"Sexting" = Child Pornography?

[cardine]

This.

And to everyone else I stick by it. We prosecute teens for drunk driving? Why because they could completely destroy someone elses life, if not their own. While sexting may not be as devestating as drunk driving, it could be. I'm not saying it's the best answer but until a better one comes about, It's all we got.

A drunk driver is putting the lives of themselves and the lives of others in danger. A 16 year old girl sexting is not putting the lives of anybody in danger.

Let the parents lay down the punishment, not nanny government.

 

[turbolapp]

A 16 year old girl sexting is not putting the lives of anybody in danger.
.

but the people that pass along the pic or post on facebook are. (that was the parallel) And so you're ok with me as a parent coming over to punish your child for passing around pics of my child? Perhaps the parents and law enforcement should just continue to work together on this.

And really how is this not child pornography...? It's naked pictures being passed around of children boys and girls under 18. It's surprising to me how many of you support this.

 

[SideControl]

And really how is this not child pornography...? It's naked pictures being passed around of children boys and girls under 18. It's surprising to me how many of you support this.

Ah, well.. Justice Potter Stewart once remarked that he would not attempt to define pornography, but "I know it when I see it."

I think "naked pictures" would be a much more accurate description that "pornography."

Namely, the differences being:

- Commercialization (money being made)
- Intent (sexual arousal)
- Distribution Intention (private / public)
- Lighting

In the case of porn being made by movie studios... it's commercialized, the intent is to make money from sexual arousal, it's "crude," and it's intended for public distribution.

In the case of this girl, it was non-commercialized, intended to be private, and the intent was there to sexually arouse the boyfriend.

And so what if she wants to sexually arouse her boyfriend? I don't find a problem with it considering they are consenting. That's all I'm saying ... the pictures being public are obviously a huge issue, but the problem is in them being public in the first place.

Saying that the problem is that they were taken, is getting into governing the sexuality of minors which is a morality issue, and in my opinion should not be tried as a legal issue.

Child pornography laws, to my understanding, were put in place to "protect the children" ... well? who is being protected here? The girl who we're supposed to be protecting is being put through a trial!

And so are we protecting the public? And that is where the moral switch comes into it. People don't want to admit that the thought that a 14 year old girl has sexual thoughts kind of disturbs them. They're uptight about it.

 

[cardine]

but the people that pass along the pic or post on facebook are. (that was the parallel) And so you're ok with me as a parent coming over to punish your child for passing around pics of my child? Perhaps the parents and law enforcement should just continue to work together on this.

And really how is this not child pornography...? It's naked pictures being passed around of children boys and girls under 18. It's surprising to me how many of you support this.

Because the girl is the perpetrator. Child pornography laws are supposed to protect a child from being manipulated, and the perpetrator is always an older person. In this case the child is the one who took the pictures and sent them to people. Any consequences that arise because of that is her own damn fault.

No guy is manipulating or taking advantage of her. What the hell else do you expect a 16 year old guy to do if he receives naked pictures from a classmate? Keep quiet about it?