Later this month, a North Carolina high school student will appear in a state court and face five child pornography-related charges for engaging in consensual sexting with his girlfriend.
What's strange is that of the five charges he faces, four of them are for taking and possessing nude photos of himself on his own phone—the final charge is for possessing one nude photo his girlfriend took for him. There is no evidence of coercion or further distribution of the images anywhere beyond the two teenagers' phones.
Similarly, the young woman was originally charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor—but was listed on her warrant for arrest as both perpetrator and victim. The case illustrates a bizarre legal quandry that has resulted in state law being far behind technology and unable to distinguish between predatory child pornography and innocent (if ill-advised) behavior of teenagers.
The boy is being charged with child pornography for taking pictures of himself.
[These teens were of the age of consent in North Carolina and could legally have had sex with each other. Juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 16 in North Carolina, however, so they are being tried as adults on felony charges of possessing child porn... of themselves. -Ed.]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cyxs on Saturday September 05 2015, @12:24PM
This is where jury nullification is to play a role in jury trials. But then again people in power don't want "common" people to understand what and when jury nullification is to be used and why.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:26PM
Try informing potential jurors of jury nullification. It's not so easy.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by cyxs on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:36PM
That's the problem and one reason I think judges have to much power as it stands they can disallow anything they don't like inside the court. People tend to forget we elect and appoint people to positions that they have absolute power and its very hard to override that power or if we do it takes awhile to do so.
The people were to a check upon the 3 branches of government but we haven't been we as a people have become subservient to the government. Juries are told to follow the letter of the law not the intent or your views on it. The whole idea that the police work for the people or the government works for the people isn't true anymore because they do not teach what it means to be a citizen of this country.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:47PM
The whole idea that the police work for the people or the government works for the people isn't true anymore
It was never true. Being critical of the government is necessary if you want to have any hope of keeping your freedoms and maintaining some semblance of democracy.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:39PM
It was never true. Being critical of the government is necessary if you want to have any hope of keeping your freedoms and maintaining some semblance of democracy.
That is one reason why a free press is essential. Unfortunately, the traditional media (newspapers, TV, radio) is now anything but free, with a few corporations now controlling what was once hundreds (thousands?) of competing interests. Fortunately we have the internet for now, but that seems to lack the professional standards the media once seemed to have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @10:00PM
> That is one reason why a free press is essential.
FYI, when the first amendment was written "freedom of the press" meant freedom of anyone with a printing-press. The idea of "the press" as professional news organizations did not exist.
> Fortunately we have the internet for now, but that seems to lack the professional standards the media once seemed to have.
Such standards are great, but they are a very recent phenomenon. You might remember the terms "yellow journalism" and "muck-raking" from your american history class in high school.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @05:21PM
Such standards are great, but they are a very recent phenomenon. You might remember the terms "yellow journalism" and "muck-raking" from your American history class in high school.
At least there were some others to call them out on it, and genuine scoops were sought out by genuine reporters. Now the few big media corporations essentially regurgitate the same "facts", with the talking heads on the screen all playing along.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:48PM
Right, because, unless you're on the jury, that's viewed by the courts are trying to influence jurors on a SPECIFIC trial. Which is incredibly illegal.
Educate everyone in your life who gets a jury duty letter? They don't care, but nullification activists misrepresent why they're asked to stop and eventually charged.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by JNCF on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:13PM
But prosecution gets to screen jury members, and from what I hear second-hand (I have no legal background or any history of jury duty) they tend to ask jury members if they know of any reason that they might not have to convict the defendant even if the defendant had committed the crime in question. If somebody answers "no" to this and then later brings up jury nullification, they lied under oath. If they say "yes" the prosecution vetoes the jury member; the prosecution has no incentive to allow jury members with knowledge of jury nullification into the court room, so they get screened out.
If the system is designed to have informed jury members, you'd think they would just tell the jury members about jury nullification, or at least make it so you can't screen out jury members because they know too much about the law. Instead, it feels as if knowledge of the law is being hidden from jury members. Given this system, I can't see blaming the jury nullification activists for trying to inform jury members of the law after they've passed through this dystopian screening process.
(Score: 2) by quacking duck on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:58PM
I'm sure it's not universal, but last time I was on a jury selection both prosecution and defence could each only veto up to a certain number of people. In fact, one side (the defence, IIRC) ran out of vetoes; when they tried vetoing one more, the judge actually verbally told them they'd used all of theirs.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:06PM
Last time I was a participant in jury duty the judge overruled every dismissal the defense made and dismissed jurors himself whenever the prosecutor looked at him. If that was not illegal, it surely ought to be. Then again, the prosecutor was in the room so clearly he would not pursue the case.
It was a case where the police testimony was not readily believable* and so was already brought up during questioning. The defense tried to dismiss jurors that answered "yes" to the questions of (paraphrasing) "Do you have any friends or relatives in the police department?" and "Do police always tell the truth." Anyone that said 8"no" to the second question was dismissed as having potential bias by the judge himself.
*Two police spotted a black pan in a car at night and tried to pull him over. He took off. The police claim to positively identify him as a specific person during the chase. The suspect then managed to outrun the police, get back into his vehicle, calmly drive away, then be pulled over by the same police hours later. Somewhere between the time the police lost the suspect and pulled him over again they found a gun that had no markings but they knew was tossed by said man. Which was unfortunately lost in evidence (this made some local news). Here is the kicker: this was a district in southeast Michigan. At the time there were no streetlights, many foreclosed homes, and the suspect was pushing the weight-limits of his court chair. So the whole thing came down to the believably of the story where a 300+ pound black man outrun police, in a circle back to his car mind you, while simultaneously being positively identified in pitch black conditions and associated with a gun that no one except the arresting officers have seen.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:59PM
Both sides get to screen the jury.
And Both sides have limited numbers of challenges (rejections) of potential jurors.
The questions are there to detect and exclude people who have a grudge against the government, or the defendant.
That has nothing at all to do with Jury nullification, where the jury decides by itself that the whole proceeding is unjust even if
it can be shown that a specific act was against the law. Many juries have nullified upon hearing the evidence without any
preconceived notion of nullification.
Not saying this case needs jury nullification.
The whole fiction of trying them as an adult for pictures of themselves where they are said to be children is sufficient for any jury to find them not guilty, because they can not be both adults under the law and children under the law. The prosecutor has a tough road to hoe, and simply deciding the state did not prove they were children would be sufficient.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by http on Saturday September 05 2015, @07:39PM
In the course of the trial, a juror normally ends up knowing more about the case than when they were first selected. Your scenario of lying under oath just isn't true. There is at least one scenario I recall where a scumball totally committed the crime accused of, but was not convicted since it was actually done with the intent and result of preserving the lives of many people. This was not apparent to all at the start of the trial.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:45PM
It goes well beyond that. The last time I participated in voir dire, the judge asked us to swear that we would judge only the actions of the defendant and not the law. When I said I couldn't conscionably swear to that. She briefly attempted to convince me that it wouldn't be an ethical problem for me if society deemed the person was to be punished. I countered that because I would know the inevitable consequences of my guilty vote, those consequences WOULD ethically be attributable to me. I was dismissed.
They would LIKE to keep people from educating friends who get a jury letter, it's just that there is no excuse for them to do so even if they could prove it. Here [nytimes.com] we have a case of someone tried for jury tampering due to him passing out nullification flyers in front of a courthouse. He had no way of knowing if any of the people who went by were jurors at all, much less what case they might be empaneled on.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:34PM
Jury nullification isn't a legal right that jurors possess. The jury is just there to decide whether or not the evidence supports the prosecutions case that the law was broken and the sentencing.
Jurors do not have the right to willfully ignore the law. And with good reason. If the defense attorneys were allowed to play to the juries sympathies and convince them that the crime shouldn't even be a crime, it would break the legal system. The attorneys involved agree not to try and do that, and it's part of the juries responsibilities to just weigh the facts in the case.
The question of whether or not something ought to be legal at all is a question for the various appellate courts to consider.
Or to look at it another way, if juries do nullify, that doesn't change anything. There's still going to be more of those cases going to trial and perhaps the next jury isn't as generous. And ultimately, jury nullification deprives the people involved of justice. I'm sure it's great to not go to prison and to not be listed, but the only way those things ever change is either by court order or legislatively and it's a tough sell to politicians that these things should be fixed. A judge can at least hide behind precedence in most cases.
(Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:09PM
ligten up, francis.
and you happen to be very wrong about the intent of JN. the intent IS th allow common-sense to override uncaring,unfeeling,unjust laws. this is the perfect application of it!
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 1) by Francis on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:42PM
Jury nullification exists in so far as some jurors do it. It's not a legal construct and it's something that will rightfully get you thrown off the jury if the judge or the attorneys find out about it.
It's astonishing to me how little respect people have for the law and yet are so unwilling to address the issue in the appropriate venue.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:12PM
The Magna Charta might be deemed a form of jury nullification. The one and only source of "justice" prior to the MC was the judgement of some pompous royal ass. The peasants of the time decided that enough was enough, and insisted that the people have a voice. The royalty yeilded, rather than be executed.
Seeing that our law is directly based on English Common Law - yeah, the PEOPLE decide what the law is, not the ruling class.
In another post, you mention "respect for the law"? I have none. The circus we have today is sometimes entertaining, and sometimes tragic, but it is simply not deserving of respect.
(Score: 3, Informative) by CRCulver on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:37PM
The Magna Carta was something that was drawn up by Canterbury to make peace between the king and a group of disgruntled barons. It was meant to provide a better balance of power between the king and the feudal aristocracy. While the Magna Carta had an iconic status for reformers in later centuries, the peasantry had nothing to do with the Magna Carta, and none of the freedoms it outlined were applicable for the peasantry. How could you not know this?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:51PM
How could you not know this?
What can you expect from someone who doesn't use Gamemaker for all their programming needs?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:14PM
It's astonishing to me how little respect people have for the law
What's astonishing is that you're apparently foolish enough to respect the law simply because it is the law.
You're also completely incorrect about jury nullification. It's like arguing that disobeying some unjust laws will inevitably lead to anarchy. It's not true because people generally have brains and tend to obey laws that they see will benefit their well-being (laws against murder, for example). It's not an either-or where you either obey all laws or you disobey all laws. Jury nullification is designed to be another check on government tyranny, and when the other checks fail, it needs to be used. I would not convict someone for challenging the TSA, for instance. The courts have failed to defend the constitution by ruling the TSA unconstitutional, so jury nullification can be used to reduce the harm of government tyranny in situations like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @03:09AM
I respect the law exactly as much as the people tasked with writing it and enforcing it do. That is, not at all.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:17PM
Jurors do not have the right to willfully ignore the law.
Maybe not, but they still in all cases have that power.
If the defense attorneys were allowed to play to the juries sympathies and convince them that the crime shouldn't even be a crime, it would break the legal system.
That's an outrageous claim with absolutely no basis. Juries are not going to go around deciding that laws against murder and rape and armed robbery are unjust. But for those laws and prosecutions that are clearly unjust, like this case, the jury isn't breaking the legal system, they are fixing it. They are limiting the state's ability to unjustly prosecute citizens for normative behavior, where there are no victims. No victim, No crime! How many people are in prison today that because they were convicted of a crime where the "victim" was the state itself? They should not be there. The state has a right to prosecute crimes against citizens - the state does NOT have the right to jail its citizens by claiming to be the victim of a crime.
The question of whether or not something ought to be legal at all is a question for the various appellate courts to consider.
With this statement, you have broken the historical basis for not recognizing jury nullification in the US - the principle that it is the people that decide whether or not something ought to be legal. When you give that power to the courts, the only recourse for citizens is jury nullification, just like the situation in the pre-revolutionary US colonies.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Francis on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:38PM
You don't solve abuses of power by abusing power. Jury nullification just ensures that the issue is never actually dealt with.
It's not an outrageous claim, it's completely true. And just because some people consider a crime to be victimless, does not mean that it is victimless. The state steps in as the victim in cases where the damage is considered to be widespread. It also allows for the state to prosecute in cases where the victim is at risk of being intimidated by the defendant.
The people do have the right to decide whether or not something ought to be illegal. You vote for people that support the things you support. In some parts of the country we even get to directly propose laws as initiatives or the legislators can send things to the public for a vote as a referendum. The jury box is completely the wrong place to be deciding whether or not something should be illegal.
What you're proposing is tantamount to anarchy. We've had a system where jurors did that in a widespread way back in the "good" old days when it was damn near impossible to convict a white person of lynching a black person. The jurors didn't see a problem with that. If we open the door to jurors making their own decisions about what the law should be, there's no telling what they will and won't go for. I highly doubt it will be anything that dramatic in the modern era, but there's still a bunch of people out there that consider GLBT folks to be subhuman, not to mention illegal immigrants, so I wouldn't be surprised if it still happens.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:21PM
I am a crackpot
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @08:50PM
Nullification is the "ancient right" of the jury.
"juries are not entitled as a matter of right to refuse to apply the law — but they do have the power to do so when their consciences permit of no other course." -- R. v. Krieger, 2006 SCC 47 (Canada)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @04:17PM
> Maybe not, but they still in all cases have that power.
Undeniably true. I'd have approached the statement from the direction that jurors have the right to interpret the law such that the spirit and intent of the law is given precedence over its current wording.
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:47PM
Jury nullification isn't a legal right that jurors possess.
You might want to check your facts:
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#Court_rulings [wikipedia.org]
If a juror indicates during voir dire that they intend to vote to nullify, they will be dismissed. But if the jury as a whole in their secret deliberations comes to that opinion, it is perfectly legal and fully within their rights.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @08:15PM
Especially the "of your peers" thing.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:35PM
Doesn't matter if they are found innocent. For the rest of their lives, they will be known as child pornographers via google and their criminal history, as it will show they were arrested and charged with it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @12:35PM
If they're old enough to do something like that, they're old enough to have a criminal record. They'll probably continue to be immoral as adults. Also blame the parents for bringing up degenerates.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MrNemesis on Saturday September 05 2015, @01:23PM
The most insane part of this - apart from the perpetrator and supposed victim being the same person - is the prosecutor wanting them to stand trial as adults (for something that wouldn't be illegal if they were adults) yet if the prosecutor wants to treat them as adults, why aren't they able to give informed consent? I can't understand why the whole thing hasn't been thrown out as "no case to answer".
Sets a worrying precedent as well. If victim and villain can be the same person and a child can be an adult for the purposes of punishment but not for the purposes of age-limited crimes, can a masturbating teenager be arrested for sexual assault and/or rape on their non-consenting self? Get a few more arsehole moralising prosecutors and you'll be able to lock an entire generation of teenagers up!
It'll certainly be the last time these two people will volunteer to help the police, that is if being permanently labelled as sex offenders doesn't fuck their lives up completely and turn them into social outcasts/criminals/suicide statistics.
As an aside, we have the same quirk in UK law; age of consent here is 16 but you can't buy or appear in porn until you're 18. Don't think any 16-17yr olds have been arrested here for making "porn" of themselves yet but it's probably only a matter of time before someone think it'll be a good idea to do so to increase their votes from Daily Heil readers.
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:09PM
It is a long shot, but there is a saving grace that can come out of outrageous cases like these. A supreme court might issue a ruling to overturn these kinds of arrests as an appeal. It probably won't happen, but it could.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:43PM
If they don't make some sort of bad plea deal, that is.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:34PM
It seems the girl already has made a plea deal -- pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, ended up with a year's probation and a cellphone ban.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Saturday September 05 2015, @11:19PM
and that's the entire goal right there, to scare them into taking a plea deal so the prosecutor can pad his stats. that's pretty much the entirety of our legal system these days, terrify innocent people into taking pleas by threatening to charge them with all kinds of things they'd never be found guilty of, but the risk of having to spend 20+ years in prison scares them enough to take probation or a small jail sentence even if they're totally innocent because they know the system has been broken for decades.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by duvel on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:07PM
The US may become a better place if it lifted its attitude towards sex to the level common in Europe.
This Sig is under surveilance by the NSA
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:32PM
Another goofy crime I've heard of is "self-plagiarism". Apparently, a person can commit plagiarism by copying their own works.
Suicide has of course always been silly to criminalize. How do you punish someone who succeeds in killing themselves? Harm their children, if they have any? But the US Constitution explicitly forbids punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Pray to God and the Devil that they burn in Hell for all eternity? More importantly, why even try to punish a suicide? If it's to deter others, one has to wonder how can it?
Sex is one of those fearful things that society goes over the top to manage. Technology is another, what with all this fear of hackers who could, at any time, hack into banks and take everyone's life savings, hack into the news sites and defame anyone, hoke up a fake video showing anyone engaging in sex with a partner of the same sex, or with minors, animals, or corpses, hack into dams and release all the water causing a major disaster, hack into food production facilities and add poison, or hack into the Pentagon and the Kremlin and launch the nukes. Consequently, punishments for hacking tend to be far too harsh, as Aaron Swartz learned.
Unreasoning fear is a bad basis for laws.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:49PM
Maybe even for attempted suicide if the convicted doesn't show remorse?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:16PM
This is primarily a higher education essay/dissertation problem. At the vast majority of accredited institutions if you reuse your own words or ideas without citation, even if unintentionally, expulsion is the expectation and anything less is considered merciful. I am not kidding. Ask anyone with a graduate degree that had to write more than the usual papers and watch their face pale in remembrance of their fear.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:03PM
IANAL but I'd guess it's got something to do w/ life insurance.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:18AM
I doubt it, I haven't checked but I'm sure all life insurance policies will have nullification clauses in the in the case of suicide.
I'm sure it is just because of Christian moral bullshit. Something like, it is God who should decide who should live or die, therefore if you take your own life you are disobeying God's will and must be punished for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @01:04PM
Maybe you should have checked...
It's commonly included, but with a 12 month or so waiting period.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday September 05 2015, @11:25PM
the only way suicide, first trimester abortion, drug use, prostitution, and other consensual sexual activities between 2 post-pubescent individuals can be criminalized is if self-sovereignty is stripped from citizens. the government must literally own your body in order to tell you what you can and cannot do with it. it doesn't matter whether you agree or not with what other people are doing with their own bodies, its their body, they can do whatever they want to/with it; taking away one's control over their own body is literally slavery.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Sunday September 06 2015, @01:19AM
An indication of police state is that people that did nothing wrong are made scapegoats and thrown under the bus to scare another 100 from doing the same thing. In a police state, fear is equivalent to respect.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Monday September 07 2015, @02:38PM
I'm reminded of a comedy sketch (I can't recall the comedian's name) where he posited that given the age of consent was 16, but the age with which you could buy cigarettes was 18, you could have sex, but not smoke afterwards.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 05 2015, @01:47PM
The police chief and the prosecutor see this stuff, and discuss it. "Look at that fine young ass - and it's ON DISPLAY!" "Yeah, well, if I can't touch that without going to prison, then no one should touch it." "That boy sure is touching it, just read all the shit they sent to each other." "Well, lock the sumbitch up, no one should be touching something that fine - not if I can't!" "Well what about her? She's the one who sent it to him." "Lock the bitch up too, I don't want ANYONE touching what I can't touch! We'll throw the book at both of them, and trump up all the Kangaroo Court charges we can think of."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:21PM
We'll throw the book at both of them
Although only the boy was charged with child pornography, while the girl also took a nude picture and sent it to him. Equality.
(Score: 2, Informative) by ghost on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:55PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:36PM
If only there was a +1, depressing, mod...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:44PM
Two kids who can legally have sex with each other, but are not old enough to have pictures of each other.
In what kind of world does this make sense?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:52PM
Nor of themselves. I wonder if it would also be a crime if they looked at themselves while naked. Do they have to close their eyes while showering, in order to avoid seeing certain parts of their own body?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Common Joe on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:02PM
Sadly, this one. Or so say the nut jobs who happen to run the place.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by throwaway28 on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:17PM
Adult physical violence was accurately predicted in 36 of 49 cultures (73 percent) from the infant physical affection variable. The probability that a 73 percent rate of accuracy could occur by chance is only four times out of a thousand.
...
When the six societies characterized by both high infant affection and high violence are compared in terms of their premarital sexual behavior, it is surprising to find that five of them exhibit premarital sexual repression, where virginity is a high value of these cultures. It appears that the beneficial effects of infant physical affection can be negated by the repression of physical pleasure (premarital sex) later in life.
The seven societies characterized by both low infant physical affection and low adult physical violence were all found to be characterized by permissive premarital sexual behaviors. Thus, the detrimental effects of infant physical affectional deprivation seem to be compensated for later in life by sexual body pleasure experiences during adolescence. These findings have led to a revision of the somatosensory pleasure deprivation theory from a one-stage to a two-stage developmental theory where the physical violence in 48 of the 49 cultures could be accurately classified.
http://www.violence.de/prescott/bulletin/article.html [violence.de]
---
This post brought to you by puppy linux -- it was in one of the builtin bookmarks on that distro.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:56PM
Ah, the slimy statistical use of the word prediction, to go along with significance, confidence, and probably others. That data looks like its from the 1970s. So can we take their same statistical model (using same parameters), plug in new data and watch it work?
