<p>Yes, I was kidding. But he isn’t a sex offender, and he shouldn’t be prosecuted as a pornographer and he shouldn’t be on an offender’s registry. </p>
<p>Yes, he was vindictive. But why was he so vindictive? Are we privy to how SHE treated him? Do we know what vicious things she may have said to him, or about him to others, or on her Facebook page, or texted around? No, we don’t.</p>
<p>It may be unfashionable to say so, but I am inclined to have a very poor opinion of a 16 year old girl who would pose for nude photos and then email them to her boyfriend. I don’t see her as some frail flower. His actions were vindictive, but hers were hardly admirable.</p>
<p>Teens have been breaking up with each other and spreading nasty rumors about each other for generations. The law only got involved here because of the advances in technology that made it possible for him–a fellow teen–to spread the photos around in a very ill-considered fit of anger. If he were still 17, would he be prosecuted? If SHE were 18 and he were 16, would he be prosecuted? We’re talking about two high school kids here. To suggest that one of them is totally innocent because s/he is 16 and the other is totally guilty because s/he is 18 is simply ridiculous, IMHO.</p>
<p>The link to an article here indicated that many girls post nude pics becuase boys pressure them to. I think you are assuming the worst about the girl. We dont know all the facts. Yes he got in trouble becuase of new technology, but he chose to use it.</p>
<p>After the recent suicide at our school we , the parents, have been advised to keep kids cellphones in the kitchen at night and to check their messages/pictures.
We apparently have no idea what is going on any more…</p>
<p>However, I still maintain that a girl sending her own picture to one person, is in no way equivalent to someone else sending it to 70 people without her permission. So I don’t see your sauce for the goose jibe as at all fair.</p>
<p>I read that if a goofy 15-year-old snaps a nudie picture of herself on her cell and sends it to her boyfriend, she can be charged with manufacture and dissemination of child pornography, a very serious crime. The law has not caught up with technology. Those laws were passed to protect stupid 15-year-old girls, and now the harshest penalties can fall on those whom the laws were intended to protect.</p>
<p>Pre-emptive note:
Of course 15-year-old girls should not take nudie pictures of themselves on their cell phones and send the pictures to their boyfriends.</p>
<p>Okay the guy is a jerk and should have consequences. Should be some law that punishes someone for being an vindictive a** who does harm to his former girlfriend. Absolutely. Make the sentence as long as he got if you like. But child porn and sex offender status?? Completely misuses the intent of the law, a technicality. </p>
<p>People are rightly upset that he did something hurtful to his girlfriend (and if the girlfriend is guilty of a crime charge her but what she did to ‘cause him to do it’ shouldn’t be relevant here). However, I don’t see anyone mad at him for spreading child porn however; it appears even those that like his harsh punishment are not claiming he’s a sex offender. </p>
<p>I don’t like important laws being misused. Start watering down what ‘sex offender status’ and ‘child porn’ really means to the general public, and it starts losing its power. These terms and laws SHOULD belong to real sex offenders only.</p>
<p>What’s worse than a girl posting nude photos of herself? A girl doing so only because she’s ‘pressured by a boyfriend’ OR a girl doing so and retrospectively trying to excuse it as someone else’s fault. </p>
<p>A girl posting pictures of herself is using very bad judgment. A girl doing so “out of pressure from her boyfriend” is using very bad judgment AND is a wuss that needs to get some self-esteem. It doesn’t make her a victim nor any less responsible for her stupid behavior. </p>
<p>But her bad past judgment aside doesn’t excuse the boyfriend for posting it to other people! His actions should be no less punishable because of her character. (it’s obviously not the same, but that kind of argument reminds me of the dark days when sex offenders’ defense was the moral character of the woman…she shouldn’t have been wearing that skirt…).</p>
<p>“The link to an article here indicated that many girls post nude pics becuase boys pressure them to.”</p>
<p>The girls need to get some sense and grow some …</p>
<p>Even back when I was young, there were guys who wanted their girlfriends to post for Polaroid pictures. The girls with good sense knew to say “no.”</p>
<p>Starbright, exactly, she shouldnt do it – but my comment was in response to someone else who said the girl was just as, if not more guilty – and he was wrong.</p>
<p>Indeed. I don’t buy the image of these girls as hapless little victims. They should have the common decency or character to tell a jerk guy who “pressures” them to take nude photos to go take a flying leap.</p>
<p>And I didn’t say that she was equally or more guilty. You are misrepresenting my post.</p>
<p>What I said was meant to covey the fact that “she was equally or more guilty”, by the letter of the law. And by the letter of the law there is no denying that fact.</p>
<p>My greater intended point was/is that this interpretation of the law is not only asinine but also cruel in the extreme. I know no more effective way of ridding ourselves of bad law than by actively enforcing them without prejudice, and that includes gender. By doing so, the system will correct itself because the citizens will insist.</p>
<p>These kids are just dumb. I mean, it’s one thing to have a sex conversation through texting, like the equivalent of phonesex. I’ve done that before, and that’s what I think of when I hear “sexting.” Sending naked pictures of yourself is totally different. That’s illegal lol</p>
<p>quote: Why is it that these teens voluntarily take these sexually oriented pictures and then when they are distributed it is a crime, but when teens have pictures taken of them and distributed without their knowledge or consent to sexually oriented websites it is legal? It makes no sense.</p>
<p>Probably the pictures being taken by the teens are of their body parts. The photographs from the story you linked appear to be ‘G’ rated and taken during public sporting events.</p>
<p>The 18 year old is a sex offender. It doesn’t matter if the 15 year old and her parents eventually decide all is well, the relationship started as a crime. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who cares how she treated him? Are you really arguing that he is not responsible for his actions? I don’t think he should be labeled a sex offender for two decades but I do think he’s solely responsible for his actions as an adult.</p>
<p>Despite the fact that this thread is 2 years old…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do. People were labeling him as a vindictive monster for doing this. His action was indeed vindictive, but we have no idea whether SHE may have treated him abominably. For all we know, she may have told all of their social circle horrible things about him, intended to humiliate him forever. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not in the slightest. Even if she is a horrible person who treated him abominably, what he did was wrong. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think an 18 yr old kid is an “adult.” I do think that he is responsible for his own actions. I also think that SHE was responsible for her own actions when she took and sent the photos. IMHO, they were both guilty of gross indiscretion and stupidity. What he did was much worse, but he is not a “sex offender” and abusing the law in that manner is foolish.</p>
<p>Joan Gould would agree that the candid pictures were NOT pornographic. The 1st Amendment protects these images and the photographers. The California law introducted by Cameron Smyth was for the media attention. Did you noticed that all hearings concerning the bill were canceled after the media hysteria died down? Smyth knew the law wouldn’t past constitutional challenges and only wanted to get his name in the paper.</p>