highlyeccentric: Steamed broccoli - an image of an angry broccoli floret (steamed)
[personal profile] highlyeccentric
Remember those kids charged with peddling child porn by SMS semi-nude pictures of themselves?

District Attorney George Skumanik called for the girls to undergo five weeks of behaviour courses and take a drug test or face prosecution, according to a letter apparently sent to the teenagers' parents.

The American Civil Liberties Union, a cosignatory to the complaint, said Skumanik's threat was unconstitutional, and prosecution could have landed the girls on the sex offenders' register, blighting future job prospects.

"In many states these charges would land these kids on (sex offender) databases ... for 10 years or more, and prevent them from getting many types of jobs," said Witold Walczak, Legal Director for the ACLU in Pennsylvania.

"That's a heck of a lesson for a kid who probably doesn't even realise she is doing something wrong."

In the letter, Skumanik described the pictures as "provocative", and insisted the teens need to "gain an understanding of how (their) actions were wrong", as well as "what it means to be a girl in today's society".



Can we stop again and ask: what the HELL is "wrong" with distributing naked pictures of oneself? Possibly unwise, yes. Possibly unsafe. A bit skanky. But WRONG? I don't see the wrong in it.

And I'm deeply disturbed by this "what it means to be a girl in today's society" bit.

Date: 2009-03-26 10:24 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] agenttrojie.livejournal.com
I badly, *badly* want to know exactly what he thinks it does mean to be a girl in today's society.

Yes, teenagers probably shouldn't be sending pictures of themselves semi-nude to other people. But that's the kind of thing their parents ought to be talking to them and/or disciplining them about. It shouldn't be a *crime*, should it?

Date: 2009-03-26 10:33 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] highlyeccentric.livejournal.com
Not in my book, but apparently it is. It's also a crime for anyone to view said materiel, regardless of the age of the viewer. I think in the States kids under the age of consent aren't legally allowed to have sex with each other (though it could vary by state?). In Aus, they are, but the censorship laws still apply: a fifteen year old can see another fifteen year old naked in PERSON, but if they take a photo...

Date: 2009-03-27 12:20 am (UTC)
ext_3638: I'm in ur history, emphasising ur wimminz (Default)
From: [identity profile] kayloulee.livejournal.com
I bet I can guess, and I don't like it. Something along the lines of "men can't be blamed for assaulting you if you wear clothes like that and by the way abstinence works, totally!". But I might be being a bit over the top.

Date: 2009-03-27 12:58 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] agenttrojie.livejournal.com
I think you might have hit it on the nail, to be honest. He probably wouldn't phrase it like that, but that'll be what he's thinking.

Gah. I hate the 'well, she was kind of asking for it ...' comments you hear. No, she wasn't. She was never asking for it. If she asked for it, IT WOULDN'T BE RAPE/MOLESTATION.

Date: 2009-03-27 01:00 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] highlyeccentric.livejournal.com
So do we, so do we. On this flist we have a semi-regular event, hosted by various posters as necessary, devoted entirely to raging about stupid media coverage and legal handling of public rape cases.

Date: 2009-03-27 01:01 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] agenttrojie.livejournal.com
I'll be sure to look out for that in future then, because a good rage is cathartic.

Date: 2009-03-27 01:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] highlyeccentric.livejournal.com
Also did you see my post about prospective punitive internet policies in NZ?

Date: 2009-03-27 01:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] agenttrojie.livejournal.com
Gah, don't get me started on that. Although I'm told that they've now dropped the idea because TelstraClear (who are the ones who sell HUGE ENORMOUS CHUNKS OF INTERNET TIME) have gone, 'uh, no, we're not participating, because most of the downloaders are sort of paying money for our services and if we shut them down we'll be all out of customers.'

Date: 2009-03-27 01:11 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] highlyeccentric.livejournal.com
*cackles* good good! Glad SOMEONE's got sense.

Date: 2009-03-27 10:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] agenttrojie.livejournal.com
It's nice to know *someone* does, at least.

Date: 2009-03-27 10:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] agenttrojie.livejournal.com
I know, it's a step in the right direction at least :D

Date: 2009-03-27 02:50 am (UTC)
ext_3638: I'm in ur history, emphasising ur wimminz (Default)
From: [identity profile] kayloulee.livejournal.com
*blinks* Hey, we totally do.

Speaking of which, I need to find out what's happening with that Brett Stewart-rapes-17yo-girl thing.

Date: 2009-03-27 02:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] highlyeccentric.livejournal.com
Another hilarious thing in the news - senior defence officials are at war with the Minister for Defence. Go dig up the articles for the past couple of days (yesterday's Canberra times front page was particularly a particularly good description of the whole fail!bot) if you haven't heard.

Date: 2009-03-27 03:42 am (UTC)
ext_3638: I'm in ur history, emphasising ur wimminz (Default)
From: [identity profile] kayloulee.livejournal.com
It's the front page of the Herald today, I just haven't read it yet because I slept in, grabbed the paper at lunch and then wandered the internet for the past hour and a half. I have lots to read though (journal articles, books, etc) for my many assessments so I'm going to go set up camp on my bed with a book fortress and the newspaper.

Date: 2009-03-27 03:59 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] highlyeccentric.livejournal.com
Today's front page isn't as hilarious as yesterday's, I think. Today's mostly about his Chinese friend - yesterday was about the fact that Defence have been covertly investigating their own boss...

Date: 2009-03-27 02:34 am (UTC)
ext_3638: I'm in ur history, emphasising ur wimminz (Default)
From: [identity profile] kayloulee.livejournal.com
Yes, exactly, that's what I was thinking. "Dressing provocatively" does NOT ACTUALLY EQUAL CONSENT. Just, no.

Date: 2009-03-27 02:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] highlyeccentric.livejournal.com
Oh, hey, did you read the "reckless eyeballing" RaceFail post?

If you didn't, I don't have the link but [livejournal.com profile] niamh_sage posted the link on her LJ not too long ago.

Date: 2009-03-27 02:49 am (UTC)
ext_3638: I'm in ur history, emphasising ur wimminz (Default)
From: [identity profile] kayloulee.livejournal.com
I might have done, I've just now opened [livejournal.com profile] niamh_sage's LJ in another tab to see.

Date: 2009-03-27 01:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ahsavka.livejournal.com
I am hoping in my heart of hearts that "what it means to be a girl in today's society" just means "what it means to be a person in today's society": sexual evidence, like your bank account info and social security number, are things that you have to be careful of in this digital age. (...)

I am extra confused by the mandatory drug test. What the heck?

They would do better with a course on computer/phone/etc security than a behavior course. At least then they'd also learn not to put important RL info on facebook.

Date: 2009-03-27 01:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] highlyeccentric.livejournal.com
Yahuh. Compulsory electronic safety training, with a bit about relevant legal issues, would be spot on here.

Profile

highlyeccentric: Sign on Little Queen St - One Way both directions (Default)
highlyeccentric

November 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
232425262728 29
30      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 7th, 2026 08:55 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios