"Sexting" Hysteria Leads to Child-Porn Arrests!

[3113]

Good Friggin' Gawd! Have you heard about this?

It was an incident that began innocently enough, but nearly ruined the life and three-decade career of a veteran high school teacher and administrator. Rumors had been flying at Freedom High School in South Riding, Virginia that students were distributing nude pictures of each other on their cell phones. It's a phenomenon, known as "sexting," that's become increasingly worrisome to educators across the country, and Ting-Yi Oei, a 60-year-old assistant principal at the school, was tasked with checking it out.

The investigation was inconclusive, but led to a stunning aftermath: Oei himself was charged with possession of child pornography and related crimes -- charges that threatened to brand him a sex offender and land him in prison for up to seven years. Transferred from his school and isolated from colleagues, Oei spent $150,000 and a year of his life defending himself in a Kafkaesque legal nightmare triggered by a determined county prosecutor and nurtured by a growing hysteria over technology-enabled child porn at America's schools.

"The heaviest burden is the [label] of 'child pornographer'," Oei says. "It just hangs so heavy around me. How you ever recover from that I don't know. " On Tuesday, Oei's legal nightmare ended when a Virginia judge threw out the case before it got to trial. But as the educator begins piecing his life back together, similar tragedies are unfolding across the country. Reacting to the phenomenon of underage "sexting," prosecutors in at least a dozen states have resorted to arresting or charging kids for possession of child pornography.[] In a recent case in Pennsylvania, six teens aged 14 to 17 were charged with creating, distributing and possessing child porn. And this week a judge in a separate case in Pennsylvania temporarily barred a prosecutor from charging three teens for taking photos of themselves in their bras and a towel.

Even in this environment of prosecutorial excess, Oei's case stands out as likely the first to entangle an adult who came in possession of an image that even police admit wasn't pornographic, and who did so simply in the course of doing his job. "These charges are so toxic and incendiary," says Diane Curling, a former teacher and Oei's wife of 35 years. "Children need to be made aware of the dangers of sexting, but to intimidate public education officials and try to make it a felony to even touch something like this is terrifying. . . . If we are not careful, we will find ourselves with a new McCarthy era. "

Hate to tell the wife, but we're already in that new McCarthy era--drowning in it. Rest of this horror story here. Trust a combination of stupid teens and stupid, witch-hunting adults to turn something stupidly innocent into a frigging nightmare!

It's just "nudity," you assholes! Get over it!

 

[amicus]

"It's just nudity..."

~~~

I pointed out, in another thread, the lack of a firm moral and ethical standard of the liberal fascists that rule the roost here and elsewhere.

There was a surge of articles about female school teachers having affairs with adolescent boys and I call that to your attention.

There have been several articles on 'sexting', your example is the first I have heard of adult involvement, but child porn is everywhere and is a punishable crime, like it or not.

I am not sure that a computer file of naked teen agers is a prosecutable offense, but it may well be.

I suggest it might well be the result of the liberal attitude towards sex and I guess nudity, that has been promulgated throughout the education system for many years. That young girls, many naturally exhibitionist, treat sex and nudity with casual disregard is something one might have expected, given the attitude of the liberal educators.

The cases on the news involve very young girls sending pictures to their boyfriends, who share them with others and they eventually end up on the internet.

You say it's only nudity, fine, others might disagree and see it as a serious lapse in judgment.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

You say it's only nudity, fine, others might disagree and see it as a serious lapse in judgment.

The point, of course, is whether it is criminal to the point of creating a sex offender file. Sounds more like a case for a tongue lashing by a judge behind closed doors--and then by mom and dad when they get home. And then see where it goes from there.

Kind of a long, (typically) rambling post not to be able to agree with it being the basis of criminal arrests. "Serious lapse of judgment" isn't in the same league.

 

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[amicus]

Quite a dilemma isn't it? I see no easy solutions unless parents really crack down on their kids, no more cell phones, Ipods and such...but I don't really see that happening...do you?

amicus...

 

[Liar]

What the hell are they calling "child pornography" here? Teenagers in their undies? You can see that on the Disney Channel for chrissake.

Not saying it's right or wrong, but come on. Kiddie porn it's not.

 

[DesertPirate]

We have two problems.
1. Kids to dumb to realize anything they send like this WILL be on the web.
2. Officials who are stuck in the zero tolerance trap for the mindless and don't have the guts or intelligence to make judgment calls. "Just following the rules because I can't be held accountable for a decision that way."

 

[ILBurbsGuy]

I mentioned the story to my daughter and got the response - "Dad I'm not a slut" - I don't think she's likely to become one of these high school students who get into this trouble. She has quickly learned how to use the web cam on her laptop has just taken face pics. However, maybe I'll hold off on adding picture messaging to the cell phone plan.

 

[3113]

The point, of course, is whether it is criminal to the point of creating a sex offender file. Sounds more like a case for a tongue lashing by a judge behind closed doors--and then by mom and dad when they get home. And then see where it goes from there.

Exactly. It's not about whether or not something should be done about sexting, it's about what they've decided to do about it. Teenagers are going to do stupid things. That's nearly the definition of a teenager: "Will do stupid things."

Now some of those things are really serious and you need to not only teach them not to do it, but really come down like a brick on those who do--like rufies in the party drinks in order to molest girls. But issuing charges of child porn for having pictures of boys/girls in their underwear?

Yes it's just nudity but there is bullying and sexual harassment going on along with the pictures. Children are growing up with no morals or ethics whatsoever - we have to start somewhere.

I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be any consequences. I'm just arguing (and horrified) that we should not go to the far end. It's like we decided to put an end to theft by cutting off hands. So, a kid steals a stick of gum and we cut their hand off? I know it's easier for prosecutors to go to the extreme and lump everyone together--you got the photos, you've got child porn!--but it's sloppy, lazy, extreme, and, I think, ineffectual.

Teens are hormonal, inexperienced, trying to learn social rules through trial and error, and not always thinking. In some cases not thinking at all. We all can remember back, I'm sure, to some stupid thing that all our classmates did--every group does. Something comes in vogue to do, and sometimes it's really stupid and needs to be stopped, like lying in the road. And sometimes it's just dumb, like taking half-naked pictures of each other and passing them around. And in all cases, because it's teens, there's going to be instances where that dumb thing causes hurt and a lack of ethics. Because it's a dumb teen thing and they didn't stop to think about other people's feelings or right/wrong.

And they should be taught to do that, and punished if they don't. But there's punishment, and there's punishment. Unless this behavior can lead to criminal activity or death, then it's time to dial the reaction back. Extreme punishment ruin lives--leave people without a hand. They don't make the person grow into a responsible adult.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Any logical mammal could come up with better ways to introduce children to their new, adult bodies than the one in current use. Unfortunately, primates are not logical and any proposed logical process would be immediately condemned by the hysterical . . . many of whom seem to be attorneys!

 

[SlickTony]

I hope this hotdog prosecutor suffers the same fate as the one in the Duke University case--what was his name, Nifong? This grows unreal.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I hope this hotdog prosecutor suffers the same fate as the one in the Duke University case--what was his name, Nifong? This grows unreal.

He probably planned on using it as a campaign device when he ran for attorney general . . . just like Nifong!

 

[R. Richard]

Thus far, everyone seems to conclude that the 'naked' photos were voluntary. What if the photos were taken in the gym, without the permission or maybe even knowledge of the person being photographed?

