NJ girl, 14, arrested after posting nude pics
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090327/ap_on_re_us/teen_child_porn
QuoteA 14-year-old New Jersey girl has been accused of child pornography after posting nearly 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com — charges that could force her to register as a sex offender if convicted.
The case comes as prosecutors nationwide pursue child pornography cases resulting from kids sending nude photos to one another over cell phones and e-mail. Legal experts, though, could not recall another case of a child porn charge resulting from a teen's posting to a social networking site.
MySpace would not comment on the New Jersey investigation, but the company has a team that reviews its network for inappropriate images. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children tipped off a state task force, which alerted the Passaic County Sheriff's Office.
The office investigated and discovered the Clifton resident had posted the "very explicit" photos of herself, sheriff's spokesman Bill Maer said Thursday.
"We consider this case a wake-up call to parents," Maer said. The girl posted the photos because "she wanted her boyfriend to see them," he said.
Investigators are looking at individuals who "knowingly" committed a crime, he said, declining to comment further because the case is still being investigated.
The teen, whose name has not been released because of her age, was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. She was released to her mother's custody.
If convicted of the distribution charge, she would be forced to register with the state as a sex offender under Megan's Law, said state Attorney General Anne Milgram. She also could face up to 17 years in jail, though such a stiff sentence is unlikely.
Some observers — including the New Jersey mother behind the creation of Megan's Law — are criticizing the trend of prosecuting teens who send racy text messages or post illicit photos of themselves.
Maureen Kanka — whose daughter, Megan, became the law's namesake after she was raped and killed at age 7 in 1994 by a twice-convicted sex offender — blasted authorities for charging the 14-year-old girl.
The teen needs help, not legal trouble, she said.
"This shouldn't fall under Megan's Law in any way, shape or form. She should have an intervention and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herself."
Called "sexting" when it's done by cell phone, teenagers' habit of sending sexually suggestive photos of themselves and others to one another is a nationwide problem that has confounded parents, school administrators and law enforcers.
Prosecutors in states including Pennsylvania, Connecticut, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin have tried stop it by charging teens who send and receive the pictures.
In northeastern Pennsylvania, a prosecutor recently threatened to file child porn charges against three teenage girls who authorities say took racy cell-phone pictures that ended up on classmates' cell phones.
The MySpace case may be a first, though.
"I'm not sure I've seen a prosecution like this coming out of a social networking site," said Seth Kreimer, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.
Milgram, the attorney general, could not recall another such case in New Jersey. She cautioned parents to get on those sites and monitor what their kids are talking about and posting.
"Unfortunately, youth don't have the same judgment as adults," she said, "and often, adults don't have the same technical savvy as the youth."
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
We are so fucked in the head about these kind of issues. Although clearly, of course, 14 year olds should not be posting nude pictures on Myspace. :P
Somehow in the space 20 minutes, I came upon another related article. I like that people are fighting back:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/index.html
QuoteOverzealous prosecutors across the country targeting teens for "sexting," be afraid, be very afraid. Your worst nightmare, worse even than kids unabashedly creating their own child porn rings, is becoming reality: In northeastern Pennsylvania, three girls and their mothers filed a lawsuit Wednesday in response to the district attorney's threat of charging them with sexual abuse of a minor if they don't complete a 10-hour course on pornography and sexual violence, the New York Times reports. A total of 17 other "sexting" students were given the same choice and took it, but these families were so outraged by the proposition that they refused it.
Maybe you're thinking: But, loads of kids are being charged with child porn possession for "sexting" without being offered any deal -- recognize your luck and take the damn class, girls! But get a load of what actually got them in this pickle: Two of the girls took a cellphone photograph of themselves from the waist up wearing bras and then presumably sent it to some friends. (The third girl was shown in a different photograph.) In other words: The photo displays roughly the equivalent of the juniors' swim wear section in the Macy's catalog. 'The snapshot, which was taken two years ago at a junior high slumber party, is "provocative," explains Skumanick. (Well, that's damning. In what parallel universe did you go to junior high in, sir? Getting a little wild is the whole point of sleepovers.)
