Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 11 submissions in the queue.
posted by azrael on Friday July 11 2014, @07:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the warranting-erection-injection dept.

[ Submitter's note: It gets worse. Both the summary and/or article contain a NSFW (but legal) picture and potentially shocking descriptions not meant to be lurid, but to inform the reader of the current state of a society's handling of a technological aspect of life. ]

Hot on the heels of this related article, The Atlantic one-ups the previous article in bringing to light the increasing hysteria revolving the sexting of minors, truly a new low for American absurdity (paraphrased):

A male minor is forced by adults to submit to an injection that makes his penis erect. The adults command him to strip and photograph his genitals against his will. I am not describing the twisted crime of a registered sex offender. Incredibly, that was the scenario that prosecutors in Prince William County hoped to arrange, according to reports in the Washington Post and at an NBC News affiliate. The boy was already forced to let law enforcement photograph his flaccid penis, the articles add.

The alleged crimes which ostensibly justify this most intrusive and traumatizing investigation? The teen's lawyer, Jessica Harbeson Foster, spoke to the newspaper: "Foster said the case began when the teen's 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question. The girl has not been charged, and her mother filed a complaint about the boy's video. "

For committing those heinous crimes, two felony charges were brought - possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography. Potential penalties, should the minor be found guilty, are incarceration until age 21 and registering (possibly for life) as a sex-offender.

Fortunately, the case got enough attention in the media, and Manassas Police Lt. Brian Larkin said the Police Department will not proceed with the plan to take the pictures and will let a search warrant authorizing the photos to expire. However, according to an official statement released yesterday evening the police have confirmed that they will continue charging the defendant with manufacturing and distribution of child pornography.

Related Stories

Lessons Warn Children Against Sexting 27 comments

The Daily Mail reports that children in the UK may receive school lessons about sexting.

Children as young as nine could be taught in school about the dangers of sexting.

New sex education packs produced by a charity warn girls not to send 'sexy and pouting' pictures using their mobile phones.

They suggest telling children of seven not to email photos of themselves in swimming costumes in case they fall into the hands of paedophiles.

The article goes on to say:

The lessons are part of a pack, launched last week, that schools can download for £299 a year.

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said it was 'symptomatic of a mindset that thinks young children should take responsibility for their own safety, when in reality it is the job of parents to protect them'.

He added: 'To address such issues in the classroom runs the risk of introducing ideas and thoughts that many children are not ready for. In some cases [it] is likely to breed an unhealthy distrust and suspicion of adults.'

Meanwhile, UK polticians are calling for lessons to "tackle the rise of sexist abuse fuelled by internet porn" and the UK, Australia and the Philippines are currently engulfed in pedophile scandals.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @07:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @07:30PM (#67773)
    If I were a parent I'd be more worried about my teenage daughter/son being exposed to the Government (or worse - molested by them like this case), than being "consensually statutory raped" by her/his boyfriend/girlfriend.

    Yes I'd still be pissed off in the latter case but the former scenario has a higher chance of scarring my kid for life. Assuming in the latter case they used contraceptives.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @07:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @07:40PM (#67781)

    Police are above the law, right? They certainly do whatever the fuck they please with no consequences whatsoever. That is the meaning of "above the law" is it not?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Friday July 11 2014, @08:42PM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:42PM (#67824)

      The was an earlier article about the militarization f the "war on drugs", and there have been many on the use of SWAT teams assaulting the home s of people for minor charges. This is just another indicator of the ongoing conversion to to de-facto police state.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by egcagrac0 on Friday July 11 2014, @09:38PM

      by egcagrac0 (2705) on Friday July 11 2014, @09:38PM (#67853)

      two felony charges were brought - possession of child pornography and manufacturing child pornography

      Just need to bring the same charges against the police, who are trying to commit the exact same criminal act - take pictures of the underage boy's junk.

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday July 11 2014, @10:41PM

        by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday July 11 2014, @10:41PM (#67881)
        Whats really twisted is that if the 17 year old had just raped the 15 year old he would get maybe 2-3 years tops, mostly probation (last I heard, corrections?).

        If he was convicted of possessing just one "picture of a child of a pornographic nature", and it can even be a drawing or "realistic depiction" (anime/CGI), can get you 12+ years.

        Want to get scared out of your pants? Watch "Witch Hunt", http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196112/ [imdb.com]

        36 totally innocent people convicted and imprisoned for child molestation.
        --
        "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:00AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:00AM (#67902)

          > If he was convicted of possessing just one "picture of a child of a pornographic nature",
          > and it can even be a drawing or "realistic depiction" (anime/CGI), can get you 12+ years.

          Thanks for posting this. I was under the impression that such bullshit laws were overturned in 2003. But Bush tweaked it and now it is in a "grey area" that lets prosecutors intimidate people into pleading guilty because they can't afford to fight it enough to push it out of the grey.

          Here's the wikipedia entry on it. [wikipedia.org]

          I also wanted to say that google are a bunch of real assholes. Searching for information on these cases causes google to put up "ads" that practically accuse you of being a pedophile. It is scary as fuck to see those accusations come up like that. For the first time I have direct experience to justify all the "paranoid" anti-tracking / cookie-blocking / vpn-using stuff I've been doing for the last couple of years.

          The idea that normal people can't realistically educate themselves on these issues without getting a permanent mark on their "record" as being a pedo is completely unacceptable. Downright fucking evil, even.

      • (Score: 1) by epitaxial on Saturday July 12 2014, @01:32AM

        by epitaxial (3165) on Saturday July 12 2014, @01:32AM (#67930)

        Try and find a district attorney that will bring charges against cops. They NEVER do. They are scared of losing police cooperation if they even think of filing charges. How about the cops who left that guy alone in the holding cell for FOUR days and nearly killing him from dehydration? The DA basically admitted no crimes were committed and nobody got in trouble. The unlucky arrestee received a $4 million settlement for his troubles.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by SrLnclt on Friday July 11 2014, @07:47PM

    by SrLnclt (1473) on Friday July 11 2014, @07:47PM (#67785)
    So let me get this straight. Two high school students can get it on as often as they care to, as long as it is consensual. No harm, no foul. But if one of them whips out their ubiquitous cell phone and takes a naked selfie of themselves or their significant other, suddenly they are felons - potentially involving years of jail time and being marked with a scarlet letter for life.

    I doubt HS kids a generation or two ago are all that different than today in terms of sex. The difference is their cell phones are more a part of their lives than air jordans or bell bottoms ever could be. While it might not be smart to take these pictures, for those under 18 the punishment needs to be adjusted to fit the crime.
    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 11 2014, @08:08PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:08PM (#67797) Journal

      The communications of people in high school need to be secured against moral besserwissers.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 11 2014, @08:47PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 11 2014, @08:47PM (#67828) Journal
      The laws need updated to reflect "the War on Sexting".
      Get them in jail, get them younger
      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by arcz on Friday July 11 2014, @07:51PM

    by arcz (4501) on Friday July 11 2014, @07:51PM (#67786) Journal

    Child porn laws need to be revised not to affect teens sexting eachother.
    There isn't anything wrong with that, our society needs to grow up.
    In fact, child pornography should be revised as it stands, and should only apply to pictures taken non-consensually, or pictures of abuse.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @08:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @08:01PM (#67791)

      > child pornography should be revised as it stands, and should only apply to pictures taken non-consensually,

      Well, given that we have doctrine literally called "the age of consent" that its going to have to be more complicated than that.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by kaszz on Friday July 11 2014, @08:27PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:27PM (#67816) Journal

        Oh shit.. reality is more complex than law makers can codify. Perhaps they should refrain from areas they can't understand enough.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @09:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @09:55PM (#67862)

          > Perhaps they should refrain from areas they can't understand enough.

          Black-and-white thinking for the fail.

          Imperfect solutions are still solutions.
          The important ingredient, as with all human endeavors, is good judgment.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by kaszz on Friday July 11 2014, @10:00PM

            by kaszz (4211) on Friday July 11 2014, @10:00PM (#67864) Journal

            But good judgment they obviously lack.

        • (Score: 1) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday July 12 2014, @08:09PM

          by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Saturday July 12 2014, @08:09PM (#68232)

          Oh shit.. reality is more complex than law makers can codify. Perhaps they should refrain from areas they can't understand enough.

          I can imagine legislation session after legislation session where they all sit around doing absolutely nothing at all.

      • (Score: 1) by turgid on Friday July 11 2014, @08:46PM

        by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 11 2014, @08:46PM (#67826) Journal

        Absolutely. The problem is, in a lot of countries, the "age of consent" is different from the "age permitted to create, distribute and possess nudey pictures."

        In the UK, the age of consent is 16 years. The age for the pictures is 18 years. The age for drinking is 18 and the age at which you can stand to be elected to be a member of Parliament is 21(!). I think to drive an HGV it's something like 21 or 25. To drive a standard passenger car it's 17 (many would argue it should be older).

        Now, the age of consent, I think, is about right. I'm from Scotland, and it used to be 14 for girls and 16 for boys there once. There was some kind of specious argument about girls maturing earlier than boys, but I reckon it had more to do with men making the laws...

        As I get older, the more I think it should be 18 years for males and females. If the argument for an age of consent is to protect the young from older predators (and understand about contraception and STDs), then 18 seems better. After all, we don't allow them to buy alcohol (and put themselves in all kinds of vulnerable positions including the risk of accident).

        The problem with having a lower age of consent for pictures is this: if it is sufficiently low, the sort of consent given by the subject is in complete innocence (by definition) since they have no idea of sexual feelings and therefore sexual intention of the person taking the picture or any subsequent viewer of the picture - they cannot comprehend it. This puts the young squarely at the mercy of the kiddie-fiddlers of this world. By definition, it is not consent, because it is not informed. I contend that this would be a readily-exploitable situation and it's just the sort of thing the kiddie-fiddlers want.

        The years of adolescence are a bit different. However, we need to find a balance that protects the young people in this age group from each other (to a certain extent) and from older would-be exploiters. Young adults need a safe space in which to learn to be fully-formed, but part of this safety needs to be in ensuring that anything they do doesn't harm each other (in the long term), anyone younger, and can't be exploited by anyone older.

        It's all a fine balance, and the laws (and society full of us old gits) are only just catching up.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @11:50PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @11:50PM (#67900)

          There was some kind of specious argument about girls maturing earlier than boys, but I reckon it had more to do with men making the laws...

          No, girls really do start and complete puberty earlier on average than boys. From the Wiki, [wikipedia.org] with lots of citations that you can peruse on your own:

          On average, girls begin puberty at ages 10-11; boys at ages 11-12. Girls usually complete puberty by ages 15-17, while boys usually complete puberty by ages 16-17

          14 is indeed a bit too young, but if it was set at 15, both genders would have their "Age of Consent" set around the time they complete puberty, which is when it should be since thats when they're going to start being sexually active and when they're biologically mature enough to do so.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:28AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:28AM (#67910)

            > No, girls really do start and complete puberty earlier on average than boys.

            His point was not about the details of biological maturity but about the fact there is a lot more to it than just biology. Like mental maturity.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @04:15AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @04:15AM (#67972)

              Like mental maturity.

              Can you scientifically and objectively measure mental maturity? No? I don't know about you, but I personally consider it a good thing for laws to be based on science and objective, measurable reality rather than flimsy, subjective things like "mental maturity". If we were to use that metric as an iron-clad rule for when people could consent to "adult" activities, mentally handicapped people would immediately be thrown in jail for viewing pornography or having sex regardless of their age.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @09:22AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @09:22AM (#68027)

                > Can you scientifically and objectively measure mental maturity? No?

                At least as well as you can measure biological maturity.

                You seem to be laboring under the false impression that a specific age determines biological maturity more accurately than it does mental maturity. Probably because you have not attained full mental maturity yourself.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:33PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:33PM (#68072)

              Mental maturity? Oh, that happens during the 25th year in humans, so...no sex before 25, gotcha. MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:27AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 13 2014, @03:27AM (#68349)

                > Mental maturity? Oh, that happens during the 25th year in humans, so...no sex before 25, gotcha. MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

                Right. This is clearly a case where binary evaluations are called for. MAKES PERFECT SENSE if you are a mental fucktard.

    • (Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Friday July 11 2014, @08:09PM

      by marcello_dl (2685) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:09PM (#67799)

      Or pictures in possession/sold to somebody who's 20% or more older. We don't want teens able to sell dirty pics to adults don't we?

      • (Score: 2) by tftp on Friday July 11 2014, @10:03PM

        by tftp (806) on Friday July 11 2014, @10:03PM (#67865) Homepage

        Or pictures in possession/sold to somebody who's 20% or more older. We don't want teens able to sell dirty pics to adults don't we?

        The recipient of the SMS/photo/video does not preapprove the data transfer. If a teen, for any reason, sends a picture to an adult, then a crime of "possession" has been committed by the adult. If he deletes the photo, it only adds "destruction of evidence" to the list. The teen is then able to blackmail the adult. It may be not even necessary to actually send anything, as long as the threat is real.

        This society is a paradise for paranoid cynical misanthropes - their worst suspicions are confirmed every single day. Any interaction with a fellow human, no matter how innocent, may hurt you. However absence of interaction comes with no penalty. Therefore one is wise to stay away from others. (That's what the facts say.)

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:36PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:36PM (#68074)

          Most possession illegalities have wording that requires "knowingly and willingly" possessing something. If you are sent a photo and you quickly delete it once you see what it is, you have not committed the felony nor destroyed evidence; you've simply deleted something you didn't want to possess and weren't given the choice to reject before seeing. Unfortunately, "deleted files" are used to prosecute people all the time, and prosecutors are some of the lowest human trash on the planet, so...

          • (Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday July 12 2014, @09:13PM

            by tftp (806) on Saturday July 12 2014, @09:13PM (#68248) Homepage

            Most possession illegalities have wording that requires "knowingly and willingly" possessing something.

            A town official was arrested after he received a UPS package that was addressed to him. The package contained drugs, and the sender expected the shipment to be stolen from the porch by the real recipient (a drug seller.) However the police was also tracking the package, so in the end the unfortunate man opened the package to see what's inside and was immediately arrested for this crime.

            It is very difficult to defend yourself against terms "knowingly" or "willingly" when you do certain things that in other circumstances are legal. Such as opening a box that is addressed to you. In case of an image you knowingly and willingly select the SMS and push a button to see what's in it. "Oh, you say you never knew what kind of photo is inside? But I, the prosecutor, claim that you did know - or at least you expected. I can prove it by showing to the jury that you haven't reported the incident to the police, but instead chose to delete the incriminating file - before, no doubt, copying it off the phone with this here USB cable that I submit into the evidence! Jury, I urge you to hang this man because my political career could use a boost."

            once you see what it is, you have not committed the felony nor destroyed evidence; you've simply deleted something you didn't want to possess

            You may not want to possess any evidence, ever. However this does not allow people to destroy evidence just because they don't want to be involved. Once the evidence is in your hands the only thing you can do is to report it to the police. If you see a pool of blood in your driveway, it is not OK to take a hose and wash it away. Obviously, a photo is not blood, but the law does not make a distinction between them, and people get convicted over a virtual crime of being exposed to a pattern of photons. Welcome to the police state, citizen - and, by the way, we convict these children to a life-long punishment for their own good!

            Unfortunately, "deleted files" are used to prosecute people all the time

            Yes - in part because formally they commit the crime of [attempted] destruction of evidence and then become co-conspirators by obstructing the justice. The facts of these crimes (?) are easy to demonstrate and very hard to justify. Besides, as you said, prosecutors are not among the most honest people on the planet; additionally, police force is hired not among rocket scientists but among bullies who enjoy their power over others. I guess there are perfectly honest cops somewhere, but they are rare. The police training even tells recruits to treat everyone they talk to as a potential cop killer. Eventually this pressure makes them paranoid - and one who is looking for trouble is likely to find it.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by egcagrac0 on Friday July 11 2014, @08:22PM

      by egcagrac0 (2705) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:22PM (#67813)

      child pornography should be revised as it stands, and should only apply to pictures taken non-consensually, or pictures of abuse.

      Finally, a voice of reason.

      It shouldn't be unlawful to take a photograph of yourself. It shouldn't be unlawful to share it with someone else (in general).

      It's probably reasonable to say that adults shouldn't be in possession of CP, shouldn't buy CP, etc.

      It gets tricky if someone decides to create a for-profit website (subscriptions?) hosting photos of her 14 year old self.

      At some point, there's an "age of consent" issue - too young to enter a contract, too young to consent to sex - but those ages aren't always the same in every jurisdiction, and it's unclear which should apply. There's international conflict here, too - potential for legal exploitation if we do our photo shoots in Peru.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by arcz on Friday July 11 2014, @08:50PM

        by arcz (4501) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:50PM (#67830) Journal

        What we could do is make it illegal to sell pictures, but without criminal penalties. For example, if caught in the above scenario, the state could force the website to close, but not levy any other penalties in particular.

        • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday July 11 2014, @10:08PM

          by tftp (806) on Friday July 11 2014, @10:08PM (#67869) Homepage

          Indeed; this approach ("slap on the wrist") successfully led to complete disappearance of spammers. After all, a flourishing business cannot afford to get a backup account with some other ISP.

      • (Score: 3) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday July 11 2014, @11:04PM

        by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday July 11 2014, @11:04PM (#67889)

        Also need to define CP better, currently in the USA a couple of "realistic" CGI or even an Anime drawings of a child can get you 20+ years, it doesn't even have to sexual in content, just show a bare nipple or butt. I read an article about a case like that, a high court had declared the pictures to not be CP so the news site could show them and I can tell you I've seen old Coppertone adds that where more revealing than the pics the prosecutor used to charge the defendant with.

        --
        "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:45PM (#68078)

        It should not be illegal to possess *at all.* Pictures of all other crimes are completely legal to possess. The only thing that makes photography of sexual crimes different is the fallout of American Puritanical societal norms, where we inexplicably dress kids up in nude suits and make them do burlesque dances on television for our entertainment (for exmaple) while violently responding to sexual *anything* regarding the same exact kids we're constantly sexualizing at lower ages.

        On top of that, the First Amendment doesn't have wording exceptions for sexual things of any sort. The classic example used to try to place limits on the guarantee of freedom of speech is that of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but that is not illegal; the damage caused by the stampede that inevitably results is the illegal part. Photography is speech. Photography cannot be censored just because someone doesn't like what is in the photograph. Allowing images of murder and violence while disallowing images of sexual activity is a clear double standard and is furthermore not an exception allowed by the Constitution.

        Discuss!

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Tramii on Friday July 11 2014, @08:34PM

      by Tramii (920) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:34PM (#67820)

      This whole situation is insane. I can't believe it has gone this far.

      However, I do realize that trying to create any law regarding child pornography is complicated. There's no simple, clear-cut solutions. After having thought about it, I believe the best way to handle these situations is to focus more on what we are trying to accomplish. Ostensibly we are trying to prevent minors from being harmed. Now, there is nothing innately evil about a picture of a naked child. (How many millions of pictures of naked babies on bear rugs are out there?) The actual problem is NOT the photos, it's when kids get hurt/abused/exploited. The laws about banning the photos are based on the idea that it will stop people from hurting kids. I think that we need to keep that in mind.

      When dealing with this particular situation, people need to ask themselves "Did any child get hurt?" I think it's pretty obvious that the only child that was actually harmed was the accused. We are completely missing the point here. We are trying to protect children, but in this case no child was harmed until the legal system got involved! We are literally making things WORSE in this case, not better.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Rune of Doom on Friday July 11 2014, @09:45PM

        by Rune of Doom (1392) on Friday July 11 2014, @09:45PM (#67857)

        Yep, insane. That anything happens other than the officials in question being laughed out of office is insane. At the least.

        I think this is one of an endless series of manifestations of the (sometime) post-WWII American obsession with process. We, as a culture, don't want discretion, judgement, or responsibility - we want rules, process, order and as long as the rules are followed everything is supposed to come out right. When it doesn't, when the abandonment of judgement, thought, and accountability lead to stark raving madness like this, it's not simply that we need better rules. We, as a culture, need to move away from the entire sort of crazed lunacy that leads to situations like this. That's going to require a complete rebuild of the way 21st Century Americans think though, and it isn't going to come easy. In my more optimistic moments, I think it might be possible without a societal collapse. (But hey, even if it does require a societal collapse, we've got a handy slow-motion one going on right now! Isn't that nifty?)

        • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday July 12 2014, @05:54AM

          by bradley13 (3053) on Saturday July 12 2014, @05:54AM (#67993) Homepage Journal

          "That anything happens other than the officials in question being laughed out of office is insane."

          There needs to be much more than that. This is what tar and feathers were invented for.

          The judge who issued the warrant, the prosecutor and all involved police should lose their jobs and be banished from the town. Sooner or later, one really hopes that Americans will have had enough of overzealous, zero tolerance, "tough on crime" idiots.

          --
          Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @09:26AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 12 2014, @09:26AM (#68028)

            > The judge who issued the warrant, the prosecutor and all involved
            > police should lose their jobs and be banished from the town. Sooner or
            > later, one really hopes that Americans will have had enough of
            > overzealous, zero tolerance, "tough on crime" idiots.

            Now that is rich! You complain about overzealous, zero-tolerance attitudes but your remedy is exactly what you are complaining about.

            I guess geeks are no more self-aware than any other group of people.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday July 11 2014, @08:13PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:13PM (#67804)

    Currently at work so I don't really want to click through to the article...what the summary doesn't make sense of is WHY the fuck they think they have to do this? Are they duplicating the pictures of him for evidence? Is this supposed to be some sort of punishment? I don't get it.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday July 11 2014, @08:27PM

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:27PM (#67815) Homepage

      You are correct, the cops wanted to take a picture as evidence, to compare to the original evidence which led to the seeking of charges in the first place. All the information you need is in the summary.

      Cops and feds have previously photographed suspects nude to attempt to identify people suspected of sex crimes (usually by identifying markings such as moles near the genital area). However, this case is especially shocking because the molestation of the charged minor by the cops is far more ludicrous than the actual "crimes" with which the defendant is being charged. It is in my opinion disgusting and humiliating overkill, and a symptom of a society long gone mad.

      Even as a (presumed male) adult, how would you feel if you had consensually texted a nude picture or video of yourself to somebody 2 years your junior, only to be arrested and forcibly given an erection before being photographed nude? How do you think that would affect you for the rest of your life, associating every erection with a gross violation of your rights and privacy?

      • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @08:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @08:34PM (#67822)

        How do you think that would affect you for the rest of your life, associating every erection with a gross violation of your rights and privacy?

        Sounds like my first marriage!

        ba-dum-shisshhhhhhhh

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 11 2014, @10:16PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Friday July 11 2014, @10:16PM (#67871) Journal

        "You are correct, the cops wanted to take a picture as evidence, to compare to the original evidence which led to the seeking of charges in the first place. All the information you need is in the summary."

        So the police commits another crime to deter a non-existent crime. And it only began because some moral overzealous parent.

        I got news for parents: YOUR DAUGHTER(S) DOES HAVE INTEREST IN SEXUAL ENDEAVOURS - DEAL WITH IT RATIONALLY.
        Seem to many doesn't realize their small little kids grow up and move out, educate, get a job, have sex, form their own opinion etc. One doesn't have children. You borrow them until they start their own life.

    • (Score: 3) by Sir Garlon on Friday July 11 2014, @08:33PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:33PM (#67818)

      Is this supposed to be some sort of punishment?

      It sounds like extrajudicial punishment -- abuse of authority is endemic. When the cops get pissed off at somebody, they pull all kinds of stunts, from harassment and detention to unlawful seizure to excessive prosecution (charging somebody with a felony for a minor or innocuous offense) to beatings, torture, or murder. Depends on how pissed off the cop is and how far he's willing to go. And, in this case, whether he's a pervert.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    • (Score: 2) by jmoschner on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:36AM

      by jmoschner (3296) on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:36AM (#67917)

      To answer your question, yes it was to match his manly bits to those in the video.

      As of now the police say they are NOT going to be doing this. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/07/police-drop-plans-to-photograph-teens-erection-in-sexting-case/ [arstechnica.com]

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by frojack on Friday July 11 2014, @08:18PM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:18PM (#67809) Journal

    will let a search warrant authorizing the photos to expire

    From TFA: a search warrant, which was granted by substitute Juvenile Court Judge Jan Roltsch-Anoll

    This is the person you need to bring up on charges. The problem is she appears to be president of the Bar foundation in that area.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by lgsoynews on Friday July 11 2014, @08:23PM

    by lgsoynews (1235) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:23PM (#67814)

    How can someone in a position of authority be so stupid and lacking so much in common sense?

    I would be really worried if I lived in the place where this is happening, knowing that such people work in the law enforcement...

  • (Score: 1) by dboz87 on Friday July 11 2014, @08:45PM

    by dboz87 (1285) on Friday July 11 2014, @08:45PM (#67825)

    Why is the boy who sent a video of his junk being prosecuted for child pornography while the girl who sent naked pictures of herself first is not being prosecuted?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @08:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @08:48PM (#67829)

      Dude, penises are frightening instruments of control, exploitation and oppression.

  • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday July 11 2014, @08:51PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 11 2014, @08:51PM (#67831)

    So mom gets pissed when she's on the daughters phone and watched a (very private!) short video of a naked 17 year old. Mom, in this case, is stupid. The internet is trying to copy real-life as much as possible. Only a fool would assume that sex wouldn't be one of those parts. Mom should be glad it was nakedness over the phone instead of in person. Mom is attempting to use to law to enforce her morals.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2) by Lagg on Friday July 11 2014, @09:09PM

      by Lagg (105) on Friday July 11 2014, @09:09PM (#67838) Homepage Journal

      It gets even stupider when you consider that even if we ignore all of this moral hysteria (it's hard, I know) and the double standard of her even younger daughter not getting charged, she is not being charged with possession of child pornography. She did view it after all.

      --
      http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
      • (Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Friday July 11 2014, @09:25PM

        by e_armadillo (3695) on Friday July 11 2014, @09:25PM (#67845)

        She did view it after all.
        Moreover, (some assumptions made here as I am at work, so no reading the article), she viewed it but did not delete it, otherwise, Mom would not have found it. So, knowing what it was she kept it, making the girl just as culpable as culpable as the boy.

        --
        "How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
  • (Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Friday July 11 2014, @09:35PM

    by e_armadillo (3695) on Friday July 11 2014, @09:35PM (#67851)

    IANAL, but it seems to me that this is ass-backwards. Child porn is a crime with a victim (the subject of the photo/video), and a perpetrator, the person taking the photo/video. Perhaps I am thinking about this all wrong, but it blows my mind that there can be charges. Perp is the victim, therefore there is no real victim, therefore, no crime. Unless they are saying she (the girl) is the victim. But, then I would expect mentions of transmission/display of the material, not generation/possession. Oh well, whatever the case, the system is truly fucked now . . .