If I were a teacher/administrator in a school and I were assigned to investigate 'sexting,' I would have a file of letters from my superiors specifically assigning me to gather evidence and the procedures for handling said evidence. I would then notify my superiors of each and every 'naked' photo and how I came to have it in my possession.

The mere possession of 'naked' photos of underage children is a very serious crime. If you don't believe that, read the stories of Traci Lords. Traci rented herself out for nude photos and porno movies. She apparently had a very good fake ID, but the people who took the photos/videos were heavily fined and/or jailed.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Thus far, everyone seems to conclude that the 'naked' photos were voluntary. What if the photos were taken in the gym, without the permission or maybe even knowledge of the person being photographed?

If I were a teacher/administrator in a school and I were assigned to investigate 'sexting,' I would have a file of letters from my superiors specifically assigning me to gather evidence and the procedures for handling said evidence. I would then notify my superiors of each and every 'naked' photo and how I came to have it in my possession.

The mere possession of 'naked' photos of underage children is a very serious crime. If you don't believe that, read the stories of Traci Lords. Traci rented herself out for nude photos and porno movies. She apparently had a very good fake ID, but the people who took the photos/videos were heavily fined and/or jailed.

It is possible to have nude photos of children and not be prosecuted, but it isn't easy. You have to be a recognized art photographer and the children probably better be your own. There is provision for this in the law, especially where the children are obviously not engaged in any sexual activity, i.e. playing in the sand on a beach, running through a sprinkler, quietly reading a book, etc. Honestly, I wouldn't try it, especially in the current international mood. Nor would I recommend that anyone else try it! However, it is possible.

 

[SCcreampieLvr]

I HATE the zero tolerance attitude in schools. It is nothing more that an excuse to not have to make any decisions.

It is lazy and ignores the circumstances. There are stories after stories of GOOD kids with excellent grades who have never been in trouble being expelled over stupid shit.

One axample I know of:
Kid drives his dads truck to school because the his car died. The dad went hunting over the weekend and had his shotgun behind the cab in a locked case. (yes LOCKED)
The kid goes to the truck to get something, another kid asks, what's in the metal case. The kid says , "its my dads gun case". The 2nd kid tells the principal and next thing you know the kid is expelled because of IDIOTS and their no tolerance rules.

USE YOUR BRAINS - make decisions that make sense and are based on the facts.

So fuckin stupid.


(and yes, both the dad and the Kid should have been smarter, but still.....)

 

[SCcreampieLvr]

And one more thing. In my opinion, the School has NO right to look on a kids phone. It is private property and unless a teacher sees a picture as it is being received, looked at, or displayed to another student, the school has no right to look at pictures on the phone.

To take a kids phone from them because they are breaking rules and using it during class is fine with me. I have no issue with that. But browsing through the phone is wrong and basically the same as searching a kids car without a warrant or permission.

Is taking nude pictures of yourself if you do not send it to anyone illegal? I dont know. Even if underage, I don't know. Sending it is another matter.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

And one more thing. In my opinion, the School has NO right to look on a kids phone. It is private property and unless a teacher sees a picture as it is being received, looked at, or displayed to another student, the school has no right to look at pictures on the phone.

To take a kids phone from them because they are breaking rules and using it during class is fine with me. I have no issue with that. But browsing through the phone is wrong and basically the same as searching a kids car without a warrant or permission.

Is taking nude pictures of yourself if you do not send it to anyone illegal? I dont know. Even if underage, I don't know. Sending it is another matter.

It's incidents like this that make me glad I teach elementary school. Sheesh, primates!

 

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[SCcreampieLvr]

Reason for cell phones.

I have no problem with school rules that restrict use of cell phones in class or in the halls.
I don't really even have a problem with no use policies during lunch or recess (does anyone call it that anymore??)

But ONE reason for allowing them, at least in High School, is the fact that many students participate in after school activities. Football, soccer, track, band, cheerleading.

With both parents working these days, it can be a real challenge keeping up with it all. Often practices and events do not end at certain times, or run over. Or times change at the last minute.

There also is the safety factor. I know many parents feel much better knowing that their kid can contact them in an emergency.

True there are other ways to do that. But when a practice goes till 9pm, the other options of contact become limited.

It is up to the parents to monitor use and restrict features as needed. Now - I know that many parents totally fail at this. Either from ignorance or just plain apathy.

I RESPECT teachers for the often impossible job they have to do. Whiny-ass parents and piss-poor administrators tie both hands behind the teacher's backs and expect miracles.

Even worse- to me at least- is the parents who simply don't give a shit. Who never show up for a football game to see their kid play, a cheerleading compention or a band contest.
I just want to punch them in the face!

 

[PrincessErin]

.....

 

[3113]

Thus far, everyone seems to conclude that the 'naked' photos were voluntary. What if the photos were taken in the gym, without the permission or maybe even knowledge of the person being photographed?

