This is just sick

Now they’ve arrested a 13-year-old boy because a 13-year-old girl sent him a nude pic of herself. The charge? Child Pornography. Does the phrase GMAFB seem appropriate? Here’s the link.

I don’t think a 13-year-old girl exploring her sexuality by taking a picture of herself and sending it to her boyfriend is worth so much as a raised eyebrow, except perhaps to her parents. And the term for a 13-year-old boy who would enjoy getting such a picture is, I believe, “normal.”

I think someone in this scenario is sick. So if it isn’t the girl, and it isn’t the boy…

Can someone please turn down the insanity a notch?

Published by

Avatar photo


Site administrative account, so probably Corwin, Felix or DD-B.

0 thoughts on “This is just sick”

  1. I can’t access the site as I’m at the office… but does it explain why the male is being arrested?

    That doesn’t make much sense.

    If some chick sends me nude photos how is it my fault?

    I hate society these days.

  2. The closest there is to an explanation is an accusation by the boy’s mother that the principle “over-reacted.” Duh. That doesn’t explain why the DA is considering charges, and why the boy was held overnight in jail on a charge of child pornography.

    I think I’m going to drink some bad whiskey.

  3. That shit will never stand up in a court of law. It looks like a stunt by some moronic lawyer trying to get some press on how evil the interweb is and how it corrupts your kids who should obviously never explore their sexuality because that’s the devil’s playground.

    The child should never have been arrested. The children should have, at the most, been sat down together with both sets of parents present and talked about things.

  4. Not been following the law? In Florida, they busted two 17 year olds for child porn for taking photos of themselves having sex, mind you, the age of consent there is 16, so the sex is legal, the photos are not. Sending a dirty text message to someone under 18 is a federal crime, never mind that you could be legally doing what ever it is with them (there would be a fun Kafka-esq crime, if under 18 with an under 18 partner, send each other texts describing what you are doing with them as you do it).

  5. That principle should be denoted to toilet scrubber at the alternative school the kid has to go to. Which, of course, he shouldn’t have to go to. How out of touch with kids are these people?

    It’s pathetic. I think even bad whiskey might be too good for this.

  6. Reminds me of the character in Stross’s “Halting State” that was put on the “sexual predator” list because he kissed a classmate when they were both 15.Unfortunately I’ve got an important test Friday so getting drunk is out of the question.

  7. This is sad. The poor kid’s 13! Why’s everyone making such a big deal about it? Every average male teenager with access to the internet will look at porn, everyone knows that. Some girls do it too, everyone knows that too.

    I’d go for the bad whiskey too, if only I didn’t dislike alcohol so much.

  8. If I were that mother I would sue everyone. The coach , the principal, the school district, the police, and maybe even the girl’s parents.

  9. 1: Receiving photos or video of a naked minor is apparently a criminal act, even if you didn’t request them.

    2: Increasing numbers of police departments are deploying cameras (either constantly or sporadicly monitored) in public places to discourage crime, in a way that bothers many privacy advocates.

    3: Left as an exercise for the subversively-minded reader.

  10. Does this mean that parents can be sued for pictures of their small children running around naked?Scary.Although I like the way your mind works:)

  11. Anton – in Georgia, film shops will refuse to develop pictures of (for instance) kids playing in the bath if the children are over the age of 2. I’m not certain whether or not the pictures would be outright illegal (they may be), but no developer wants to take the chance.

  12. If convicted, the boy would have to register as a sex offender, for the rest of his life. And then he wouldn’t be able to attend high school, because he wouldn’t be allowed in proximity with other children.

    BTW, I read of another case where the girl sending the pictures was arrested for trafficking in kiddie porn.

  13. Geez, I hope the spooks don’t catch up on my activities in first grade back in ’78!

  14. (Wait, so we could get the principal arrested by sending him all our naked baby photos?)

    My head hurts.

  15. Welcome to America. Depictions of consentual, friendly, age-appropriate sex of the kind that’s been going on since before we had language is defined as obscene. Depictions of gratuitous brutal violence aren’t. (Compare how strict the movie and game rating codes are for the two topics, and think about which one gets books banned faster.)

    I suspect someone from outside our culture would consider us hopelessly insane. Correctly.

    Anyone got a time machine handy? I can’t think of any way to fix this which doesn’t involve going back and pounding some sense into folks before this psychosis became institutionalized.

  16. BTW, in case it isn’t obvious, I second #12: The girl didn’t do anything wrong either. Unwise, perhaps, since the photo is entirely too likely to get out into general circulation even by accident, but by definition youth is a time for learning what’s wise and what isn’t, and this is a reasonably harmless overstep (and one that’s likely to become more common; privacy appears to be a dying concept). The public overreaction is unnecessarily traumatic for her too.

    Question: Does anyone remember whether the Polaroid camera causes similar incidents back when it was relatively new technology? Certainly many adults bought one so they could take pictures that they didn’t want to send out for processing, and gods know us kids were aware of that application.

  17. “I suspect someone from outside our culture would consider us hopelessly insane. Correctly.”

    Uh, I can confirm that.

    No offense intended.

Leave a Reply