(no subject)

[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.

Comments

[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?

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[agenttrojie.livejournal.com]

I'll be sure to look out for that in future then, because a good rage is cathartic.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

Also did you see my post about prospective punitive internet policies in NZ?

[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.'

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

*cackles* good good! Glad SOMEONE's got sense.

[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.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

Yahuh. Compulsory electronic safety training, with a bit about relevant legal issues, would be spot on here.

[kayloulee.livejournal.com]

Yes, exactly, that's what I was thinking. "Dressing provocatively" does NOT ACTUALLY EQUAL CONSENT. Just, no.

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

Oh, hey, did you read the "reckless eyeballing" RaceFail post?

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

[kayloulee.livejournal.com]

I might have done, I've just now opened niamh_sage's LJ in another tab to see.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[kayloulee.livejournal.com]

*whoops* Excellent!

[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...

[agenttrojie.livejournal.com]

I know, it's a step in the right direction at least :D

[agenttrojie.livejournal.com]

It's nice to know *someone* does, at least.