that?

    "You talk like a fag and you're shit's all retarded."

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    That actually sounds exactly like how a 16 year old would talk when he's trying to be cool and quotes something he heard in a shitty action movie one time.

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    How dare you imply that Lethal Weapon 2 is a shitty action movie as opposed to the modern American classic that it is?

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Loki||

    Still, it's right up there with "rue the day."

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Nice!

  • Loki||

    I was actually hoping someone else would make that reference, but I was let down and had to do it myself.

    You're all a bunch of degenerates!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • ||

    Contributing to the delinquency of a minor? What? ...Oh, I get it. " If it wasn't for dickheads like you, there wouldn't be any thievery in this world, would there?"

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    +1 jelly doughnut

  • FreeRadical||

    In looking at the comments on the WYFF4 story, the kid was already facing expulsion for destruction of school property and had already done exactly the same thing with other peoples' phones. But, he's black so, you know, there's no need to cause a ruckus about him.

  • Loki||

    One more question: what does this have to do with Trump? /sarc

    It's actually kind of refreshing to see a story about something - anything - else.

  • Restoras||

    Hey, there's less than 1,000 comments on the abortion thread. You're all a bunch of slackers.

  • sarcasmic||

    Slightly OT:
    This reminds me of Starship Troopers where Heinlein criticized the term "juvenile delinquent" as being an oxymoron. Delinquent means failing in duty, but juveniles by definition have no duty to fail in. So how can they be delinquent when they have no duty, and how can someone contribute to them failing a non-existent duty?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    In that same book, both parent and child were caned as discipline for juvenile crimes.

    And child. Heinlein does not ascribe zero agency to children. The puppy training anecdote of Mr duBois' additionally highlights the value argument of corrective discipline properly applied.

    Taking one side of Heinlein's argument while appearing* to overlook the rest reminds me of modern "Keynesians" who forget that government is supposed to save in boom times to finance the spending in bust.

    * I seem to have forgotten my mind-reading monocle in my other orphan mine.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not overlooked. I just didn't want to write a fucking essay.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Be proud of that fourth-place finish, right on.

  • Eman||

    i like how faithfully that movie captured the essence of the book

  • SugarFree||

    Delinquency also has the definition of "minor crime, especially that committed by young people."

    So the idea of the teacher being charged for "Contributing to the delinquency of a minor" is saying that she was an accomplice in the kid stealing from her and invading her privacy.

  • R C Dean||

    To boil it down:

    Taking naked pictures of yourself is not a crime.

    Having these pictures on your phone is not a crime.

    Not having a passcode on your phone is not a crime.

    Having your phone stolen is not a crime.

    You have not committed a crime if a thief distributes what they have stolen from you.

    There is no basis for charging the teacher with a crime.

    Personally, I don't think she should be fired, either. Unless you want to fire every teacher who doesn't use a passcode or ever risks having their phone stolen.

  • Loki||

    Unless you want to fire every teacher who doesn't use a passcode or ever risks having their phone stolen.

    Which is probably most of them. They're not exactly high watt bulbs...

  • FreeRadical||

    Yes. You should also post this on the two news stories linked above.

  • Irish ♥s ESB||

    Especially because who in a relationship hasn't at least sent sexual texts to the other person once in a while? If a kid steals my phone, screen-caps shit I said to my girlfriend, and then texts that out, is it my fault for having a private sexual relationship that involves text messages?

    This fucked up logic doesn't even need to involve pictures.

  • John||

    The analogy is if these kids had peaked in this woman's window and seen her naked and the school fired her for not locking her gate and thus allowing them to trespass into her yard.

    The case is absurd.

  • Careless||

    What the fucking fuck?

  • bassjoe||

    Extremely poor judgment on her part, at the very least, especially for a teacher who's around kids who naturally want to do mischievous things.