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:38PM
Certainly we can. I'd be interested to see the results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @03:27AM
Dogs are peaceful and fuck anything that moves. They are also retarded wolves.
I believe I'm seeing a pattern here.
We shouldn't repress our children. If they can't control their urges themselves they should be sent where they belong.
With the monkeys in the zoo.
(Score: 3, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:01PM
Good thing they caught the little rapist!
Protip: don't talk to cisfemales. Don't look at cisfemales. Don't trust them!
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:05PM
In man's world, cisfemales are sacred objects. Feminism completely supports this kind of objectification.
In man's world, the men at the top will come down on you if you don't give cisfemales their sacred objectification.
Feminism is dead.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:21PM
Uhhhh - it's "male", "female", or other. Cisgender seems an oxymoron. More than 90% of the earth's population is "cis", making it a meaningless term. Only the outliers need other descriptions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:50PM
Tell that to the psychos.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:33AM
You're wrong! 99.9% of the world is cis! (Depending who you listen to, could be 99.99%!)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @03:39AM
We agree that the vast majority of males are happy to be male, and seek relations with females. Likewise, the vast majority of females are happy to be female, and seek relations with males. This being the "norm", there are all manner of ways to deviate from the norm.
There are those men and women who simply don't desire or pursue relations with members of the opposite sex. I've known a small handful of people (usually guys) who have never displayed an interest in sex of any type. Percentage? I've never heard or seen an estimate.
There are gays, who prefer relations with members of their own sex. Depending on who you listen to, they range from 2% to 3% of the population.
"Gender confused", for my purposes, would include all manner of people who want to be the opposite sex. Their percentage is obviously lower than gays - I could look it up, but simply not that interested.
What else do we have? I suppose that we could consider predators of various kinds as "non-cis". I mean, seriously, a guy who stalks women for purposes that include rape, torture, murder, mutilation, cannibalism, or whatever else isn't "cis". He's some kind of outlier, just as the other groups are outliers.
"Cis" may be a convenient term (if we chose to adopt that particular term) to quantify all people who deviate from the norm. And, the numbers are higher than you suggest, at least. The most credible estimates of the gay population seem to be 2%, whereas gays make claim to as much as 6%. Other deviant groups are smaller, I believe - but when taken all together, I'm fairly sure that it comes up to at least 3%, possibly as much as 8% of the population.
And, of course, pedophiles and pedarists have to be included in any such accounting.
Seriously, every non-normative group in existence would have to be included in any estimate of "non-cis".
But, no matter how we look at it, today, the tail wags the dog. A small percentage of the population today dictates to the vast majority how things are going to be. And, that majority falls into line, obeying the very small minority. Crazy world we live in, huh?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday September 06 2015, @04:13AM
Thank you for your candor.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:42AM
Oh, also make sure to contact 3rd wave feminists who are "womyn-born-womyn" and let them know they can just be women now! Aaah! But then they would have no recourse against somebody who is visibly indistinguishable from their own, and they wouldn't know who to throw out of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival! Total confuse! *confuse!* Blame feminism for the term cisgendered.
I don't want it. Trans women don't want it. Only feminists want it. I use it to be specific. Violence against trans women, indeed even premeditated murder, is hardly a crime in man's world. In the Amazon world, premediated murder against any woman, cis or trans, would be swiftly avenged.
(Score: 1) by SiriusStarr on Sunday September 06 2015, @05:52PM
For most of my life, I've lived where the population is 90% caucasian and went to school in classes that are 90% male. That doesn't mean that "white" and "male" are not descriptive terms. Majorities need descriptions too. It'd be terribly inconvenient to have to talk about, "yeah, the uh, people who aren't asian, african american, native american, hispanic, etc. etc. etc." and it's terribly inconvenient to have to say "uh, people who aren't trans-, a-, bi-, -queer, etc. gender."
Or is your complaint that it's cis and trans, not E and Z, and thus doesn't accurately reflect the absolute stereochemistry of gender?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @07:03PM
The word "normal" would be more than sufficient. "Plain" might work. Or, no descriptive terms at all. "Man" and "woman", "male" and "female", "boy" and "girl" have worked for eons. The normative group doesn't need a descriptor, unless maybe "control". Geez, Louise.
