[Zeeb]

I saw this article in Wired about several teens who took pictures of themselves naked and apparently emailed them. A phone was seized by a school administrator at some point and charges were brought against these teens.

While I believe that minors who take nude pictures of themselves and try to email them should be stopped(since they probably don't understand the ramifications of those photos being distributed on the internet)--I certainly don't think that criminal charges should be filed against them.

One prosecutor even suggested that teens could be charged as adults if they are still found to have pictures of themselves nude as a minor when they reach 18. I'm incredulous at such a possibility as it seems to fly in the face of the rights of that individual. Thoughts?

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/01/kids.html

[Luca Rescigno]

I agree with you. It's ridiculous. At worst, they should get a slap on the wrist and a stern talking-to by their parents. Obviously, the pictures should be destroyed as well.

Do prosecutors not know how big a deal it is to have a child pornography charge on your record? Imagine being labeled a sex offender, being forced to report your location and your status to your neighbors whenever you move, for the rest of your life, for doing something as utterly harmless as this!

A judge needs to step in and remind everyone that the spirit of the law is just as important as (if not more important than) the letter. Child pornography laws were created to protect children from abuse. This seems like a prosecutor going overboard just for the hell of it.

[Chongo]

They were talking about this last night on one of the cable shows. It is called "sexting"

[Oneota]

I think a distinction needs to be drawn between nude pictures and pornography. The human body, in and of itself, is not pornographic, no matter how old/young the person. Taking pictures of people without clothing isn't necessarily porn, which is something we in the U.S. still haven't wrapped our minds around.

If the images are of teens having sex, that's one thing. But if they're just naked, then it's not child porn, and the lawyers need to step off and worry about something that matters.

[Chuckit]

The crusade against puberty in this country is just plain weird. Obviously I'm for stopping sexual abuse, but trying to completely neuter teenagers is kind of a fool's errand.

And beyond that, nudity is not the same thing as pornography. My little sister used to dance around naked when she was really young and I'm sure my mom has a few pictures of it because she thought it was hilarious. It's ridiculous to call that child porn just because there was nudity.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I agree with you. It's ridiculous. At worst, they should get a slap on the wrist and a stern talking-to by their parents. Obviously, the pictures should be destroyed as well.

Do prosecutors not know how big a deal it is to have a child pornography charge on your record? Imagine being labeled a sex offender, being forced to report your location and your status to your neighbors whenever you move, for the rest of your life, for doing something as utterly harmless as this!

A judge needs to step in and remind everyone that the spirit of the law is just as important as (if not more important than) the letter. Child pornography laws were created to protect children from abuse. This seems like a prosecutor going overboard just for the hell of it.

IMO prosecutors have gone a bit nutty in the past 5 years when it comes to charging minors with crimes. It seems to be that the newest way to combat deliquency is to charge kids as adults in all situations and ruin their lives--that'll show em! Next week it will be "1 year charged with public lewdness while getting diaper changed at mall"

[Laminar]

[Dakar V]

One has to wonder how hypocritical these prosecutors are being as well.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Oneota 

If the images are of teens having sex, that's one thing. But if they're just naked, then it's not child porn, and the lawyers need to step off and worry about something that matters.

Not sure what the law is in the US, but in the UK when I worked for a telecoms company, we caught someone using our network to send pictures of naked kids. The only picture that I ever saw was two 8 or 9 year old girls on swings. That ****er, when he was caught, went down for possessing child pornography.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The crusade against puberty in this country is just plain weird. Obviously I'm for stopping sexual abuse, but trying to completely neuter teenagers is kind of a fool's errand.

And beyond that, nudity is not the same thing as pornography. My little sister used to dance around naked when she was really young and I'm sure my mom has a few pictures of it because she thought it was hilarious. It's ridiculous to call that child porn just because there was nudity.

I believe American Beauty and Romeo and Juliet (the old Franco Zeffirelli version) both had 16-year-old actresses who did brief nude scenes. Didn't see anyone get carted off to prison over those movies (in fact, we watched Romeo and Juliet in my Jr. High English class).

Besides, there's a big difference between a 16-17 year old and a 9-year-old (not to mention the HUGE difference between someone taking pictures of themselves vs. an adult exploiting or sexually molesting a child and also taking pictures).

