Reiteration and reformulation; common sense and legalistic reality
I would say I don't know whether to be more surprised that you missed an important sentence or that you can't tell the difference. Of course, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at all; there's always that.
Thus:
It often seems that there is only one acceptable way to say things in order to satisfy you. What, do I have to say that the law in this case is stupid? Fine. It's stupid. Are you freakin' happy now, or would you like to whimper and whine some more?
I mean, goddamn, man, oh, look, the kids are doing it, so let's just throw out the law. Really, that's how general you're being.
And, seriously, what are these pictures? Panties, bras, boxer shorts? Erect penises? Chicks fingering themselves? What if you were on the jury? The first, I'd say no. The second, well, it depends on what else goes with the boners. The third? It's an image of a juvenile committing a sex act, and there's no way around that. How about a couple of gay boys? Maybe a picture of a fourteen year-old with a cucumber in his ass? We know one image is a simple nude, and, frankly, it would be hard to defend a simple cell phone image as art.
Reiterating one more point: Has anyone a proposition on how the law should be reformulated?
Well? Do you?
And that's something to consider in reformulating the laws. Again, depending on the content, what will a jury say?
Or here's an interesting scenario: Julie takes a picture of herself and sends it to her boyfriend Joe. Eventually, they break up, and to get back at Julie for (fill in the imagined offense), Joe posts the picture on the internet, where it eventually makes its way to any number of adult websites. Julie's father somehow becomes aware of the image, and all hell breaks loose.
Joe was the only person who had the picture. He is the source for the wider distribution of child pornography. His only real hope is that the jury won't think a picture of his ex-girlfriend standing in front of the mirror in a pink thong is genuinely pornographic.
Still, though, the prosecutor faces an additional challenge.
Did Joe manufacture the picture? No. How did he obtain it? It was given to him. By whom? The manufacturer. And why isn't the manufacturer of the image being charged with manufacturing child pornography?
There is, in many perceptions of criminal issues, a conflict between common sense and the legalistic reality. That is, while many people think common sense says a 15 year-old girl shouldn't be charged with the manufacture of child pornography for snapping an image of herself in the mirror, the legal implications can easily come to require the charge. One might say, then, that the police and prosecutors are skipping ahead.
There is a vital question to be asked: Having seized the phone according to the rules, how did school officials find the image? Was it an invasive search of the phone's contents? Or was it visible as, say, the display background?
Even presuming the search was invasive, when a school official becomes aware of a sex crime involving a minor, he or she is obliged by law to report it.
We come back to the question of how the law should be reformulated.
Madanthonywayne said:
I would say I don't know whether to be more surprised that you missed an important sentence or that you can't tell the difference. Of course, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised at all; there's always that.
Thus:
• To reiterate: "The fact that child pornography laws need to be reconsidered in light of new technology does not mean that they should not be enforced. Depending on how explicit the images are, these kids can probably win in front of a jury."
• If two teenagers have sex, that's between them. But what happens when some of these pictures leak into general circulation? Do you see a difference?
• If two teenagers have sex, that's between them. But what happens when some of these pictures leak into general circulation? Do you see a difference?
It often seems that there is only one acceptable way to say things in order to satisfy you. What, do I have to say that the law in this case is stupid? Fine. It's stupid. Are you freakin' happy now, or would you like to whimper and whine some more?
I mean, goddamn, man, oh, look, the kids are doing it, so let's just throw out the law. Really, that's how general you're being.
And, seriously, what are these pictures? Panties, bras, boxer shorts? Erect penises? Chicks fingering themselves? What if you were on the jury? The first, I'd say no. The second, well, it depends on what else goes with the boners. The third? It's an image of a juvenile committing a sex act, and there's no way around that. How about a couple of gay boys? Maybe a picture of a fourteen year-old with a cucumber in his ass? We know one image is a simple nude, and, frankly, it would be hard to defend a simple cell phone image as art.
Reiterating one more point: Has anyone a proposition on how the law should be reformulated?
Well? Do you?
• • •
Scott3x said:
And that's something to consider in reformulating the laws. Again, depending on the content, what will a jury say?
Or here's an interesting scenario: Julie takes a picture of herself and sends it to her boyfriend Joe. Eventually, they break up, and to get back at Julie for (fill in the imagined offense), Joe posts the picture on the internet, where it eventually makes its way to any number of adult websites. Julie's father somehow becomes aware of the image, and all hell breaks loose.
Joe was the only person who had the picture. He is the source for the wider distribution of child pornography. His only real hope is that the jury won't think a picture of his ex-girlfriend standing in front of the mirror in a pink thong is genuinely pornographic.
Still, though, the prosecutor faces an additional challenge.
Did Joe manufacture the picture? No. How did he obtain it? It was given to him. By whom? The manufacturer. And why isn't the manufacturer of the image being charged with manufacturing child pornography?
There is, in many perceptions of criminal issues, a conflict between common sense and the legalistic reality. That is, while many people think common sense says a 15 year-old girl shouldn't be charged with the manufacture of child pornography for snapping an image of herself in the mirror, the legal implications can easily come to require the charge. One might say, then, that the police and prosecutors are skipping ahead.
There is a vital question to be asked: Having seized the phone according to the rules, how did school officials find the image? Was it an invasive search of the phone's contents? Or was it visible as, say, the display background?
Even presuming the search was invasive, when a school official becomes aware of a sex crime involving a minor, he or she is obliged by law to report it.
We come back to the question of how the law should be reformulated.