The lawsuit alleges that the district attorney's threat of filing charges amounts to "'retaliation' for the families asserting their First and Fourth Amendment rights to oppose his deal," reports the Times. But he says he's "simply giving them an option" and finds it "sad" that "their parents don't realize this is wrong and they should be encouraging them to take the classes." Nice of him to offer parenting advice, but is that really within his job description as a district attorney?
Witold J. Walczak, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer representing the girls, said: "Prosecutors should not be using a nuclear-weapon-type charge like child pornography against kids who have no criminal intent and are merely doing stupid things." It was obviously unwise for them to send such easily sharable photos to someone else and, if I were one of the girls' parents, we would be having a nice long chat about the birds and the ... benefits of private sexual exploration. But suggesting that these girls should be either labeled child predators or schooled about rape for 10 hours makes a mockery of cases of actual sexual violence. Maybe Skumanick should be required to take the class instead.
Quote
"Unfortunately, youth don't have the same judgment as adults,"
Is it just me that finds this quote incredibly ironic in the context of this thread?
Isn't it great that these people get lumped in with everybody else on the sex offender directory? Got to keep your kids safe from girls slumber parties.
Quote"This shouldn't fall under Megan's Law in any way, shape or form. She should have an intervention and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herself."
What? How can you exploit yourself?
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 09:05:05 AM
Isn't it great that these people get lumped in with everybody else on the sex offender directory? Got to keep your kids safe from girls slumber parties.
Yes, we've gone over the top on our all out attack on anything involving teens* and sexuality.
*I had to say teens because even the act of putting children in that sentence seems undefensable.
Damn, you guys are insane.
I blame church.
There is a stink in Cincy about a girl hanging herself over this kind of shit. Now every local newscast has a story on the dangers of SEXTING
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 27, 2009, 09:08:57 AM
Damn, you guys are insane.
I blame church.
Sex is teh evil!
The hilarious thing was if these ladies were over 18 then all of this would be perfectly fine. You just need to lock up your sons and daughters until they are 18 so they do not accidentally do anything sexual and get labelled dangerous serial rapists for life.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 09:09:41 AMNow every local newscast has a story on the dangers of SEXTING
:bleeding:
Teenagers expressing sexuality will scar them for life. It is far healthier to tell them how evil they are and scare them with over the top rhetoric.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 09:10:55 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 09:09:41 AMNow every local newscast has a story on the dangers of SEXTING
:bleeding:
If there was blinking larger font, I would have used it. That is how hysterical the news stories are getting.
Megan's Law :bleeding:
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 09:10:55 AM
:bleeding:
Teenagers expressing sexuality will scar them for life. It is far healthier to tell them how evil they are and scare them with over the top rhetoric.
Works for me. I told my goddaughter I'd rip the nuts off her boyfriend if he did anything to her.
FACT: Laws named after specific people are always EPIC FAIL. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 09:16:12 AM
I told my goddaughter I'd rip the nuts off her boyfriend if he did anything to her.
Gotta remember that trick... *takes notes*
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 09:16:12 AM
Works for me. I told my goddaughter I'd rip the nuts off her boyfriend if he did anything to her.
You need to be telling that to the boyfriend, not the girl.
I guess some U.S. authroities would die from aneurysms, strokes and heart attacks if they surfed over to websingles.at, a popular dating site for the 14 - 99 year olds. :lol:
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 27, 2009, 09:52:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 09:16:12 AM
Works for me. I told my goddaughter I'd rip the nuts off her boyfriend if he did anything to her.
You need to be telling that to the boyfriend, not the girl.
I meet her boyfriends. I administer the tests to determine their moral fiber. I judge their worthiness.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 27, 2009, 09:52:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 09:16:12 AM
Works for me. I told my goddaughter I'd rip the nuts off her boyfriend if he did anything to her.