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I believe American Beauty and Romeo and Juliet (the old Franco Zeffirelli version) both had 16-year-old actresses who did brief nude scenes.

IIRC, Thora Birch was 17 at the time and 18 when the movie started getting big press. And Romeo & Juliet is from a different age.

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

Besides, there's a big difference between a 16-17 year old and a 9-year-old (not to mention the HUGE difference between someone taking pictures of themselves vs. an adult exploiting or sexually molesting a child and also taking pictures).

Yes, that's what I was saying.

[Dakar V]

They still needed parental consent to let Thora Birch do the nude scene. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what age you are when it comes out, it's still you nude underage.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

They still needed parental consent to let Thora Birch do the nude scene. And I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter what age you are when it comes out, it's still you nude underage.

So your argument is that Sam Mendes was prosecuted?

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

So your argument is that Sam Mendes was prosecuted?

Was your argument that it was ok because she was 17, but 18 when the film came out?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Was your argument that it was ok because she was 17, but 18 when the film came out?

My argument is that her age and a few other factors allowed American Beauty to get away with underage nudity while — obviously — others haven't. I feel pretty confident that if you tried to recreate the scene with a younger teen nowadays, you could be crucified.

[Chongo]

Pretty Baby comes to mind. There was no "grass on the filed" when Brooke Shields appeared nude in that film. There are stills on the net that would get you arrested id they were on your computer. Google Brooke Shields pics it and you'll see

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Pretty Baby comes to mind. There was no "grass on the filed" when Brooke Shields appeared nude in that film. There are stills on the net that would get you arrested id they were on your computer. Google Brooke Shields pics it and you'll see

… and get arrested.

[LegendaryPinkOx]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

… and get arrested.

Wheres Admiral Ackbar when you need him.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by LegendaryPinkOx 

Wheres Admiral Ackbar when you need him.

He's too busy hawking cereal.

[Oneota]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

I believe American Beauty and Romeo and Juliet (the old Franco Zeffirelli version) both had 16-year-old actresses who did brief nude scenes. Didn't see anyone get carted off to prison over those movies (in fact, we watched Romeo and Juliet in my Jr. High English class).

Besides, there's a big difference between a 16-17 year old and a 9-year-old (not to mention the HUGE difference between someone taking pictures of themselves vs. an adult exploiting or sexually molesting a child and also taking pictures).

True - but even in the case of a 9-year-old, there needs to be a distinction drawn between nudity and pornography. If the 9-year-old happens to belong to a nudist family (which is a perfectly legal lifestyle in the US), then there's probably going to be some pictures of her without clothing on at some point in her early adolescence. And if she grew up with that lifestyle, she's almost certainly okay with that.

It may not be a lifestyle that everyone agrees with, but it's legal. But that still hasn't stopped overzealous prosecutors and judges from locking up nudist parents, even though no sexual molestation or exploitation was taking place. Nudity≠Sex, and Nudity≠Porn.

[Dork.]

There's another angle to be considered here: the purpose of laws against child pornography is supposed to be to protect children against those who would take advantage of them before they are old enough to lawfully consent to be involved. We go after people who make child porn, as well as those who possess it, in an attempt to punish those who would take advantage of children to make a buck.

But when children take pictures of themselves, is anyone actively taking advantage of children? I would contend that punishing the children as criminals causes more harm. The folk who are pushing this prosecution have lost sight of why these laws exist in the first place.

[dcmacdaddy]

What is up with the attitude that nudity = sex or nudity = pornography? Are we still that puritanical in this country in regards to nudity and sexuality? Heck, when my young nieces (2.5 and 4.5 years old) take their bath at night-time they like to play the take-off-running-naked game as you are drying off them. It's a fun game of "catch me" for them and pretty funny to watch for us adults too. If my sister were to take a picture of them doing this would it be child pornography? That's crazy. I've got a picture of myself at the age of 4 or 5 in the tub with my then best-friend Paul. I think it was bath time but we had all our boats and submarines with us in the tub--I had a cool-ass plastic submarine toy I wish I still had--so we could have been in there just playing. Was his Mom a perv for taking such a picture and getting a copy made to give to my Mom? Seriously, have people lost all common sense?


