Version: 2008
  • On CBS MoneyWatch: Report: Tiger to Pay Wife $60 Million

Comments on: Police blotter: Teens prosecuted for racy photos

In this week's installment, a teen is prosecuted for taking risque photos of herself and her teenage beau and e-mailing them to him.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 3 pages (115 Comments)
Where the photos admited as evidence?
by baswwe February 9, 2007 6:36 AM PST
The story talked a lot about photos, but made mention of a video??

Did they make a video too?
Reply to this comment
They made video too?
by Bob H in NPR February 12, 2007 9:05 AM PST
What difference does it make whether they were photos or videos? The only mention I saw of videos was referring to the law concerning photos OR videos, & not the kids taking videos.
Only in America........
by fearless345 February 9, 2007 6:41 AM PST
Thinking about the things I did as a kid, I probably would be doing life without chance of parole if I did those today....
Reply to this comment
Yeah
by Solaris_User February 9, 2007 8:13 AM PST
So would the people arresting you and writing the laws.
The death sentance
by lormahoykyd2007 February 10, 2007 4:58 PM PST
Thank God for the statute of limitation. I would damn sure be in jail or dead. The 80's in Arkansas. Good those were good times.
Cnet shouldn't run these stories...
by shoffmueller February 9, 2007 6:52 AM PST
...without including the photos.


Just Kidding!!!
Reply to this comment
Cnet shouldn't run these stories...
by shoffmueller February 9, 2007 6:52 AM PST
...without including the photos.


Just Kidding!!!
Reply to this comment
My .02
by thedreaming February 9, 2007 6:53 AM PST
I thought the child pornography laws are supposed to protect children, not send them to jail where they'll end up being someone's ******.
Reply to this comment
Or maybe therapy
by shoffmueller February 9, 2007 7:02 AM PST
I think the kids got them some problems.
View all 3 replies
Do you have an issue...
by stuxstu February 9, 2007 6:55 AM PST
Why, are you interested in watching child pornography?

Simply put, don't create evidence. Camera's and video tape are fine for a vacation, but don't use them for any other creative ideas.
Reply to this comment
Um...
by Tomcat Adam February 9, 2007 10:37 AM PST
It was a video of themselves. To themselves.

"Camera's and video tape are fine for a vacation, but don't use them for any other creative ideas."

Man, there are so many examples I could give you...
Yes I have an issue
by mpotter28 February 11, 2007 1:45 PM PST
Your first line is just a throw away so I;ll ignore it. The problem here is judges,d.a. and the parents who manipulate the law for their own reasons. This is clearly not child porn and doesn't meet any test for common sense . In the type of law that is being used here I don;t see how the victim and perp can be the same person. This is more akin to witch dunking (the proof of innocence is you drown.
View reply
In China
by Got Rice? February 9, 2007 7:06 AM PST
These kids would be arrested, beaten by police, the boy would go to jail for about 20 years, and the girl would probably be sent to jail for about 10 years, if she didn't commit suicide first because her family couldn't stand the shame.

And of course, both families would have to move out of their towns, because they would be publicly ostracized.

Got Rice?
http://blog.stonecamel.com
Reply to this comment
Knock knock!
by Pixelslave February 9, 2007 8:15 AM PST
Knock knock! Just a couple weeks ago, a policewoman and her husband were charged for engaging in a swinging club/website. According to the news I read, she weren't even shame of being caught.
View reply
Showing the evidence violated their privacy.
by davez2006 February 9, 2007 7:10 AM PST
Since both were prosecuted, both were the other's victim. No one
outside the family would have seen the pictures, if it wasn't for the
prosecution.
Reply to this comment
I agree
by Dachi February 10, 2007 1:05 PM PST
They didn't share the photos, but the police came in and stole the PC, and admitted the pictures as evidence for the judges to review.

I don't think storing pictures on a PC "that can be hacked" was the problem, the problem was failing to account for police who have absolute power walking in the door and demanding a peek.
That logic is pure BS!
by jidrobo February 9, 2007 7:18 AM PST
They are prosecuting teeneagers for something they have not done
yet. Under that stupid logic, we should prosecute all people that
own guns. Because guns are designed to kill, and since they own
them, then it is likely that their judment will not be the best on a
moment of stress and they might end killing someone.
Come on!

BTW. I do not have a gun!
Reply to this comment
Don't do that
by whargoul February 9, 2007 7:56 AM PST
Please don't give those whack-jobs trying to take my guns any ideas.
View reply
You forgot one point.
by Tomcat Adam February 9, 2007 10:48 AM PST
A very stupid point at that.
The reasoning the judge gives is that they were acting in the best interests of the children, sisnce they weren't "mature" enough.