  • John||

    She is lucky that is all they did. And who doesn't password protect their phone?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I don't.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Let's ignore the technology involved and look at the substance of what happened: she brought nude pictures of herself to school and left them where a student could easily see them. That's an offense worthy of disciplinary action. Maybe not firing, but..maybe yes.

  • bassjoe||

    Bingo.

    If a teacher brought a Playboy to school and put it in an unlocked drawer and her students discovered it, that will also likely be a termination. Same thing.

  • R C Dean||

    What if its in her purse?

    What if she prescription meds to school, in her purse, and they get stolen? Should she be charged with distributing drugs to minors?

    I find this insistence of visiting punishment on the victim of a crime bizarre.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    We don't know enough about the incident to judge whether that comparison is apt or not. If the images were stored in the memory of the phone, then I can see how the comparison stands; however, if the images were stored in the cloud, then it is not the same thing. If the student stole her tablet and accessed the internet to surf for porn, would you still agree that she recklessly exposed him to nude images?

  • Bryan C||

    It's more like an old issue of National Geographic, with a small B&W photo containing boobies somewhere among the other 100 pages.

  • Vernon Depner||

    No, a Playboy would not be the same thing. The impropriety here is that the nude (and presumably provocative, given her explanation) pictures were OF THE TEACHER. For the students to see such pictures undermines respect and discipline. For the teacher to carelessly allow that is misconduct on her part worthy of disciplinary action. The misconduct on the part of the student is a separate issue. And, many commenters are continuing to get sidetracked to technical details about how the phone works. That's irrelevant. Her misconduct would be the same if she had left paper photos in her desk.

  • toolkien||

    1) Here job was put in jeopardy by a sequence of events that she was 50+% responsible for (taking pictures, keeping on phone, leaving phone accessible, not protecting phone). Losing job for being really stupid - borderline but not out the realm of reasonableness.

    2) Being charged with a crime? What if it was a copy of Cocks In Cunts shoved to the back of the bottom drawer of her unlocked desk? She'd have a reasonable expectation of privacy here as well, but bringing a copy of a porn mag to school and leaving it within a nosy-student drawer-perusal away wouldn't be met with indignation even IF the kid is reprimand-able for being nosy? In short, see 1. I don't like the State much in any event, and would probably just rather the issue go away and making it a learning point that teachers should probably leave nudity if any kind at home. But she was plenty dumb and, let's face it, finding this folder in pictures on the average phone is - what?- four/five clicks away? She was stupid and it unwound FAST into an issue that shouldn't have happened. Again, personally, I'd much rather the world be cooler, but I can see that she wasn't particularly smart and she did leave nudity pretty much a quick snoop away from being everywhere, evidenced by what happened. It's not like this kid had to hack for two hours or anything - clickity-click-click-click -whoa baby!

    3) The kid should at least get a detention for being nosy and being a smart ass.

  • R C Dean||

    Here job was put in jeopardy by a sequence of events that she was 50+% responsible for

    Traditionally, the commission of a crime cuts off any chain of responsibility or negligence etc. You may recall that gun manufacturers aren't held liable for crimes committed with guns, and that rape victims aren't dismissed (legally) for wearing miniskirts. Under this rule, nothing she did before the phone was stolen matters. This legal rule actually prevents "blaming the victim".

    And I think that's actually a pretty good rule. The criminal is entirely responsible for the crime they commit and its consequences.

  • toolkien||

    I don't know if her job security and a crime are being commingled?

    She brought nudity to school, within reach of a minor, slightly veiled. Losing her job is reasonable, though I'd probably be cooler about a first offense.

    A crime. The "thief" was a minor. Again, if this were a porn mag in desk where kids shouldn't be poking around in, I can imagine SOME sort of backlash. See my comment below written prior to this.

  • Zeb||

    Everyone who brings a smartphone or laptop to school is "bringing nudity to school". There's a whole internet full of nudity at their fingertips. Whether or not they are stored in the phone's memory is splitting hairs. The idea that you can keep any kind of information or content out of schools at this point is a joke.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Whether or not they are stored in the phone's memory is splitting hairs.