What bothers me even more is the criminalization of almost everything to do with nudity/sexuality in this country. How can two individuals who willingly take pictures of themselves naked, and then send them to one another, be accused of engaging in child pornography? Isn't child porn about adults using their position of trust to take advantage of youngsters? Well, where is the abuse of trust in this act? This was done with mutual consent. Not too mention the individuals involved were almost the same age, so it wasn't a case of an older person abusing the trust of a younger person. What about this case has anything, anything, to do with pornography, other than the fact that it involves pictures of naked people?

[Oneota]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What about this case has anything, anything, to do with pornography, other than the fact that it involves pictures of naked people?

Exactly my point - if it's just naked people, then it isn't even porn! There has to be something sexual happening (or an obvious focus on the genitalia) in order for a picture containing nudity to be pornographic (aka obscene). Doesn't matter if the people depicted are 40, 24, or 13 years old.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What is up with the attitude that nudity = sex or nudity = pornography? Are we still that puritanical in this country in regards to nudity and sexuality? Heck, when my young nieces (2.5 and 4.5 years old) take their bath at night-time they like to play the take-off-running-naked game as you are drying off them. It's a fun game of "catch me" for them and pretty funny to watch for us adults too. If my sister were to take a picture of them doing this would it be child pornography? That's crazy. I've got a picture of myself at the age of 4 or 5 in the tub with my then best-friend Paul. I think it was bath time but we had all our boats and submarines with us in the tub--I had a cool-ass plastic submarine toy I wish I still had--so we could have been in there just playing. Was his Mom a perv for taking such a picture and getting a copy made to give to my Mom? Seriously, have people lost all common sense?

According to one prosecutor in this article not only could charges indeed be brought against his mother for taking pictures of you two--but charges could be brought against you for possessing underage, nude pictures of yourself and your friend.

The only way I can see a justification of charges being brought against someone who possessed underage nude pictures of themselves is if it could be proven that they used their own nude pictures to make postings on child porn sites years later. I could theoretically see a group of child molesters sending pics of each other -- and that may be what these prosecutors have in mind. However, not if they are bringing charges against minors as is the case in this article.

[Chuckit]

Even if it's a bunch of pedophiles sending innocent childhood pictures of themselves to each other, so freakin' what? If they've found an outlet for their mental issues that doesn't involve hurting anybody, isn't that a good thing?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What about this case has anything, anything, to do with pornography, other than the fact that it involves pictures of naked people?

Originally Posted by Oneota 

Exactly my point - if it's just naked people, then it isn't even porn! There has to be something sexual happening (or an obvious focus on the genitalia) in order for a picture containing nudity to be pornographic (aka obscene). Doesn't matter if the people depicted are 40, 24, or 13 years old.

I think you and I, and many other members here, are on the same page regarding what constitutes pornography. I guess what has me so worked up is that here are law enforcement "professionals" who feel that anything sexual between two people is criminal and therefore they must do something about this matter, something that makes it seems they are being "tough on crime". As a result, (somewhat) normal* sexual behavior is becoming seen as aberrant and hence criminal. I think the one concern that matters most to me is that by criminalizing more and more sexual behavior we as a society are likely to *diminish* the impact of the most heinous acts of sexual abuse by limiting what is considered appropriate and/or acceptable sexual behavior. In other words, if most sexual behavior is criminal, then how is society supposed to argue that pedophilia is especially harmful? I think such attitudes regarding the criminality of normal sexual behavior diminish the strength with which society holds behaviors like pedophilia as especially unacceptable.


*I say somewhat normal because I think this sort of behavior--young kids giving a sneak-peek of their bodies to a romantic partner--is in no way new. But what is new is the method of sharing, a method that has the potential to be one->many not just one->one. (I am thinking of how this would have been done in the old days with polaroid cameras where the recipient had possession of the only copy of the image. Whereas nowadays, pictures like this taken in digital format, while maybe intended only for a single recipient, can be very easily distributed to many recipients.)

[OreoCookie]

To me it's not just about the question whether the pictures is `pornographic' or not. If a couple of, say, 16-year olds send each other `sexy pictures', they could already be pornographic to some. But this doesn't really matter in my opinion, because a sixteen-year old wanting to see another sixteen-year old naked is not sexually deviant behavior: a 40-year old wanting to see that 16-year old naked is. Labelling one of the two or both of the teenagers `pedophiles' just doesn't make any sense.

