Tim
Dennis Stamp
myers.timothyTheTimMyers
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2008 20:44:09 GMT -5
www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=65c8817b-939f-42bc-84ae-137a80a3079dYou be the judge. Personally, I feel this is completely absurd. I really don't see the big f***in' deal. So some chick takes a picture of herself and sends it to some friends. Seriously, this makes news? Besides, pretty much the only people it would go out to is the 15-18 crowd, so who cares? Not like some 45 year old guy is gonna be pleasuring himself to it. Totally harmless. Somehow, I haven't seen it. Which sucks, since I hear she's pretty hot.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Oct 16, 2008 20:46:12 GMT -5
It opens up the potential for it to be distributed and used as an exploitation tool. They mention several ways in which case it could become a VERY big deal. Not to mention it is completely and utterly inappropriate in a place of learning.
|
|
Tim
Dennis Stamp
myers.timothyTheTimMyers
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2008 20:49:22 GMT -5
It opens up the potential for it to be distributed and used as an exploitation tool. They mention several ways in which case it could become a VERY big deal. Not to mention it is completely and utterly inappropriate in a place of learning. Well see, it wasn't really IN a place of learning. It was outside school. It got passed around by people who happen to go to school. Besides, confiscating people's phones just because of something somebody sent you? Come on, it's not like they're sending pictures of blueprints of the school to plan to bomb it or something. |
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Oct 16, 2008 20:51:32 GMT -5
No, but they are sending images of an underage, underdeveloped, impressionable teenager. Which could fall into hands that might use it for many less-than-friendly purposes.
How many ways can this be used against the girl? It'd be far easier to see how it couldn't be used against her. One of the main purposes of child porn laws is to curtail exploitation of minors, and this provides ample opportunity for many, many people to exploit her.
Look, I know in high school I probably wouldn't have worried too much about it either, but now with a few years of perspective, this is a bad situation. Possession of child porn is a felony in most states. If it's found on your phone in the future, I imagine that you WOULD be prosecuted.
Whether she's in on the gig or not is immaterial at that point. You had it, you knew you had it, and you chose not to comply with a request and some amnesty. You leave the door open for anyone to access it if you lose the phone. You don't actually delete the information from the phone, only the way to access it through the phone's firmware. (Keep in mind, this is the general "you," not you personally.)
How does this not makes sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Oct 16, 2008 20:53:47 GMT -5
First let me say WXYZ... teehee. Okay now that is out of the way... It opens up the potential for it to be distributed and used as an exploitation tool. They mention several ways in which case it could become a VERY big deal. Not to mention it is completely and utterly inappropriate in a place of learning. You have a point. However, potentiality of negative impact? I mean that's a flimsy argument. Beyond that, she's pretty much guilty of being stupid, and overzealous punishment will not help her. Some community service, and if her parents would take the phone from her, then that seems more than fair. |
|
Tim
Dennis Stamp
myers.timothyTheTimMyers
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2008 20:54:22 GMT -5
No, but they are sending images of an underage, underdeveloped, impressionable teenager. Which could fall into hands that might use it for many less-than-friendly purposes. How many ways can this be used against the girl? It'd be far easier to see how it couldn't be used against her. The main purpose of child porn laws is to curtail exploitation of minors, and this provides ample opportunity for many, many people to exploit her. But really, maybe she wants to be exploited? That's like the only reason as to why she would do something like this, to get attention, whether it be positive or negative. She knew what she was doing. She may not have known the potential consequences, but she knew what she was doing. |
|
Tim
Dennis Stamp
myers.timothyTheTimMyers
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2008 20:55:07 GMT -5
First let me say WXYZ... teehee. Yep. Original, right? |
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Oct 16, 2008 20:55:11 GMT -5