(Score: 1) by SiriusStarr on Wednesday September 09 2015, @06:02PM
"Normal" is by definition normative, or at least strongly carries the connotation in the English language. It would be considered pretty damn rude to talk about normal people and black people, seeing as how it implies that black individuals are somehow inferior or abnormal, and the same is true of saying "gay people and normal people" or "trans people and normal people." To your later point, man/woman, male/female, and boy/girl do not distinguish cis and trans individuals, thus the necessity of cis (or natal) as a descriptive terms in instances where one does wish to distinguish them.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 10 2015, @12:06AM
Rude or not - trans is not normative, "cis" is normative.
Rude? WTF? Why does anyone CARE that the non-normative think that the norms are rude? Why are we wasting people's time and energy catering to that tiny percentage of people who are out in left field?
They simply cannot demand that their way of life changes the lives of all about them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:37PM
Spinning this as a law being behind the times or an unforseen consequence is bullshit. This is not the first time the obvious problem with the law has been pointed out. This is not the first time prosecutors have pursued such a case. People don't care. Because their attitudes about sex are so conflicting it prevents their brain from functioning? Because they just love fascism and hypocracy that much? I don't know.
(Score: 1) by kazzie on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:42PM
Meanwhile, in the UK... Sexting boy's naked selfie recorded as crime by police [bbc.co.uk] Schools have discression over whether to inform the ploice of such matters. But once the police are informed, they're duty-bound to record the matter, whether they choose to prosecute or not.
Criminal records are the subject of review when applying for jobs with vulnerable individuals and children, e.g. teachers, health workers, etc.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday September 06 2015, @04:04AM
From your link: "before the image disappeared, the girl saved it on her own phone and it was then sent to other pupils at the school."
The damn wonder is that they didn't also charge the girl with distributing kiddie porn.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by kazzie on Monday September 07 2015, @07:11AM
This was a key grievance of the child and his mother, when interviewed on Radio 4 about the matter.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday September 07 2015, @01:32PM
Do you mean she was upset because they didn't?
Regardless, the whole thing is crazy. It's like the law is being enforced by 5 year olds, who can't understand anything beyond the utterly literal. :(
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1) by kazzie on Monday September 07 2015, @05:42PM
Yes. She was upset that her son was singled out by the police, when it was the boy's girlfriend who distributed the image amongst her peers.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday September 07 2015, @07:19PM
Male privilege strikes again :/
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @08:21PM
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @03:45AM
Oddly, I saw no mention of race or color. Most states do seem to be more than happy to lock black people away, but they are usually almost as happy to lock up white people. This particular "crime" doesn't appear to be racially motivated, whereas drug laws and penalties are demonstrably biased against black defendants.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Saturday September 05 2015, @08:24PM
Skimmed TFA, but can't find it. Who sued them? Who came into possesion of these images, or got to know of their existece? Why did this ever came to light?
I'd prefer my communications to remain mine (and the other person's, obv), there is something seriously amiss here.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 3, Informative) by juggs on Saturday September 05 2015, @10:18PM
From my reading elsewhere, the police where examining the boy's 'phone (with his permission) in relation to another criminal investigation (in which he was neither victim nor alleged perpetrator) - they came across these photos during that examination.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @11:32PM
So why aren't they being charged with possession of child pornography? They possessed the photos of nude individuals under the age of 18, therefore they are criminals. That's the law, police should not be above it.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday September 06 2015, @12:10AM
Silly rabbit, laws don't apply to cops.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Sunday September 06 2015, @12:05AM
it's this kind of absurdity of law that makes the depths of our incredibly broken government excruciatingly clear.
one day, they point to these kind of instances as examples of one of the causes that undid our nation.
(Score: 2) by sjwt on Sunday September 06 2015, @07:31AM
"What’s strange is that of the five charges he faces, four of them are for taking and possessing nude photos of himself on his own phone—the final charge is for possessing one nude photo his girlfriend took for him"
No, what is strange is they have allowed the girl to have a plea bargain, but are prosecuting the male fully for the whole crime.
(Score: 2) by juggs on Monday September 07 2015, @12:23AM
Do you have any sources that indicate that the male was either a. not offered a plea agreement at all or b. offered such a deal and chose not to accept it ?
All I have read is that the female took a plea deal and that the male is going to trial - no mention of plea deals one way or the other as regards him. For all I know, it may not be allowed to even discuss / publicise such things prior to a trial by jury.