You need to be telling that to the boyfriend, not the girl.
I meet her boyfriends. I administer the tests to determine their moral fiber. I judge their worthiness.
Play a game with them. You say a word, and say what comes to mind:
- Manzikert
- Meowtf
- Incan Torpedo Boats
- Threesomes
- 2nd Guards Tank Army
- Anal
- Blücher
- Operation Bagration
- Wagram
That also makes sure you weed out any incognito Languishites.
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2009, 10:03:41 AM
Play a game with them. You say a word, and say what comes to mind:
- Manzikert
- Meowtf
- Incan Torpedo Boats
- Threesomes
- 2nd Guards Tank Army
- Anal
- Blücher
- Operation Bagration
- Wagram
That also makes sure you weed out any incognito Languishites.
Hmmmm.
Me: So, who was a better Marshal, Davout or Bernadotte?
Kid: Bernadotte?
Me: WRONG! YOU STUPID IDIOT! GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!That will work.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 10:08:08 AM
Me: So, who was a better Marshal, Davout or Bernadotte?
Kid: They West Side or East Side? Yo?
Me: WRONG! YOU STUPID IDIOT! GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!
Much more likely that way.
This stuff is going too far, eh? We have kids being charged with sexual crimes for sending, receiving and/or passing on photos. Some of it may be warranted, if kids post nude pics of others on the internet, or something like that. Or as noted above in an article where parents are fighting back, some of those are just non-nude photos sent to friends - all of a sudden that gets lumped into a sex abuse category. How did we get to such a paranoia, while trying to clamp down on sexual abuse and abuse of children? It's like we leave rationality at the door or something.
Quote from: KRonn on March 27, 2009, 10:28:24 AM
This stuff is going too far, eh? We have kids being charged with sexual crimes for sending, receiving and/or passing on photos. Some of it may be warranted, if kids post nude pics of others on the internet, or something like that. Or as noted above in an article where parents are fighting back, some of those are just non-nude photos sent to friends - all of a sudden that gets lumped into a sex abuse category. How did we get to such a paranoia, while trying to clamp down on sexual abuse and abuse of children? It's like we leave rationality at the door or something.
It has been going too far for years. The thing that drives me nuts is an uncomfortably large amount of the laws and enforcement are fueled by outrage, assumptions, and sexual double standards instead of being based on the actual factual issues related to sexual abuse.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 09:10:55 AM
Teenagers expressing sexuality will scar them for life. It is far healthier to tell them how evil they are and scare them with over the top rhetoric.
On the flip side, I always like how you hear that it scars them for life if you aren't as permissive and open as possible with your kids re: sexuality.
Moral panic is such a lovely phenomenon, as long as you can watch it from afar.
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2009, 10:36:46 AM
On the flip side, I always like how you hear that it scars them for life if you aren't as permissive and open as possible with your kids re: sexuality.
No no you need to give them firm boundaries or they will not have anything to rebel against, which teenagers need. But going hysterical is just ridiculous, making them criminals even worse.
But not turning them into sex criminals is not the same as being as permissive as possible.
Quote from: Syt on March 27, 2009, 10:36:01 AM
hip-hoppers
Sound like something a geriatric would say. And yeah, I'm ageist!
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 10:39:16 AM
No no you need to give them firm boundaries or they will not have anything to rebel against, which teenagers need. But going hysterical is just ridiculous, making them criminals even worse.
But not turning them into sex criminals is not the same as being as permissive as possible.
Indeed. Unfortunately, you can't give your kids a beating when they act up. :(
Quote from: KRonn on March 27, 2009, 10:28:24 AM
This stuff is going too far, eh? We have kids being charged with sexual crimes for sending, receiving and/or passing on photos. Some of it may be warranted, if kids post nude pics of others on the internet, or something like that. Or as noted above in an article where parents are fighting back, some of those are just non-nude photos sent to friends - all of a sudden that gets lumped into a sex abuse category. How did we get to such a paranoia, while trying to clamp down on sexual abuse and abuse of children? It's like we leave rationality at the door or something.