Once again, maybe something should be done, and maybe not. My problem isn't with coming down on people with photos taken in the gym without someone's permission or knowledge...it's that law enforcement has created a blanket rule that says its kiddie porn if you've got anything like this at all.

That bothers me a lot, because it's a very serious accusation. Why should it be instantly kiddie porn with all that brings down on a person (aka, sex offender status)? And why should it apply to everyone and anyone with such pictures?

We're back to that problem of parents with pictures of naked babies on bear-skin rugs being arrested for kiddie porn. I'm sorry, but if the kids aren't doing anything pornographic I just don't see it as porn. There are plenty of other laws, including peeping Tom laws, that can be applied to pictures of someone who did not want their picture taken. But going straight to kiddie porn is like going straight to chopping off hands.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Once again, maybe something should be done, and maybe not. My problem isn't with coming down on people with photos taken in the gym without someone's permission or knowledge...it's that law enforcement has created a blanket rule that says its kiddie porn if you've got anything like this at all.

That bothers me a lot, because it's a very serious accusation. Why should it be instantly kiddie porn with all that brings down on a person (aka, sex offender status)? And why should it apply to everyone and anyone with such pictures?

We're back to that problem of parents with pictures of naked babies on bear-skin rugs being arrested for kiddie porn. I'm sorry, but if the kids aren't doing anything pornographic I just don't see it as porn. There are plenty of other laws, including peeping Tom laws, that can be applied to pictures of someone who did not want their picture taken. But going straight to kiddie porn is like going straight to chopping off hands.

Very true but it's done to make headlines. The DA jumps on this sort of thing because it makes him/her look 'tough on crime' and may lead to higher office. The more often these self-righteous clots get burned for their hysteria, the better off we all will be.

 

[SCcreampieLvr]

I agree with the last 2 posts.

There is a LOT of difference between innocent pics of a 2 year old in the bath with a 'suds beard' and something that is 'posed' with a kid with pornographic intent.

Intent is a big part of it I suppose. But even innocent intent could be viewed by overzealous prosecutors
as pornographic, as noted by voluptuary_manque.

Of course- if the kid is 13, the notion changes.

At least for me- the destination is pretty simple. If upon seeing the picture, my mind thinks, "awe thats cute", then pornographic never enters my mind at all. The mind of someone else may go a different direction. Of course, those who are twisted enough to be sexually aroused by little kids would probably be excited if the kid were in his Osh-Gosh overalls.

If upon seeing a picture, i get that rush of blood to the brain and an immediate sense of 'ughh- wtf', then im gonna close the browser as fast as I can because [1] I am completely disgusted by the idea, and [2] I don't want even a cache file of such an image on my machine (and yes, i understand that closing the browser quickly makes no difference)

Maybe these prosecutors are closet kiddie-porn lovers who, while resisting the urge to act on their perversion, still SEE the pics in an erotic way while most normal (dare I use the word normal) people would see cute kid and nothing more.

 

[3113]

At least for me- the destination is pretty simple. If upon seeing the picture, my mind thinks, "awe thats cute", then pornographic never enters my mind at all. The mind of someone else may go a different direction. Of course, those who are twisted enough to be sexually aroused by little kids would probably be excited if the kid were in his Osh-Gosh overalls.

This is a very good point. Pictures of little girls in beauty pageant bathing suits will be masturbatory fantasies to a pedophile. They're not yet considered pornography, but we seem to be going in that direction. I feel sorry for the poor photographer who, innocently, makes his living taking photos for kid clothing magazines and such. I really think we need to dial back the definition of Kiddie Porn to a matter of the photo's intent--not to a matter of the viewer's assumed intent.

The problem, ultimately, comes down to this: we know full well that half-naked pics of teen girls are NOT kiddie porn. The teen boy's leering at them are having very healthy reactions to girls their own age. They aren't lusting after little girls. And even teachers leering at such pictures are more interested in "statutory rape" (which varies from states where 16 is legal adult to states where 18 is legal adult) as compared to pedophilia.

Ultimately, naming any picture of any kid of ay age in their underwear "Kiddie Porn"*cheapens* and makes suspect the power of real investigators hunting down real child pornographers. It wastes time, money, law enforcement, public defenders and turns schools upside-down. Worse, it leads to a climate where we have a "guilty-till-proven-innocent" mentality rather than the opposite.

I don't think we should label anyone a child pornographer, sex offender or pedophile without very strong and compelling evidence. If it's this easy to label someone this, incredibly hard for them to prove otherwise, then we have completely undermined those terms. We make them more and more meaningless. We also waste our resources to stop real pedophiles. Why are we using precious shots from our laser cannon to take down mosquitoes?

 

[R. Richard]

The problem with trying to define 'improper' images of children is that, no matter where you draw the line, there are people who will try to walk the edge of that line. When they go over the edge, the excuse will always be, "Well, it was just a little tiny bit over."

As to 16-year-old boys looking at nude pictures of 16-year-old girls and being classified as pedophiles, that's just stupid. When I was a 16-year-old boy I really didn't want to look at nude pictures of 16-year-old girls, no, I wanted a more 'hands on' experience. Actually, it really wasn't my hands that I wanted to use. However, I never had any sexual interest in 6-year-old girls. I did have sexual interest in older women. Hell, there were old ladies of 22 or 23 that I most definitely wanted to get at.