    Well that's what the law does, splits hairs.

    Don't hate the player, hate the game.

  • R C Dean||

    I dunno about that distinction, either. You can access both sets of pictures with the same poke of a finger.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So by that reasoning, any internet-connected device is a potential porno mag.

  • Zeb||

    Yes, I'd say it is that.

    To get back to game hating, the rules need changing to catch up with the ubiquity of all kinds of information, including porno. The law may distinguish between what's actually physically stored on a device and what is in the cloud or on the internet. But it's a meaningless distinction at this point (even ignoring the fact that it is absurd to think that protecting teenagers from exposure to porn is sensible or possible).

  • Bryan C||

    If you're seeing an image on a phone then it is, unavoidably, being stored in the phone's memory.

  • Zeb||

    I was thinking non-volatile memory. Of course it has to be stored on the phone in some way while being viewed.

  • R C Dean||

    I don't know if her job security and a crime are being commingled?

    On the criminal side, I think its pretty clear.

    How well the principle applies more generally is an exercise for the reader. If one of my employees has a duty to lock the door to their office, and they don't and the hospital is harmed in some way, I might fire them. But not because their office was robber; because they were supposed to keep it locked as an employment matter, and failed.

  • Bryan C||

    "She brought nudity to school, within reach of a minor, slightly veiled."

    Every single person there is guilty of bringing nudity to school, within reach of a minor, slightly veiled. And zippers, buttons, and clasps don't even have passcodes.

    If a student hides out in the women's locker room and watches a teacher shower, should the teacher be punished for not thoroughly checking for underage trespassers before disrobing?

  • ||

    Possibly omission offence, duty to protect students. (Not arguing de lege ferenda.) As a side note, it doesn't seem the phone was stolen, but that is was merely used.

  • R C Dean||

    If you pick up somebody else's property, you have stolen it. Even if you put it back. Traditionally, "transporting" the item is the nail in the coffin, and transporting involves little more than picking it up.

  • ||

    Appropriation; intent to permanently deprive?

  • toolkien||

    I probably should clarify on the "crime" front, if the punishment is seven years hard labor, no, a $450 fine and picking up garbage for a weekend? Probably was THAT dumb.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    ...and the she's convicted of a crime that's going to destroy her chances of ever working with children again, that's going to come up on every background check that ever gets done on her, and is going to significantly harm her life. It's a lot more than just the nominal punishment.

    And all because some asshole kid stole her phone. No.

  • Zeb||

    Why should she be punished for an act of possible negligence that harmed no one in any way, except possibly herself? That's ridiculous.

  • R C Dean||

    Imagine how stupid an administrator has to be, to get the commentariat to side with a teacher.

  • Xanas||

    All the people who are actually saying not to take naked pictures of yourself have seemingly never been in a relationship of any kind. As for "you're an idiot if you don't password your phone" remarks, this doesn't change the fact that her actual rights (not to privacy, but to property) were violated when the phone was used. This was clearly a trespass (it is not theft, but it still was a rights violation).

    Forcing her to resign for this was wrong. If she resigned of her own accord due to no longer being able to teach at the school, I'd understand, but forcing her out is wrong.

  • Jay jay||

    Dismiss the charges and charge the little idiot with sexual harassment, theft and bullying. Let him have to register as a sex offender so any female he approaches knows the type of dirtag he is.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    ENB, I promise we won't try to distribute your alt-text and get you fired if you leave it unprotected by a password.

  • RobynHeud||

    As a mother of small children, I don't password protect my phone. This is because even without a password, you can still dial emergency services. After the second time my kid dialed 911, I decided it wasn't worth it. In other words, we don't know why she didn't lock her phone, but it was her choice and she didn't have to. The only one at fault here is the kid who now knows he can publicly humiliate his teacher and get her fired without any repercussions. What he committed was theft and he should be the one expelled, not the teacher. And if the teacher had been another student, he likely would have been, since sending out the pics could be considered bullying. I hope she sues for wrongful termination and presses criminal charges against the boy.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    You can still dial 911 on a password protected phone.

