Prosecuting sexting

[Lefebvre]

Prompted by this:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-28255225#FBM388025

 

Simply put, do you all think that sexting between consenting individuals in a relationship should be prosecuted, and if so, what should it be prosecuted as?

 

[Auren]

Not until we make porn illegal. I'm looking at you Cameron.

[Pointer]

So the angle of child porn is actually a big one in my opinion. The potential issue is see is that the child porn industry getting flooded with tons of images intended to be seen only by a significant other, feeding the perverts who actually engage in the real illegal child porn industry. I think thats a pretty serious problem as it just increases the potential for child abuse as the underground child porn industry is going to grow as a result of misappropriated images that come from sexting. 

 

With that in mind - kids sexting images of themselves is a rampant problem. But most of these kids would probably be having /sex/ with each other as well which is probably more 'offensive' that just some pictures of genatalia. But, no one is going to jail for teen sex (in normal, consensual situations). 

 

I'm torn, I don't see a normal legal basis for teens being prosecuted for this - especially when its just a photo. The actual act doesn't get prosecuted but a photo of genatalia does? That's not consistent. But, the end result of sexting image being leaked I think is going to lead to a very serious, very bad growth of the scourge of the earth (child porn industry), and I have some pretty vehement dislike for that type of activity. Doing all in our power to prevent that I think is important. I'm not sure this case gets at that goal though. Ideally the result of this case can be to modify rules to focus more on the leaking of these images, not as much the production of them between a consensual couple. 

[Guest Mike Spero]

Not until we make porn illegal. I'm looking at you Cameron.

c,x

 

Honestly, I'll say I'd support the standing of this case just to keep from opening a metaphoric door. I don't know this couple, nor do I know if they actually care for each other, so I'm going to approach this as if this were a relationship I would totally support morally (for the spirit of fairness). Now, we have no way of knowing if they were actually "getting it on", and though sexting can still retain the same damaging and sickening qualities of straight-up fornication, it's obviously a "lesser form" of sexuality. Their was no evidence that he "had sex" with this minor, and as for whether or not sexting should be considered sex: I would say it's not, but it's a great legal decision to treat it as such.

 

Think: If we ruled: "Sexting, and other non-physical forms of intimacy aren't legally considered sexual acts!" then couldn't a forty year-old cur sext a twelve year-old, legally? Sexting is not sex (besides from a Christian standpoint) and cannot be scientifically proven as equally catastrophic as such, when done outside of God's plan. However, if the law determines something sexual as "not sex", then tomorrow we'll have a hundred pedophiles legally sending pictures of themselves to little girls. As for this couple, I hope to God they care for each other and this was just some dumb mistake, and if this is the case I wish they could have been extended lenience. But the fact of the matter is that if you give an inch to a teenage boy who may or may not deserve it, and a pedophile takes a mile in this scenario.

 

I think this was a good call, and if the boy was just in it for a thrill I hope they stuck the needle someplace malicious. I mean, wat?

[Wesker]

Not until we make porn illegal. I'm looking at you Cameron.

 

Let's do it. 

[Lefebvre]

c,x

 

Honestly, I'll say I'd support the standing of this case just to keep from opening a metaphoric door. I don't know this couple, nor do I know if they actually care for each other, so I'm going to approach this as if this were a relationship I would totally support morally (for the spirit of fairness). Now, we have no way of knowing if they were actually "getting it on", and though sexting can still retain the same damaging and sickening qualities of straight-up fornication, it's obviously a "lesser form" of sexuality. Their was no evidence that he "had sex" with this minor, and as for whether or not sexting should be considered sex: I would say it's not, but it's a great legal decision to treat it as such.

 

Think: If we ruled: "Sexting, and other non-physical forms of intimacy aren't legally considered sexual acts!" then couldn't a forty year-old cur sext a twelve year-old, legally? Sexting is not sex (besides from a Christian standpoint) and cannot be scientifically proven as equally catastrophic as such, when done outside of God's plan. However, if the law determines something sexual as "not sex", then tomorrow we'll have a hundred pedophiles legally sending pictures of themselves to little girls. As for this couple, I hope to God they care for each other and this was just some dumb mistake, and if this is the case I wish they could have been extended lenience. But the fact of the matter is that if you give an inch to a teenage boy who may or may not deserve it, and a pedophile takes a mile in this scenario.

 

I think this was a good call, and if the boy was just in it for a thrill I hope they stuck the needle someplace malicious. I mean, wat?

 

So, someone should be prosecuted in a court of law for being intimate -- in one way or another -- with the person he's dating? And sending a picture of his own equipment to that person is justly considered the same as child pornography; wherein if he is convicted of such his entire adult life will be ruined? Even if they were sexually active in a physical way, which I think would be a fair assumption, I cannot conceive of a way this would be anything other than utterly reprehensible.

 

Also, did you really just say that you hoped that officers of the law stuck a needle in a teenager's penis?

Edited July 11, 2014 by Iuppiter

[Guest Mike Spero]

So, someone should be prosecuted in a court of law for being intimate -- in one way or another -- with the person he's dating? And sending a picture of his own equipment to that person is justly considered the same as child pornography; wherein if he is convicted of such his entire adult life will be ruined? Even if they were sexually active in a physical way, which I think would be a fair assumption, I cannot conceive of a way this would be anything other than utterly reprehensible.

 

Also, did you really just say that you hoped that officers of the law stuck a needle in a teenager's penis?

He should be prosecuted because she was under-age. That's the whole point. Sexting should not be persecuted, same as sex should not be persecuted. The issue is that he was sexting someone who was under the legal age that he could be sexual with. If they deemed that sexting can not be prosecuted as a sexual act, could not old men send pictures of their junk to elementary school girls? :/ That's the point

 

I said that if he deserved it, yeah cx That wasn't in regards to my side, which is why I separated it, but I was just adding in that if he was using a much younger girl for his body I hope he gets a needle

Edited July 12, 2014 by Nicene Nerd

[Lefebvre]

 

He should be prosecuted because she was under-age. That's the whole point. Sexting should not be persecuted, same as sex should not be persecuted. The issue is that he was sexting someone who was under the legal age that he could be sexual with. If they deemed that sexting can not be prosecuted as a sexual act, could not old men send pictures of their junk to elementary school girls? :/ That's the point

 

I said that if he deserved it, yeah cx That wasn't in regards to my side, which is why I separated it, but I was just adding in that if he was using a much younger girl for his body I hope he gets a needle

 

You realise (a. he is 17, and (b. she is only 15? That's just a two-year difference. It worries me that you cannot distinguish between a 15 and and 17 year-old in a consensual relationship, and an old man sending unwanted pictures of his junk to elementary schoolers.  And he's not using "using a much younger girl." It is a girl two years his junior with whom he's in a relationship. There are differences here, and they are extremely important ones. This individual could spend the rest of his life labelled as a child pornographer simply because he sexted his girlfriend. I have severe moral issues with that.

[Guest Mike Spero]

You realise (a. he is 17, and (b. she is only 15? That's just a two-year difference. It worries me that you cannot distinguish between a 15 and and 17 year-old in a consensual relationship, and an old man sending unwanted pictures of his junk to elementary schoolers.  And he's not using "using a much younger girl." It is a girl two years his junior with whom he's in a relationship. There are differences here, and they are extremely important ones. This individual could spend the rest of his life labelled as a child pornographer simply because he sexted his girlfriend. I have severe moral issues with that.

I know, but legally it is illegal. This is why he was prosecuted. I can obviously distinguish the difference, but I'm saying that if we make this legal; then it would (by law) be legal in a pedophilia scenario as well. The law can't give "get out of jail free cards", no matter who may violate it. As I said before, I do not know these people and I genuinely hope they care for each other; and if they do I wish they could have given some lenience. Even still, this is simply the law, which he has broken.

[Nicene Nerd]

Okay, this got too out of hand with your last post, so I'm cleaned it up. Let's quit fighting each other already.

[Auren]

I know, but legally it is illegal. This is why he was prosecuted. I can obviously distinguish the difference, but I'm saying that if we make this legal; then it would (by law) be legal in a pedophilia scenario as well. The law can't give "get out of jail free cards", no matter who may violate it. As I said before, I do not know these people and I genuinely hope they care for each other; and if they do I wish they could have given some lenience. Even still, this is simply the law, which he has broken.

 

The thing is that it needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Because now his life is ruined. He's a sex offender for life when he really shouldn't be. He was a dumb kid but the cold clinical law can't distinguish between a paedophile and a horny teen. Sad really.

[Guest Mike Spero]

Okay, this got too out of hand with your last post, so I'm cleaned it up. Let's quit fighting each other already.

Thank you, we have enough threads getting closed for fighting as-is :,/

 

The thing is that it needs to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Because now his life is ruined. He's a sex offender for life when he really shouldn't be. He was a dumb kid but the cold clinical law can't distinguish between a paedophile and a horny teen. Sad really.

I understand this, and that's really tragic. But he was being sexual with a girl under legal age, he knew what he was getting into. A "horny teen" can easily be no different than a "horny old man" if he didn't truly love her. I hope to God that it was a healthy and consensual relationship, but no one can know that. And if the law says that you can sext under-age people, then they just allowed EVERYONE over-age to do it. No matter where your heart may be, there can't be a free-pass with the law. Well, at least our law. As for God's...

 

*coughcoughJesus:Dcoughcough*

[ComedyMusicHistory]

I am pretty outraged about this. This invasion of person's privacy by the government is terrible. To inject their genitals and take pictures is completely outrageous. And it's his pictures that could potentially live forever and forever on some dark corner of the Internet, yet he's being treated as criminal? And they created more nude pictures of him. But even while this may technically be considered child pornography if it goes to some dark corner of the Internet is anyone going to see it that way? After all 17 year old's body isn't much different from an 18 year old's body. 

 

Texting nude pictures is pretty stupid and immature (even if we're talking about married adults). But they're treating this boy as a criminal because of it and forcing an extremely violating experience him. Terrible. Just plain terrible.

 

And what about his girlfriend? Why isn't she being charged with possessing child pornography? It said she allegedly started it. Are nude pictures of her on his and/or her phone? And if they are why isn't she being prosecuted too (as silly as it is).

 

Imagine if a 17 year old girl who allegedly sent nude pictures to her 15 year old boyfriend was forced to have pictures taken of her genitals. I can just the public outrage and horror (rightly so). And you would have women's groups protesting at government buildings. But because this is a male it's not that big deal. And no one's out protesting.

 

And him having to register as a sex offender for life is outrageous. It would completely ruin his life. But I can tell you one thing. If he was a girl none of this would be happening. If you doubt me look at how his girlfriend is doing. 

 

 

I think this was a good call, and if the boy was just in it for a thrill I hope they stuck the needle someplace malicious. I mean, wat?

 

If a 17 year old girl was dating a 15 year old boy just for the thrill and sent nude pictures of herself to him, would you (theoretically speaking, because the injecting part wouldn't be applicable) hope that girl got the needle stuck in a place in her genitals that really hurt a lot? And that she got what was coming to her?

[Guest Mike Spero]

If a 17 year old girl was dating a 15 year old boy just for the thrill and sent nude pictures of herself to him, would you (theoretically speaking, because the injecting part wouldn't be applicable) hope that girl got the needle stuck in a place in her genitals that really hurt a lot? And that she got what was coming to her?

It's a gender thing. I'm a male so I'm more outraged when I see other males being idiots because I know what they were supposed to do. I can't say I'd wish the same on a female, though I wouldn't exactly have sympathy for her if it did. Sex is something entirely intimate, and should only be held in the union that God ordained it to be in. I have little to no sympathy for anyone who'd "use" someone else, and in age-defined scenarios such as this, it's almost always the case.

 

A little off-topic, but meh. I've already shared my opinions on this

[Lefebvre]

I have little to no sympathy for anyone who'd "use" someone else, and in age-defined scenarios such as this, it's almost always the case.

Mike, you are 17 according to your profile; and yet you're engaged. You seem to have an inherently negative view of teen sexuality/relationships from what I've observed so far (ie. your contention that one of the two parties is in it for thrill rather than out of an actual place of intimacy) and it kind of confuses me. I mean, yes, premarital sex is verboten from almost every mainstream Christian viewpoint -- including that of the RCC, lest anyone think I've forgotten -- but just because the act is sinful does not mean the intention with which it is carried out is sinful. Is there lust? Almost certainly, you can't have sex without it. But there is also every probability it is done out of a sense of loving intimacy rather than someone getting their rocks off. There is every chance probability that the kid was just horny. But starting from a negative viewpoint like that is inherently counterproductive and rather disingenuous.

 

I understand this, and that's really tragic. But he was being sexual with a girl under legal age, he knew what he was getting into. A "horny teen" can easily be no different than a "horny old man" if he didn't truly love her. I hope to God that it was a healthy and consensual relationship, but no one can know that. And if the law says that you can sext under-age people, then they just allowed EVERYONE over-age to do it. No matter where your heart may be, there can't be a free-pass with the law. Well, at least our law.

I also note you're setting the high bar of "truly loving" someone as your mark of distinction here. That is an extremely subjective standard and not really the best one in these types of situation. But even if he was, again, just horny and sent whatever photographs he sent to his girlfriend as a lustful prelude to le petit mort and company; there is an inherent difference to Old Man McPervert sending unsolicited pictures to some chick; and a 17 year-old sending very-much-solicited pictures to his 15-year old girlfriend. There is an absolutely massive difference. Your point that you have previously made hinges on the difference between sexting and the actual sexual act, saying that if this was not prosecuted -- if the law allowed people in certain cases to be sexual with minors -- than it would essentially be a free pass. But that's actually not how it works. If this was considered the same as a sexual act, there actually wouldn't be much of a problem due to the existence of a Romeo and Juliet law within the Commonwealth:

 

A close in age exception to the Virginia legal age of consent allows teenagers aged 15, 16 and 17 to engage in sexual acts, but only with a partner younger than 18. Consensual sex where one partner is 15, 16 or 17 and the other is over 18 is a class 1 misdemeanor. (http://www.age-of-co...tates/Virginia)

So if they'd actually had sex it would be illegal, but not prosecuted at all. And even if one of them was convicted, it would be a misdemeanor which would not require registry as a sex offender. So you see, distinctions based on age actually do exist in law; and yet there is no rampant paedophilia issue in Virginia. The problem is that instead of again recognising the special circumstances regarding the age and prior relationship of the sender and recipient the law is essentially accusing him of being the same guy as Scumbag Steve, the creepy 'adult entertainment' guy who specialises in Thai sex tourism. And I think that we should all be able to agree that that is unjust.

Edited July 13, 2014 by Iuppiter

[Zhouburn]

So if they'd actually had sex it would be illegal, but not prosecuted at all. And even if one of them was convicted, it would be a misdemeanor which would not require registry as a sex offender. So you see, distinctions based on age actually do exist in law; and yet there is no rampant paedophilia issue in Virginia. The problem is that instead of again recognising the special circumstances regarding the age and prior relationship of the sender and recipient the law is essentially accusing him of being the same guy as Scumbag Steve, the creepy 'adult entertainment' guy who specialises in Thai sex tourism. And I think that we should all be able to agree that that is unjust.

 

Yeah I think the real issue here is the law overstepping its bounds to prosecute a case in which the law has no position to prosecute. This also kind of shines the light on this "gray area" of our system, because it's hardly the first time a 17 year old boy has been branded as a sexual offender for being involved with a girl a year or so younger than himself. The thing is that now his future is extremely limited because of a stupid teenage thing and that's just not justifiable in my eyes. 

[Jesusismyticket]

While I do not think they should be IMPRISONED, there should be PUNISHMENTS. Do we really want our children running rampant sending sexual photos to each other? But then, sadly, today no one even cares about the immoralities of sex before marriage, teen sex, teen pregnancies, or sexting for that matter. We cannot just slap them on the wrist and say "it's okay we still love you." sometimes we have to put our foot down.

 

Sadly the matter lies in the parenting of today. No one tells their kids no anymore, or such.

[Bryce B.]

It counts as child pornography. To juve they go

[Jesusismyticket]

It counts as child pornography. To juve they go

well this depicts

If they were both teenagers, that situation is a little different.

Now if it is a 25 year old man and a 13 year old, one is going to prison, and I am pretty sure it is NOT the person who was manipulated enough to do it.

[Bryce B.]

well this depicts

If they were both teenagers, that situation is a little different.

Now if it is a 25 year old man and a 13 year old, one is going to prison, and I am pretty sure it is NOT the person who was manipulated enough to do it.

No. It's the same thing. I learned about this stuff in sex Ed. Nearby my house a couple years ago. A whole highschool almost lost the entire freshmen class to juve

[Lefebvre]

It counts as child pornography. To juve they go

I'm going to exercise the luxury of quoting myself:

"So, someone should be prosecuted in a court of law for being intimate -- in one way or another -- with the person he's dating? And sending a picture of his own equipment to that person is justly considered the same as child pornography; wherein if he is convicted of such his entire adult life will be ruined? Even if they were sexually active in a physical way, which I think would be a fair assumption, I cannot conceive of a way this would be anything other than utterly reprehensible.

[...]

The problem is that instead of again recognising the special circumstances regarding the age and prior relationship of the sender and recipient the law is essentially accusing him of being the same guy as Scumbag Steve, the creepy 'adult entertainment' guy who specialises in Thai sex tourism. And I think that we should all be able to agree that that is unjust."

[Guest Mike Spero]

Hey look, the thread that started a fight that made Nicene clean up a page of arguing, and Josh hate me for presumably always, has finally been revived!

 

Yay! cx