First let me say WXYZ... teehee. Okay now that is out of the way... It opens up the potential for it to be distributed and used as an exploitation tool. They mention several ways in which case it could become a VERY big deal. Not to mention it is completely and utterly inappropriate in a place of learning. You have a point. However, potentiality of negative impact? I mean that's a flimsy argument. Beyond that, she's pretty much guilty of being stupid, and overzealous punishment will not help her. Some community service, and if her parents would take the phone from her, then that seems more than fair. Fair enough, though I think that in this case, the consequence should probably make a bigger impact. It's already been distributed to many, many people. What's to stop it from going further? No, but they are sending images of an underage, underdeveloped, impressionable teenager. Which could fall into hands that might use it for many less-than-friendly purposes. How many ways can this be used against the girl? It'd be far easier to see how it couldn't be used against her. The main purpose of child porn laws is to curtail exploitation of minors, and this provides ample opportunity for many, many people to exploit her. But really, maybe she wants to be exploited? That's like the only reason as to why she would do something like this, to get attention, whether it be positive or negative. She knew what she was doing. She may not have known the potential consequences, but she knew what she was doing. And this makes it acceptable how? |
|
|
|
Post by teamjd on Oct 16, 2008 20:57:08 GMT -5
But really, maybe she wants to be exploited? I'm sure there's plenty of problems with minor girls looking to exploit themselves too! |
|
Tim
Dennis Stamp
myers.timothyTheTimMyers
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2008 20:59:34 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I find the fact that having a picture of some naked chick qualifies as having "child pornography". She's not doing things to herself, she's not having somebody else do things to her. With this reasoning, does that mean that a parent who takes a picture of a kid in a bathtub then gets it developed guilty of having child pornography? Not exactly the same thing, but along the same lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by teamjd on Oct 16, 2008 21:00:31 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I find the fact that having a picture of some naked chick qualifies as having "child pornography". She's not doing things to herself, she's not having somebody else do things to her. With this reasoning, does that mean that a parent who takes a picture of a kid in a bathtub then gets it developed guilty of having child pornography? Not exactly the same thing, but along the same lines. if the parent sends it to other minors on their cell phones it probably would. |
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Oct 16, 2008 21:02:27 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I find the fact that having a picture of some naked chick qualifies as having "child pornography". She's not doing things to herself, she's not having somebody else do things to her. With this reasoning, does that mean that a parent who takes a picture of a kid in a bathtub then gets it developed guilty of having child pornography? Not exactly the same thing, but along the same lines. You've seen the picture? You know this to be fact? Naw, never mind on that one.  I'm not sure how the laws work in your locale, but generally, child porn is defined as pictures or images of persons under a certain age with the purpose of having erotic or sexual intent. I don't see many ways in which she would be distributing a nude photo of herself on her cell phone that wouldn't have erotic or sexual intent. And actually, Interpol defines it thusly: I think this qualifies, unless you can find some redeeming artful value in her cell phone photo. |
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Oct 16, 2008 21:05:32 GMT -5
First let me say WXYZ... teehee. Okay now that is out of the way... You have a point. However, potentiality of negative impact? I mean that's a flimsy argument. Beyond that, she's pretty much guilty of being stupid, and overzealous punishment will not help her. Some community service, and if her parents would take the phone from her, then that seems more than fair. Fair enough, though I think that in this case, the consequence should probably make a bigger impact. It's already been distributed to many, many people. What's to stop it from going further? But really, maybe she wants to be exploited? That's like the only reason as to why she would do something like this, to get attention, whether it be positive or negative. She knew what she was doing. She may not have known the potential consequences, but she knew what she was doing. And this makes it acceptable how? Granted, she is a minor, she cannot legally decide to be exploited. She can illegally do so, depending on the age of consent and all those laws. Unfortunately, the way these things go it might be hard to track down ALL of the places it went, but what do you propose beyond punishing those people? What if it got sent to a stupid 18 year old student in that school, should he get hammered with a "Child Pornography" related charge? Or what? |
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Oct 16, 2008 21:07:13 GMT -5