    --
    "How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @10:08PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 11 2014, @10:08PM (#67868)

      > Perhaps I am thinking about this all wrong, but it blows my mind that there can be charges.
      > Perp is the victim, therefore there is no real victim, therefore, no crime.

      This kind of legal perversion is all too common. [nytimes.com]

      It is the inevitable result of the thought-crime approach to criminalizing child pornography - where the mere possession is illegal no matter the circumstances. Our law makers have removed the opportunity for good judgment from the system for fear of someone making a bad judgment. Not realizing that by doing so they have effectively institutionalized bad judgment.

  • (Score: 1) by Lazarus on Friday July 11 2014, @09:48PM

    by Lazarus (2769) on Friday July 11 2014, @09:48PM (#67859)

    A lot of police and prosecutors are abusive thugs who really belong in prison, rather than being able to send other people there.

  • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday July 11 2014, @10:34PM

    by Snotnose (1623) on Friday July 11 2014, @10:34PM (#67879)

    IANAL, but isn't planning to make kiddie porn a felony? The kid is a minor, taking naked pics of him is a felony. So why in hell aren't the cops, prosecutors, judges, and whoever else is involved in this fiasco under arrest for conspiracy to produce kiddie porn?

    Oh, right, I forgot. They're cops. The law doesn't apply to them.

    --
    In this month in 1958 Project Snot was started. This has upset many people and is widely considered a bad idea.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by johaquila on Friday July 11 2014, @10:34PM

    by johaquila (867) on Friday July 11 2014, @10:34PM (#67880)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/07/10/manassas-city-police-say-they-will-not-serve-search-warrant-in-teen-sexting-case/ [washingtonpost.com]

    I guess it finally occurred to the police to consult a lawyer about the legality of the planned 'investigation', rather than simply relying on the judgement of an apparently insane judge.

  • (Score: 1) by quixote on Friday July 11 2014, @11:43PM

    by quixote (4355) on Friday July 11 2014, @11:43PM (#67897)

    and I think this whole thing is beyond insane. Sexually capable teenagers having a high old time looking at each others' naughty bits is just doing what nature intended, fercryinoutloud.

    Sure, we need actual privacy laws that stop people's pictures from being used against them at any point, but that's another whole mess.

    And then, the weirdness of the judge and cops after getting all bothered about a non-crime, well, that really is a crime. Perversion, even, in the real sense of the word. We need to get them thrown in the slammer for unnatural acts.

  • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:13AM

    by tathra (3367) on Saturday July 12 2014, @12:13AM (#67908)

    so as a poster above pointed out, they've decided not to serve the warrant and further the sexual abuse on this kid. bravo.

    hopefully we'll get a silver lining from this cloud of bullshit due to it calling attention from how absurd and ridiculous our CP laws are and get some calls to change them. as if it wasnt bad enough when that 15 year old girl got convicted as a sex offender for taking pictures of herself (no luck finding a link about it though), hopefully now that police actively want to molest children themselves, we'll be able to get some common sense in this area.

    parents need to grow the fuck up and stop being such hypocrites. how many adults werent sexually active before they turned 18? some of them were no doubt bigger whores than their children could ever be.

  • (Score: 1) by Ellis D. Tripp on Saturday July 12 2014, @02:25AM

    by Ellis D. Tripp (3416) on Saturday July 12 2014, @02:25AM (#67946)
    --
    "Society is like stew. If you don't keep it stirred up, you end up with a lot of scum on the top!"--Edward Abbey
    • (Score: 2) by fliptop on Saturday July 12 2014, @01:09PM

      by fliptop (1666) on Saturday July 12 2014, @01:09PM (#68085) Journal

      The police should've utilized a sketch artist...

      That brought back some memories, thanks!

      --
      Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.