Essentially, he has the "the very second you turn 18, you become mature" mentality.
Exactly
by TennMom1 February 9, 2007 3:17 PM PST
How assinine that one judge made his ruling on the basis that they "could have" sold the pictures. The Thought Police of Orwell's "1984" are here but, they aren't cops, they're idiots wearing black robes.
View reply
by georgespindler January 10, 2009 12:55 PM PST
Exactly. what is happening now is the law is more about what might happen rather than what did happen. You might do this, so now you are a criminal. This is scary. The thought police are alive and well. Fear rules our society. Remember Nazi Germany... our reality now. What are you thinking? Ve have vays Think this way or go to jail...
This whole story...
by lonewolfoolt February 9, 2007 7:19 AM PST
is just plain retarded. The same as all the other stupid judicial judgements made on teenage matters and their need to be human. I just literally can not see how anyone can be prosecuted for doing anything to themselves. For ruining the lives of these two people the entire prosecution side should be sentenced to jail time along with the judge for allowing it all to happen.

I wish people would use common sense and get off their fake morality ride.
Reply to this comment
Try this:
by djcaseley February 9, 2007 7:28 AM PST
You said "I just literally can not see how anyone can be prosecuted for doing anything to themselves"

In the UK, suicide is illegal. Attempted suicide isn't.

I agree with you. I've already forwarded a link to this story to several people to give them a friday-afternoon chuckle!
Exactly.
by billmosby February 9, 2007 7:41 AM PST
The law was meant to protect minors. How does this prosecution
protect minors?
View reply
Prosecutorial misconduct
by ewelch February 9, 2007 7:20 AM PST
Let's get some facts straight. Two kids, who could be married -
and tried as adults if they had committed murder - are going to
be branded sex offenders for the rest of their lives for getting
caught.

What they did was wrong. Yes. They did not hurt anyone.
Prosecutors are given leeway to ignore this kind of crime, or to
at least plead it down to some thing more resonable.

What they have done is pretty much guaranteed that if this goes
through to its logical conclusion, they have created two more
criminals they will have to jail some day.

While the 15 year old girl who was a porn star (and just
possessing those movies will land anyone in jail) is not a
television star in Holllywood.

Life is full of hypocrisy, self-righteous nonsense and Florida
once again proves they don't have the judgement to be
considered adults themselves.
Reply to this comment
American Justice System...Joke
by garlepp February 9, 2007 7:42 AM PST
Just shows you the stupidity of the American justice system. They should get a slap on the wrist and be forced to see a psychologist or maybe a sex Anonymous group but to give them a record, especially giving the guy an extra count is ridiculous. the law should make sense with the intent for malicious behavior and should not persecute for some kids thinking they are making love and having fun... are we going back to puritan times.. **** we all would have to wait till were 18 to have sex... anyway my 2 cents..
Reply to this comment
Kids are stupid and naive.
by ColdMast February 9, 2007 7:53 AM PST
That's why we don't let them own guns.

Digital cameras are for capture digital images.
Computers are for storing digital content.
Internet is for transmitting digital content.

BTW. I don't own a gun either.
PS. Charge smokers for suicide?
PPS. Charge everyone for doing a potential something.
LETS take away Liberty.
Reply to this comment
Ruined Future?
by Iron_Newt February 9, 2007 8:00 AM PST
The kids' future is ruined more by them having a criminal record than by some pictures of them as kids on the internet, seeing as the people hiring in a firm are less likely to be looking for child pornography of their applicants than for criminal records. Similarly they will have to put this in applications for anything they want in their future, from college applications to job applications.
Reply to this comment
Juvenile Records
by sanenazok February 9, 2007 10:51 AM PST
Unfortunately, this is a juvenile offense and as such the record of it will be sealed when they reach 18. No potential employer would be able to see it, except if the pair want a professional license later on such as to be a doctor or lawyer. I don't think these kids are professional material. General employers and colleges don't have access to sealed criminal records. As hiring is partially my responsibility this is something I would like to know about.

The last thing I want is to hire some 20-year old who just three years ago had a "photo" thing.
View all 3 replies
Insane
by dolobo79 February 9, 2007 8:03 AM PST
I read this in disbelief. Showing the pictures invaded their privacy and the whole thing has probably left them emotionally scarred.
It's typical of the law, instead of protecting them it has caused more harm and left them both with criminal records that will affect the rest of their lives.

Have the police nothing better to do? are the real criminals just too hard to catch?
Reply to this comment
Real criminals are too dangerous to catch
by Too Old For IT February 9, 2007 9:34 AM PST
The police would rather prosecute teens for having consesual sex with each other or adults. They would rather bust some old geezer for whacking to anime.

The police would rather be nanny than go catch criminals because they are all physical cowards.

Just my 2¢ worth.

Probably time I reported to Miniluv so I can be re-programmed to love Big Brother.
Job interview..
by Solaris_User February 9, 2007 8:12 AM PST
Interviewer: Says here you are guilty of distributing child porn.

Kid: ..But it was of my...

Interviewer: I'm sorry, Wal-Mart does not have any positions open for people like you.
Reply to this comment
new bill to violate privacy and support this decision
by ShareLife February 9, 2007 8:31 AM PST
Cnet is running a story on how a new bill will support this type of decision.

http://news.com.com/Senator+to+propose+surveillance+of+illegal+images/2100-1028_3-6156976.html?tag=nefd.pulse

In the end, the bill would introduce a flesh detector that would require someone, somewhere to view these photos, even if in a private email and sent between adults. By default the photo shared here would be viewed, possibly by several government officials and considered for evidence.

The future sounds a bit scary.
Reply to this comment
Who is watchers?
by alegr February 9, 2007 9:59 AM PST
I wonder what kind of people will do that viewing...
So to protect them from themselves
by unknown unknown February 9, 2007 8:47 AM PST
and the life ruining effects that some imagined release of these pictures could do. So they're going to ruin their lives in advanced with child porn charges, something several orders of magnitude more damaging than the release of the photos. People have committed suicide from just being charged, cause whether convicted or acquitted it pretty destroys ones prospects at normal life.

I've lost a lot of respect for our system of "justice".
Reply to this comment
Re: So to protect them from themselves
by pctec100 February 9, 2007 12:55 PM PST
I agree with your comment. Unfortunately some in this country have become so obsessed with "protecting the children" that they've overlooked the fact that sometimes kids will be kids and at those times foregiveness is important.

These kids have it pretty bad but it sounds like they are only getting probation. That's not near as bad as that poor young man in Georgia HS football player who is doing 10 years that ESPN featured a couple weeks ago.
Had they had relations in the more tradional definition it would have been legal but because it involved oral he's now doing time under a law that the prosecutor, judge and jury all say was written with the purpose of protecting minors from adults.
That comment assumes....
by bettencourtt February 9, 2007 9:03 AM PST
They even GET an interview. Too many recruiters now see "Criminal History" and automatically dump the application, no questions asked. Most of the time, they won't even gat the chance to explain it.
Reply to this comment
Moving out of America
by rite_edge February 9, 2007 9:12 AM PST
Isn't it inevitable that a huge number of teens will do silly things like this?

Do you really want to gamble your children's freedom, ability to get a job, to move around the country without reporting where they are b/c they're convicted child pornographers , to hold office, to vote, to not go to jail for life under three strikes laws etc. etc. on the hope they won't do something as innocent as this or something else equally innocent that unbalanced judges and careerist prosecutors can make political hay with? Doesn't our country face real problems, or have all those been taken care of while I slept last night? This is pure insanity.

Think it won't happen ot your kids? I don't. I can't be sure of that at all. I am nto willing to contemplate my kids spending their lives as convicted kiddie-pornographers or child molestors. As soon as possible, I am leaving America with my family. If anyone knows a good country to be an ex-pat in, please give details. Wife, 3 kids ages 2-6, about 40 grand in the bank, career programmers both of us.

Thanks in advance.


To tell the truth, this just looks like an attempt to produce universal guilt within the population.
Reply to this comment
Over-Felonization of America
by Too Old For IT February 9, 2007 9:22 AM PST
Make everyone a Felon, make sure they have a record.

Then Big Brother can keep track of everyone easier.
View reply
Country worth living in
by reneedenham February 10, 2007 4:12 PM PST
try australia - thats where i'm from
we have some weried laws too but in general a prety awesome country, and its ALOT cheeper to live here then america - i still cant get over how expensive rent is over there! oh and there is an awesome education system here - AND everyone who wants to go to university can, it dosnt depend on how much money you have (meaning you dont have ot pay upfront) as long as your kids get australian citisinship they can get HECS where you pay your uni fees after you compelte univirsity (its taken as a % out of your wages once you begin earning $X a very small %)

lol oh, and the gold coast kicks ass. best part of aus :P
Good time to move...
by fabled1 February 11, 2007 11:54 AM PST
I'm thinking Canada would be nice, the people certainly are very friendly. But there is one alternative- take a look at Alaska, they're like a whole different country. They don't even care what goes on in the lower 48 as long as it doesn't find its way up there. Maybe they'll secede from the Union. And it'll be a good place to live when the Global Warming escalation puts the coastal cities under water and previously nice places to live have summers in 140 degree heat. That will make the climate on the Kenai Peninsula a nice pleasant 85 to 90 degrees year around. And you can still buy land cheap up there, but not for long.... as soon as Californians finally realize LA could be (or will be the latest research shows, thanks George!) underwater in about 10 years, they'll sell everything and load up the kids and the dog and move to Fairbanks or Nome. And we'll be waiting with high priced property to sell them.Or not.
View reply
Re: Moving out of America
by pmyhre February 12, 2007 7:37 PM PST
If I were you, I'd move to Canada or Scandinavia. I have lived in both places, and I must say America is out of control in many ways.
Re: Moving out of America
by PamJW01 April 2, 2007 9:17 AM PDT
My husband and I are planning a move to Costa Rica. We love it there and there are many ex-pats there. You are not alone in feeling this way about this country. When I was younger, heck, even 10 years ago, I would never have imagined feeling like this about the US. You have to be careful though. Honestly, Americans are despised in so many countries now. We found Costa Rica so friendly and beautiful.
Good luck!

Pam W.
Showing 1 of 3 pages (115 Comments)
advertisement
Click Here

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement