|
|
|
|
I think that the following topic merits a discussion from the members that post and consideration from our lurkers who don't. [Especially the younger set as it affects them greatly.]
From the Editor-In-Chief of the Bilerico Project:
"Sexting: Indiana looks at new law aimed at teens
Filed by: Bil Browning
January 25, 2010 6:30 PM
UPDATE: Senator Merritt just tweeted: "My bill, SB 224 Sexting by Minors just passed committee unanimously."
It's not often that I give kudos to a Republican - especially Indiana state legislators who tend to trend toward the anti-sex religious fundamentalist flavor. My own state senator, Jim Merritt, is trying to lead the state forward into the new era, but so far hasn't seen much traction. Merritt is trying to define "sexting" and find a punishment more "appropriate" for teens busted sending dirty pics to each other. The bill has been tabled in committee "for further study."
SB0224 - Electronic dissemination of indecent material. Provides that a child commits a delinquent act if the child creates, transmits, or possesses a photograph, video, or other material that shows a minor in a state of nudity. Creates a defense to child exploitation, possession of child pornography, and dissemination of material harmful to minors if the defendant is a child, the offense constitutes a delinquent act, and: (1) the photograph, video, or other material does not show a child less than thirteen (13) years of age; or (2) the defendant did not knowingly or intentionally transmit the photograph, video, or other material to ten or more persons.
Indiana law currently requires the prosecutor to file felony charges against the minor (a conviction would require the teen to register as a sexual offender) or look the other way. This has been brought into stark relief in a recent case of a substitute teacher who sexted with one of his female students before having sex with her. The proposed legislation would downgrade the felony charge to "delinquent act" status, but it's still a crime.
"It has to have some level of crime in order to have the rehabilitative aspect to it," said Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, who is supporting the bill. "But it's certainly not something that would follow them for the rest of their lives."
...
"He's the predator in this case, not the female student, but, technically, she's in violation. Technically, we could charge her with a felony," he said.
While it's refreshing to see a Hoosier Republican who's solution to a problem surrounding a sexual issue isn't to simply ban something and hope the problem goes away, I still wonder what message we're sending by telling teenagers that the sight of their naked body (or someone else's) is something worth punishing. I can understand the reasoning why you don't want children sending naked pics of themselves around the web, but at what point do we stop to acknowledge healthy sexual exploration and adolescent flirting?
I'll be interested to see what Projectors think about this. What's the solution to sexting among teens? Or is one needed?"
Now, I'll add my two-bits here; What do you folks here at Tim's APOS think of this? Given, as of last week, according to a source of mine at the U. S. Department of Justice, there are nearly 3,400 teen aged males required to be registered as sex offenders due to "sexting" convictions.
Most of the images by the way were fairly innocuous but fell afoul of community standards for obscenity. In other words, they weren't lewd.
Photo Courtesy of The Bilerico Project
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Its strange. I find I am thinking back to the 1970s when Lord Longford - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Longford#Campaigning - did a tour of the Danish porn market and received a special licence to import what was then known as 'filth' into the UK in order to study it.
Please stop laughing. The man was in earnest, a bigot and a homophobe. Even so, his study(!) raised some interesting points. Now look, that type of point was not allowed to be seen raised in the UK until relatively recently, or it was considered to be pornographic.
My thoughts are running towards what is actually obscene or pornographic. And I mean that as a question.
For example, an erect penis on a medical site is not pornographic, yet the self same picture on an erotic site is pornographic.
One of my schoolfriends used to paint the glans of his penis in art lessons: he decorated it. We were amused. But, had he photographed it and texted it to someone, then he would have committed an offence. Since he was 10 or 11 at the time he would have texted it!
Why does it need to be a 'delinquency' at all?
[Updated on: Wed, 27 January 2010 23:20]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The whole sexting arguement could be solved with a simple solution. Parents who buy their kids phones and pay for the time should be held accountable.
If a child commits a crime with a gun which a parent bought the parents are by law criminals for not keeping it locked up.
Of course we could take the Saudi approach and just flog the kids, 90 lashes is their standard. Or maybe since it's porn and thus an offense against religion we could just cut off the fingers of the offender, no sexting issues then.