It's called "moral panic" - a situation in which some real (e.g. child abuse) or perceived (e.g. "witchcraft") negative behaviour generates such a level of social outrage, it is no longer possible to engage in a reasoned debate about the issue, as anyone who attempts to do that is labelled a supporter of the negative behaviour in question. So even if some politician or a public figure refuses to fall prey to the mass hysteria, he or she is unlikely to challenge such legal excesses, because that would make them an all-to-easy target for an attack as "pedophilia supporters" etc.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2009, 10:44:10 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 10:39:16 AM
No no you need to give them firm boundaries or they will not have anything to rebel against, which teenagers need. But going hysterical is just ridiculous, making them criminals even worse.
But not turning them into sex criminals is not the same as being as permissive as possible.
Indeed. Unfortunately, you can't give your gets a beating when they act up. :(
err what?
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2009, 10:44:27 AM
It's called "moral panic"
Thanks for explaining moral panic. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2009, 10:44:27 AM
It's called "moral panic" - a situation in which some real (e.g. child abuse) or perceived (e.g. "witchcraft") negative behaviour generates such a level of social outrage, it is no longer possible to engage in a reasoned debate about the issue, as anyone who attempts to do that is labelled a supporter of the negative behaviour in question. So even if some politician or a public figure refuses to fall prey to the mass hysteria, he or she is unlikely to challenge such legal excesses, because that would make them an all-to-easy target for an attack as "pedophilia supporters" etc.
I was going to say something very similar, but you said it better.
Wtf? Why are some posters acting as though moral panic has never been discussed on languish? :unsure:
Quote from: Martinus on March 27, 2009, 10:44:27 AM
Quote from: KRonn on March 27, 2009, 10:28:24 AM
This stuff is going too far, eh? We have kids being charged with sexual crimes for sending, receiving and/or passing on photos. Some of it may be warranted, if kids post nude pics of others on the internet, or something like that. Or as noted above in an article where parents are fighting back, some of those are just non-nude photos sent to friends - all of a sudden that gets lumped into a sex abuse category. How did we get to such a paranoia, while trying to clamp down on sexual abuse and abuse of children? It's like we leave rationality at the door or something.
It's called "moral panic" - a situation in which some real (e.g. child abuse) or perceived (e.g. "witchcraft") negative behaviour generates such a level of social outrage, it is no longer possible to engage in a reasoned debate about the issue, as anyone who attempts to do that is labelled a supporter of the negative behaviour in question. So even if some politician or a public figure refuses to fall prey to the mass hysteria, he or she is unlikely to challenge such legal excesses, because that would make them an all-to-easy target for an attack as "pedophilia supporters" etc.
Example:
AIG bonuses.
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2009, 10:51:06 AM
Example:
AIG bonuses.
That is a great example. Outrage is a terrible thing to base government laws and policy on.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 10:56:15 AMThat is a great example. Outrage is a terrible thing to base government laws and policy on.
...which is funny, since it seems like most modern legislative initiatives are based precisely on that.
The solution: do away with democracy. :)
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 10:56:15 AM
Quote from: Berkut on March 27, 2009, 10:51:06 AM
Example:
AIG bonuses.
That is a great example. Outrage is a terrible thing to base government laws and policy on.
I wouldn't be quite so general. Outrage can sometimes be a catalyst for people to finally recognize the stupidity of things. For example, if people get outraged about this particular case, then maybe there will be a backlash against sex offender laws. That would certainly be a good thing.
Quote from: Valmy on March 27, 2009, 10:39:16 AM
But not turning them into sex criminals is not the same as being as permissive as possible.
Didn't say it was. I was just making a point about all the folks who get worked up about any sort of "sexual repression".