[kmkkid]

I guess 90% of the western civ. should be charged as pedophiles then, because almost every parent I know has a picture of their children nude in the tub.

[kmkkid]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

To me it's not just about the question whether the pictures is `pornographic' or not. If a couple of, say, 16-year olds send each other `sexy pictures', they could already be pornographic to some.

Knowing how hormonal teen males work (cause I used to be one ), I highly doubt they'd just be sending pictures of their flacid penis to a girl, it would most likely be erect and therefore pornographic.

Girls on the other hand probably wouldnt be sending lewd photos of sexual acts on themselves, which I feel is the only way they could be pornographic. Then again I never was in touch with the female kind, so who knows?

Anyways, I'm in agreeance with most everyone in this thread that this is a harmless act and consentual, so it shouldn't be prosecuted, although it's probably not the wisest move on their part.

[PB2K]

when my 3 year old niece was on a miami beach other people were telling her mother the child should wear a top. a bra for a 3 year old child !?? :/

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Anyways, I'm in agreeance with most everyone in this thread that this is a harmless act and consentual, so it shouldn't be prosecuted, although it's probably not the wisest move on their part.

Technically speaking, consent doesn't matter here, since these are minors and technically can't legally consent to having nude pictures taken of them. What makes it interesting is that the teens were taking pictures of themselves. The teens themselves were performing the act that they can't legally consent to, which is quite silly when you think about it.

Part of the problem is how fast technology has evolved, and the fact that the law hasn't caught up. Doing things that are natural for teenagers become crimes when the Internet is involved. These teens would have been better off having an orgy in public, they probably would have gotten in less trouble than taking pictures of themselves.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Technically speaking, consent doesn't matter here, since these are minors and technically can't legally consent to having nude pictures taken of them. What makes it interesting is that the teens were taking pictures of themselves. The teens themselves were performing the act that they can't legally consent to, which is quite silly when you think about it.

I don’t think consent applies when there’s only oneself involved. If it did, masturbation would be illegal for minors, too, since they can’t legally consent to sexual acts.

I can see the headings now: “43 million teenagers charged with statutory rape, D.A.s all over the country drown in paperwork”.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I don’t think consent applies when there’s only oneself involved. If it did, masturbation would be illegal for minors, too, since they can’t legally consent to sexual acts.

I'm *sure* somebody must have tried to do that in the U.S.
Mr. Phelps is probably still pondering the legal framework as I write this.

[Doofy]

Far be it from me to get all political and tin-foil hatty, but it strikes me that all this fuss about child pron is an excuse for the authorities to monitor your communications.
Obviously, proper child pron should be severely stamped on - but the definition is becoming way too wide these days. As planned.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Far be it from me to get all political and tin-foil hatty, but it strikes me that all this fuss about child pron is an excuse for the authorities to monitor your communications.
Obviously, proper child pron should be severely stamped on - but the definition is becoming way too wide these days. As planned.

That's true to some degree, but it's also just an easy political win. Most adults are enamored with the idea of youthful innocence, so guarding it is an easy way to score moral points. "I support protecting children and keeping them innocent! That other guy hasn't done nearly as much!" And since it works so well, they want to build themselves a bigger trough.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Knowing how hormonal teen males work (cause I used to be one ), I highly doubt they'd just be sending pictures of their flacid penis to a girl, it would most likely be erect and therefore pornographic.

It doesn't matter if it's pornographic or not, as long as it is private. It's a question whether the motivation is sexually deviant behavior: being attracted to the same age group is not deviant, it's normal -- and thus shouldn't be put in the same category (or even punished).

Originally Posted by kmkkid 

Girls on the other hand probably wouldnt be sending lewd photos of sexual acts on themselves, which I feel is the only way they could be pornographic. Then again I never was in touch with the female kind, so who knows?

I wouldn't be so naïve …

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It doesn't matter if it's pornographic or not, as long as it is private. It's a question whether the motivation is sexually deviant behavior: being attracted to the same age group is not deviant, it's normal -- and thus shouldn't be put in the same category (or even punished).

Hrm, this puts us on much murkier ground. Being attracted to members of the same sex or a different race is also deviant behavior, but I think we can agree that society should not punish people for that. Why is the normalcy of the behavior a factor in whether or not it should be punished?

(Disclaimer: I'm not trying to advocate for anything here. I'm just trying to figure out the logic of the situation.)

[OreoCookie]

I should have left out normal and formulated my sentences with more care, you're right. (And there are people who view homosexuality as deviant (which I do not).) But my point is obvious: you cannot be a pedophile if you're of the same age group as your victim.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by PB2K 

when my 3 year old niece was on a miami beach other people were telling her mother the child should wear a top. a bra for a 3 year old child !?? :/

That's sad, very sad.



-t

[PB2K]

it's reality though. Some people draw the line very shallow and this is a fine example.

My point of view is that a child should never bear the worries of the adult world. It's a parents' duty to find the best balance in protection and ignorance.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It doesn't matter if it's pornographic or not, as long as it is private. It's a question whether the motivation is sexually deviant behavior.

I have a feeling that it's not private... I bet the teens don't get permission to sent the photos, they just do it and wait for the reaction. And then I bet they get passed on and on around the school and end up on websites more than once in a while. And I'm pretty sure the question is not "whether the motivation is sexually deviant behavior" It's "are there pictures of underage naked kids going around cyberspace" And if any of you remember being teens you might agree with me that there's nothing innocent about it! Maybe compared to what you're thinking nowadays there is but you've heard of the teen pregnancy problem haven't you?

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Far be it from me to get all political and tin-foil hatty, but it strikes me that all this fuss about child pron is an excuse for the authorities to monitor your communications. Obviously, proper child pron should be severely stamped on - but the definition is becoming way too wide these days. As planned.

I think everyone's defending the teens because it sounds like so much fun but imagine the "authorities" who are trying to stop actual child porn. They start monitoring a few communications and find hundreds of pictures of naked teens going thru the cell lines every minute. How do you expect them to track them all back to find out the ages of the people that took them and sent them and the ages of the people they were sent to and whether they consented to receiving them? I'm thinking that unless all pictures of naked kids flying around in cyberspace are illegal then none will be and there will be one less way to find and catch pervs.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

In other words, if most sexual behavior is criminal, then how is society supposed to argue that pedophilia is especially harmful? I think such attitudes regarding the criminality of normal sexual behavior diminish the strength with which society holds behaviors like pedophilia as especially unacceptable.

This is exactly how I feel about this sort of thing and about inflexible age of consent laws. Some states still have a hard age of consent set at 18 years of age, so an 18-year-old and a 17-and-a-half-year-old can't have sex without it being a crime (not that that is generally enforced, but the law is still there and it CAN be enforced if they want). Most states, of course, make exceptions if you're within a few years, which makes sense.

But getting back to your point. If sex offender lists begin to contain people who took naked pictures of themselves when they were under 18, or people who had sex with their SO when one was 17 and the other was 18, will anyone actually pay attention to those lists? They'll lose all effectiveness. Sexual offender lists should only have people who are actually dangerous.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

This is exactly how I feel about this sort of thing and about inflexible age of consent laws. Some states still have a hard age of consent set at 18 years of age, so an 18-year-old and a 17-and-a-half-year-old can't have sex without it being a crime (not that that is generally enforced, but the law is still there and it CAN be enforced if they want). Most states, of course, make exceptions if you're within a few years, which makes sense.

But getting back to your point. If sex offender lists begin to contain people who took naked pictures of themselves when they were under 18, or people who had sex with their SO when one was 17 and the other was 18, will anyone actually pay attention to those lists? They'll lose all effectiveness. Sexual offender lists should only have people who are actually dangerous.

Yeah, this is what really scares me about this. And speaking about sex offender lists, I remember reading an article--just a couple years ago--about some guy who got busted for public urination after drinking too much and his crime was classified as sexual in nature and he had to be put on the sex offenders registry in his state. Granted, being so drunk that you urinate in public is not cool but that does not make the person a sex-based criminal. Such a designation not only can ruin the life of the individual so designated but also diminish the value of a sex offenders registry.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I'm thinking that unless all pictures of naked kids flying around in cyberspace are illegal then none will be and there will be one less way to find and catch pervs.

