| |
|
This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Teens prosecuted for racy photos. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.
|
Teens prosecuted for racy photos
by Acidus at 11:25 pm EST, Feb 10, 2007 |
Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere. There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.
News Alert to all your 16 and 17 year olds out there: You can bang, but you cannot take pictures of it. |
| |
RE: Teens prosecuted for racy photos
by Hijexx at 11:28 am EST, Feb 11, 2007 |
Acidus wrote: News Alert to all your 16 and 17 year olds out there: You can bang, but you cannot take pictures of it.
Looks like they were using this to set an example. They were convicted not necessarily for what they did, but for what they might have done. There was no proof of intention, but I guess the court saw an opportunity to set a precedent. Minority opinion: The critical point in this case is that the child intended to keep the photographs private. She did not attempt to exploit anyone or to embarrass anyone. I think her expectation of privacy in the photographs was reasonable. Certainly, an argument could be made that she was foolish to expect that, but the expectation of a 16-year-old cannot be measured by the collective wisdom of appellate judges who have no emotional connection to the event. Perhaps if the child had as much time to reflect on these events, she would have eventually concluded, as the majority did, that there were ways in which these photos might have been unintentionally disclosed. That does not make her expectation of privacy unreasonable. I tend to agree. I wonder if/how the judgement would have come down in the following scenarios: 1) Two underage people are married.
2) One underage person and one underage person are married. |
|
| | |
RE: Teens prosecuted for racy photos
by Dagmar at 5:09 am EST, Feb 12, 2007 |
Hijexx wrote: Acidus wrote: News Alert to all your 16 and 17 year olds out there: You can bang, but you cannot take pictures of it.
Looks like they were using this to set an example. They were convicted not necessarily for what they did, but for what they might have done. There was no proof of intention, but I guess the court saw an opportunity to set a precedent. Minority opinion: The critical point in this case is that the child intended to keep the photographs private. She did not attempt to exploit anyone or to embarrass anyone. I think her expectation of privacy in the photographs was reasonable. Certainly, an argument could be made that she was foolish to expect that, but the expectation of a 16-year-old cannot be measured by the collective wisdom of appellate judges who have no emotional connection to the event. Perhaps if the child had as much time to reflect on these events, she would have eventually concluded, as the majority did, that there were ways in which these photos might have been unintentionally disclosed. That does not make her expectation of privacy unreasonable.
So, what they're really saying here is that the website you just bought something from with your credit card has no expectation to privacy of your billing information, because it was stored on a computer. |
|
Teens prosecuted for racy photos
by k at 12:02 pm EST, Feb 11, 2007 |
Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere. There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.
What a complete pile of bullshit. I can see the argument if either party had actually posted the pictures somewhere on the internet or sent it around to friends. I'm still not sure criminal penalties are the best way to prevent that activity, but I'll allow that there would be some wrongdoing in that case. But that didn't happen, and I'm in full agreement with the dissenting opinion. It was a stupid thing to do, and I think they're naive with respect to any expectation of privacy they may have (especially with regard to each other... having the picture exposed through hacking is about 10000 times less likely than it being released as part of a nasty breakup, as almost all of them are at that age). Still, child pornography? Really? Psh. FURTHER : You can read the sad story of Genarlow Wilson here and don't forget about Marcus Dewayne Dixon (google it) either, both of which are here in georgia and which beg the question of racial equality, quite aside from the direct question of sexual relations between minors, or a minor and a non-minor within a couple years of the same age. I'll go on record as being against mandatory minimums categorically, so that aspect of these cases I'm clearly against. I will admit that there is some cloudy area in the middle, but I distrust the "family values" based "People under 18 shouldn't have sex, period, ever," argument as a political construct and note further that the redder the state, the lower the age of consent as a generalization. Perhaps these laws are simply out of date, but it's tough for me to see how the legal apparatus should get involved unless there truly was exploitation or rape. |
| |
RE: Teens prosecuted for racy photos
by Dagmar at 3:25 pm EST, Feb 12, 2007 |
k wrote:
FURTHER : You can read the sad story of Genarlow Wilson here and don't forget about Marcus Dewayne Wilson (google it) either, both of which are here in georgia and which beg the question of racial equality, quite aside from the direct question of sexual relations between minors, or a minor and a non-minor within a couple years of the same age.
At least get the kid's name right. The other boy's last name is Dixon, not Wilson. |
|
| | |
RE: Teens prosecuted for racy photos
by k at 3:27 pm EST, Feb 12, 2007 |
Dagmar wrote: k wrote:
FURTHER : You can read the sad story of Genarlow Wilson here and don't forget about Marcus Dewayne Wilson (google it) either, both of which are here in georgia and which beg the question of racial equality, quite aside from the direct question of sexual relations between minors, or a minor and a non-minor within a couple years of the same age.
At least get the kid's name right. The other boy's last name is Dixon, not Wilson.
Apologies... corrected... honest mistake... -k |
|
Teens prosecuted for racy photos
by ubernoir at 6:44 am EST, Feb 12, 2007 |
Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere. There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.
What a complete pile of bullshit. I can see the argument if either party had actually posted the pictures somewhere on the internet or sent it around to friends. I'm still not sure criminal penalties are the best way to prevent that activity, but I'll allow that there would be some wrongdoing in that case. But that didn't happen, and I'm in full agreement with the dissenting opinion. It was a stupid thing to do, and I think they're naive with respect to any expectation of privacy they may have (especially with regard to each other... having the picture exposed through hacking is about 10000 times less likely than it being released as part of a nasty breakup, as almost all of them are at that age). Still, child pornography? Really? Psh. FURTHER : You can read the sad story of Genarlow Wilson here and don't forget about Marcus Dewayne Wilson (google it) either, both of which are here in georgia and which beg the question of racial equality, quite aside from the direct question of sexual relations between minors, or a minor and a non-minor within a couple years of the same age. I'll go on record as being against mandatory minimums categorically, so that aspect of these cases I'm clearly against. I will admit that there is some cloudy area in the middle, but I distrust the "family values" based "People under 18 shouldn't have sex, period, ever," argument as a political construct and note further that the redder the state, the lower the age of consent as a generalization. Perhaps these laws are simply out of date, but it's tough for me to see how the legal apparatus should get involved unless there truly was exploitation or rape. |
|
|