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2009, 11:49:56 AM
Didn't say it was. I was just making a point about all the folks who get worked up about any sort of "sexual repression".
I also love all those folks who don't have an opinion either way. It's like, god, make up your mind!
Quote from: derspiess on March 27, 2009, 11:49:56 AM
Didn't say it was. I was just making a point about all the folks who get worked up about any sort of "sexual repression".
I agree I was just clarifying my position.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2009, 10:50:22 AM
Wtf? Why are some posters acting as though moral panic has never been discussed on languish? :unsure:
First time I've ever seen the expression. :mellow:
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 27, 2009, 04:20:58 PM
First time I've ever seen the expression. :mellow:
Same for me. I would have called it something like lynch mob psychology.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2009, 04:24:41 PM
Quote from: The Nickname Who Was Thursday on March 27, 2009, 04:20:58 PM
First time I've ever seen the expression. :mellow:
Same for me. I would have called it something like lynch mob psychology.
That phrase has been used tons of times here. There's no way you haven't seen it before.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2009, 04:30:20 PM
That phrase has been used tons of times here. There's no way you haven't seen it before.
Way!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 27, 2009, 04:31:07 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2009, 04:30:20 PM
That phrase has been used tons of times here. There's no way you haven't seen it before.
Way!
It's more likely that you simply don't remember.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 27, 2009, 04:41:04 PM
It's more likely that you simply don't remember.
Or that I didn't bother with the 300 threads on child molestation or porn or gaybuttseks or whatever that mentioned it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 09:57:53 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on March 27, 2009, 09:52:03 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 27, 2009, 09:16:12 AM
Works for me. I told my goddaughter I'd rip the nuts off her boyfriend if he did anything to her.
You need to be telling that to the boyfriend, not the girl.
I meet her boyfriends. I administer the tests to determine their moral fiber. I judge their worthiness.
Boyfriends? In plural?
What is this world coming to.
And about the sexting thing, yeah, prosecute the bastards, and their parents for not supervising what their children are doing.
Quote from: Siege on March 27, 2009, 07:13:37 PM
Boyfriends? In plural?
What is this world coming to.
Modernity, you third-world fuck.
Still, Siegebreaker provides a good example of how laws like this happen. He cries out loudly against this sort of thing in an effort to mask the fact that he's a child-rapist himself.
Didn't we talk about this already?
Anyway, America's failure gets worse every day.
I love the irony that they won't release the name of the 14-year old mentioned in the OP because she's a juvenile, but they might make her register as a sex offender.
What I want to know is how you charge a 14-year-old with exploiting... herself? No party benefits exploitatively. Sounds to me like there's some loopholes in the code here that need to be patched before a ton of prosecutors abuse them, en masse. :blink:
PS - North Jersey. Ugh. At least in South Jersey, the majority of the BS is restricted to the immediate Camden area. Seems like most of North Jersey suffers from Newark-taint, at least on the eastern side. I couldn't comment on the northwest.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 28, 2009, 12:43:45 AM
What I want to know is how you charge a 14-year-old with exploiting... herself? No party benefits exploitatively. Sounds to me like there's some loopholes in the code here that need to be patched before a ton of prosecutors abuse them, en masse. :blink:
I think the justification is that the existence of child pornography creates a danger for all children, by making some sick people lust them. Therefore, everyone who has something to do with putting it out there is a bad, bad person.
Quote from: DGuller on March 28, 2009, 01:13:41 AM
I think the justification is that the existence of child pornography creates a danger for all children, by making some sick people lust them. Therefore, everyone who has something to do with putting it out there is a bad, bad person.
I understand that to be the rationale, but it still sucks. She can't be both the perp and the vic; if she's the perpetrator, then you're going to impose Megan's Law on a victimless crime, which is over-the-top excessive. If she's the victim, then there should be some kind of protection against "class traitor" punitive actions. It feels like this should be treated at
most as endangerment of a minor, and most likely as a subset of exhibitionism.