My comments are just as absurd as the issue of placing kids like this in jail or on a sex offender list. If you don't want your kid to send sexting messages don't buy them a phone with a camera, duh! Anything they might say with words is a First Ammendment issue, good luck with that.
Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Can you get phones without cameras? And what about the kid who goes and buys one with camera?
[Updated on: Thu, 28 January 2010 00:05]
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Any parent who doesn't examine the things a kid brings home isn't worthy of the name.
Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Teens are sexual creatures.
I think law needs to recognise that.
In Victoria the age of consent is 10 provided there is no more than a 2 year age gap. And it's 16 unconditionally.
In Tasmania it's 13 with a 3 year age gap and 17 unconditionally.
I think such age of consent laws are appropriate. I also think that age of consent should apply to ALL sex.
Why does "sexting" (which counts as production of child pornography) have a higher age of consent than SEX. That's absurd!
And even when a "minor" gets with an "adult" I think the actual situation needs to be looked at. A 15 year old with a 22 year old? It isn't TOO hard to imagine that consent could exist in such a relationship.
I think age of consent laws are a good safeguard, but the penalties should never apply to the minors. And even the adults shouldn't be demonised if it was a consensual relationship. Especially with something as minor as sexting (come on! half the time the teens aren't even naked!)
Teens like sex- hopefully they do it with an open mind and aware of everything around it. Because if they don't, they'll do it anyway, but ignorant of the consequences. But teens have been sexually active for millennia- law needs to recognise that and not turn normal activity into criminal activity.
Nothing that 50% of the population does should ever be a crime, in my opinion.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
"Hey Dad, I got a new phone!"
"Awesome. Hey it's a camera, too!"
Seems innocent enough to me. I tend not to expect folk to take and send dick pics.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimB
|
 |
Likes it here |
Registered: December 2006
Messages: 349
|
|
|
I think it is absurd to charge a minor with child pornography. Just as it is absurd to consider a picture of a nude infant in the bath as pornography. Child pornography laws should include an age limit for the offender, if not 21 then 18 years old minimum. Perhaps a stipulation regarding age separation if both are under the minimum to make it wrong for a 16 year-old to have nude pictures of say a 12 year-old.
Digital cameras and phones with cameras and the ability to share pictures between phones and between phones and computers make the whole situation very difficult to control. But ruining a 15 year-old boy's life because his girlfriend sent him a nude picture of herself is very, very wrong. Is such a boy really a sex offender? Should he have his life forever marred for having such a picture in his possession? This is not too different from the pot laws that ended up with thousands of people in prison because they had a few joints worth of pot on them.
Perhaps what needs to be changed is the definition of a sex offender. The law should be able to distinguish between the above mentioned 15 year-old boy, who is only a normal sex-crazed teen, and the 25 or 35 year-old, who is the real danger to society. It is another example of the “zero-tolerance” policies that have invaded our society that are just an excuse for not doing a good job of making and enforcing rules.
Those are some of my thoughts on the subject, Brody.
JimB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So Timmy...it's been a long time since you were a teenager...huh? No risk taking, no dares? The earth has revolved a few times since the days when either of was a teenager...at least we grew up!
Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's too easy to pass a law put up by special interest groups. Most of the fanatics in America do their hard thinking in a church. I'm sure they feel blessed instead of wondering if God might actually be angry with them for trying to hurt someone else.
I would propose a law, it would be the most beneficial piece of legislation the world has ever seen. Ban cars from the road on Sunday, no driving allowed. Think of the savings in greenhouse gas emissions, the clarity of the air would be an immediate health gain for all of humanity.
Of course this means all those church goers would have to walk, and why not? It would give them plenty of time to study their shortcomings and realize the damage their good intentions have on the rest of us.
Me? I would just stay home and read a good book ;-D
[Updated on: Fri, 29 January 2010 19:08]
Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Well, I used to get served in pubs from the age of 14 or so, otherwise I was a good little boy. I must have missed out!
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
This Thread Is For Everyone to Weigh-In With Their Opinion 
Re: This Thread Is For Everyone to Weigh-In With Their Opinion 