If that's the case, then we deserve one less way to find and catch pervs. One of the principles of the American justice system, which I very much agree with, is that it's better to have a couple of possible criminals running loose than to live in a police state.

[Salty]

The fact that age of consent is less than 17 in some places is insane. Heck what if the 17 year old tells someone else that they're over 17, I mean does anyone check ID before having sex with someone?

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Salty 

The fact that age of consent is less than 17 in some places is insane. Heck what if the 17 year old tells someone else that they're over 17, I mean does anyone check ID before having sex with someone?

Two things. First, why is it "insane" for the age of consent to be 16 in some places? That's not all that different from 17. A lot of states have it set at 16. Some have it at 18. I don't think it's a big deal as long as they have a law that allows for an age difference of 2-3 years (i.e. a 16yo boinking an 18yo doesn't get the 18yo charged with statutory rape).

Second, being told otherwise is apparently not an excuse. If some half-pint harlot tries to tempt you and claims to be of age, you're screwed. I think the only way out of this would be if the underage person were to have produced a fake ID showing them to be of age. I don't know for sure, but it would seem reasonable that if you're so concerned about a potential sexual partner being of age to check their ID, then they should be after the person faking their identity, not you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Salty 

The fact that age of consent is less than 17 in some places is insane.

Ummm... ...it's 14 in your country.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

I have a feeling that it's not private... I bet the teens don't get permission to sent the photos, they just do it and wait for the reaction.

Huh?
Permission from whom, from themselves? Sorry, but I don't get it.

Originally Posted by mrtew 

And then I bet they get passed on and on around the school and end up on websites more than once in a while.

Now you're jumping conclusions. We're talking about possession of such photos, not distribution.

Originally Posted by mrtew 

And I'm pretty sure the question is not "whether the motivation is sexually deviant behavior" It's "are there pictures of underage naked kids going around cyberspace"

Of course the motivation is to punish sexually deviant behavior, after all, we're objecting to the fact that minors are charged with creation, possession and distribution of child pornography. Sending them to friends is not the same thing as putting them online for the whole world to see.

Child pornography is forcing children (or very young teens) to engage in sexual acts with adults. These laws are to protect children, not to punish them.

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Maybe compared to what you're thinking nowadays there is but you've heard of the teen pregnancy problem haven't you?

I don't see the connection to teen pregnancies. At all.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Ummm... ...it's 14 in your country.

Used to be 14. Now it's 16.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Huh?
Permission from whom, from themselves? Sorry, but I don't get it.

If some dude sends some girl a picture of his dick without her permission then she's now possessing child pornography. Are you SURE that it's always between "consenting" individuals? What if 25 guys do it and her Dad finds the phone. He can't call the police and do anything? They're not sex offenders? What if it was your daughter? Are you sure it's so cool?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Huh?
Now you're jumping conclusions. We're talking about possession of such photos, not distribution.

What if she sends the photos to her friends? What if her Dad sends the photos to his friends? At what point is it not so cool anymore?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Huh?
Of course the motivation is to punish sexually deviant behavior, after all, we're objecting to the fact that minors are charged with creation, possession and distribution of child pornography. Sending them to friends is not the same thing as putting them online for the whole world to see.

What if she tells everyone in the school to send her pictures of their dicks and she starts passing them around to all her friends on CD rom? Everyone is 16. Is it still cool? What if she sells them? Still cool? What if she sells them to 18 year olds once she turns 18? These are not some far-fetched thought exercises. These are all things that I'm sure will happen a LOT if sexting catches on and isn't nipped in the bud. Have you seen the internet? It's half pron. I can find 100 pictures of bestiality just in my Google window! I'm totally cool with pron but I don't think everyone has to be, especially when it's their kids. How are you going to stop it without prosecuting it? I agree that they shouldn't be put on the same lists with actual child molesters though. Maybe just charge them with juvenile indecency and throw them in juvy for a week.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Huh?
I don't see the connection to teen pregnancies. At all.

Where do you think that this sending of naked photos is leading? It's leading up to sex. Where do you think teen sex leads? To teen pregnancy. How can you not see the connection? At all?