  • Hoof Hearted||

    To those who are sure the problem is that she didn't secure her phone, would it change your mind if the phone had been password-protected and the kid just guessed the password?

    Don't move the goal posts to "a complex password" or something else. According to the arguments up-thread, any password would do...

  • RogerN||

    Should a car owner be responsible for the crimes committed with a car that was stolen just because it was unlocked?

  • Vernon Depner||

    In my state, a car owner who is reckless in failing to secure a car to prevent its criminal use might be charged with the crime of "wrongful entrustment of a motor vehicle", depending on the circumstances.

  • TheGame||

    Why must female journalists ALWAYS insist that when nude photos of a woman are brought up, you must specify the photos are "partial" nude photos? Nowhere in the original article does it say they were partially nude photos. It just says nude photos. Do women really believe that other women aren't sending pics of their vagina (also known as "pussy pics") to their husbands and boyfriends or do they hope and pray that women aren't sending pics of that part of their body to men?

  • Complacent||

    Elizabeth Nolan Brown, the brain dead who wrote this article: "Superintendent Eubanks seems to subscribe to the idea that 'if you don't want naked pictures distributed, don't take naked pictures!'—a proposition that makes about as much sense as telling people who don't want their TVs stolen not to own TVs or those who don't want their cars damaged not to park them outside their garages. We don't say this, because we rightly perceive that the blame for stolen TVs or damaged cars lies with the thief or the bad driver, not the person who had the audacity to own a TV or a car in the first place."

    Oh, brilliant observation, Elizabeth. Because we all just know that naked selfies are just as useful, even essential, as one's television or car. Are you this idiotic all the time?

  • nt413319@gmail.com||

    Start making more money weekly. This is a valuable part time work for everyone. The best part work from comfort of your house and get paid from $100-$2k each week.Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. For more details Check this link……

    Click This Link inYour Browser...

    ➤➤➤➤[] http://www.HomeSalary10.Com

  • Latka6||

    I'd fire her too. She doesn't have a "right" to a job. She was negligent in her fiduciary responsibilities to the students and clearly kind of dumb.

  • ||

    I hope something similar happens to you. It's the only way for people like you to see the retardation of it all.

    Kid stole the item to boot. In fact, I see his actions as the problem. He should be held accountable.

  • WuzYoungOnceToo||

    I hope something similar happens to you. It's the only way for people like you to see the retardation of it all.

    Kid stole the item to boot. In fact, I see his actions as the problem. He should be held accountable.

    The kid committed a crime, therefore she bears no responsibility at all for her own stupid, irresponsible actions.

    You're right, that is retarded.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    If the kid had stolen her phone, take nude pictures of himself, and distributed them to others, would she have been charged with making kiddie porn?

  • buybuydandavis||

    I would be happy to see the Teacher's Union gum up a few thousand woodchippers.

    But this is just dumb. She's a bozo for not password protecting her phone. And she more than paid for it by having her pictures spread around.

    The fact that there were self nudies on the phone was irrelevant. The *internet* is available on her phone, that surging sea of porn. Which a kid can access from his own damn phone anyway.

    This is just another "Education Bureaucracy Screws Someone to Cover Ass" story. Leave the poor broad alone.

  • Tionico||

    Sure, she would have been smart to passcode the phone. that is ONE ISSUE.

    A completely separate one is the punk who stole her personal property. HE must be charged with theft, at minimum, and invasion of privacy, perhaps some charge for distribution of sexually explicit material to minors.... HE is the one did that, hoe HER.
    She did have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It was violated by a punk who MUST face discipline. If I were in her shoes I'd go to the police and insist on charges being brought against this thug.

  • #NotMyReason (Krabappel)||

    crabapple

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online