Fair enough, though I think that in this case, the consequence should probably make a bigger impact. It's already been distributed to many, many people. What's to stop it from going further? And this makes it acceptable how? Granted, she is a minor, she cannot legally decide to be exploited. She can illegally do so, depending on the age of consent and all those laws. Unfortunately, the way these things go it might be hard to track down ALL of the places it went, but what do you propose beyond punishing those people? What if it got sent to a stupid 18 year old student in that school, should he get hammered with a "Child Pornography" related charge? Or what? They're offering amnesty. If you have a cell phone, you'll likely be able to be made aware of the amnesty offer. Take it. If not, you are knowingly in possession of child pornography and that then begs the question of "Why are you keeping it?" I can't think of many good reasons why a person should have a problem with turning in their cell phone in order to avoid federal charges (I'm sure there's some way that the cost will be offset), so at that point, sure, why not charge them? And you're right, tracking it will be difficult and unrealistic. At this point, it sounds like they're trying to conduct more damage control than anything, which is probably all they can do. |
|
Tim
Dennis Stamp
myers.timothyTheTimMyers
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2008 21:07:17 GMT -5
Maybe it's just me, but I find the fact that having a picture of some naked chick qualifies as having "child pornography". She's not doing things to herself, she's not having somebody else do things to her. With this reasoning, does that mean that a parent who takes a picture of a kid in a bathtub then gets it developed guilty of having child pornography? Not exactly the same thing, but along the same lines. You've seen the picture? You know this to be fact? No, I haven't seen it, but that's just what I've heard. Rumors can be spread like wildfire, and can sometime be false. For all I know, she could just be showing like a nipple or something. Can't know for sure, since it's been like quarantined. |
|
Tim
Dennis Stamp
myers.timothyTheTimMyers
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2008 21:08:59 GMT -5
I think this qualifies, unless you can find some redeeming artful value in her cell phone photo. Who knows, maybe it was taken on an angle, MySpace-style, or with weird lighting. |
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Oct 16, 2008 21:09:40 GMT -5
No nudes on MySpace, dudes!
|
|
Tim
Dennis Stamp
myers.timothyTheTimMyers
Posts: 4,358
|
Post by Tim on Oct 16, 2008 21:12:54 GMT -5
No nudes on MySpace, dudes! Better watch out, or that Tom will be pistol-whippin'! Sure, he looks harmless with that goofy smile, but he can get downright violent! |
|
|
|
Post by ThereIsNoAbsurdistOnlyZuul on Oct 16, 2008 21:17:48 GMT -5
Granted, she is a minor, she cannot legally decide to be exploited. She can illegally do so, depending on the age of consent and all those laws. Unfortunately, the way these things go it might be hard to track down ALL of the places it went, but what do you propose beyond punishing those people? What if it got sent to a stupid 18 year old student in that school, should he get hammered with a "Child Pornography" related charge? Or what? They're offering amnesty. If you have a cell phone, you'll likely be able to be made aware of the amnesty offer. Take it. If not, you are knowingly in possession of child pornography and that then begs the question of "Why are you keeping it?" I can't think of many good reasons why a person should have a problem with turning in their cell phone in order to avoid federal charges (I'm sure there's some way that the cost will be offset), so at that point, sure, why not charge them? And you're right, tracking it will be difficult and unrealistic. At this point, it sounds like they're trying to conduct more damage control than anything, which is probably all they can do. The amnesty works enough. If they keep the image, it's their own damn fault what happens. There you go. |
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Oct 16, 2008 21:22:22 GMT -5
They're offering amnesty. If you have a cell phone, you'll likely be able to be made aware of the amnesty offer. Take it. If not, you are knowingly in possession of child pornography and that then begs the question of "Why are you keeping it?" I can't think of many good reasons why a person should have a problem with turning in their cell phone in order to avoid federal charges (I'm sure there's some way that the cost will be offset), so at that point, sure, why not charge them? And you're right, tracking it will be difficult and unrealistic. At this point, it sounds like they're trying to conduct more damage control than anything, which is probably all they can do. The amnesty works enough. If they keep the image, it's their own damn fault what happens. There you go. Exactly. Easiest way to get the amnesty word out would be to send text messages stating it, I would think. If the image can travel quickly via cell phone networks, so can the word about getting a chance to come clean with no consequence. That's why I'm saying it's pretty cut and dried in that sense. It's not like we're dealing with the hicks in the sticks here. If it gets to the internet, though, that's a whole different issue, but until we here otherwise, I suppose we should assume it's still cell-phone only at present. |
|
