5 ms·

OK let's take a step back and examine the core issue here: are minors capable enough of making sound decisions to be held legally liable for the outcomes? If t

by mustpax 17y ago

OK let's take a step back and examine the core issue here: are minors capable enough of making sound decisions to be held legally liable for the outcomes? If they are, then they should also be allowed to "sext" similar peers. If not they are not capable of making such decisions, then they should not be arrested for receiving such messages. To say that teenagers are both culpable and incapable of sound reasoning is not a consistent position. But then, are we really trying to be sensible?

ellyagg 17y ago
No, we just don't like our kids thinking about and having sex. It makes as feel as though the casual absolute control we have over them is slipping.
- thismat 17y ago
  I would say casual absolute control has been gone for decades. And to follow up on your point, my parents heavily controlled content I was allowed to consume, and slowly introduced me to making my own choices as I showed sound judgment and responsibility to handle it. This system worked out incredibly well, a system I want to emulate for my own children.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    I had the same treatment: but it worked less well for me (mostly due to not being drip fed choices). When I left home for university (first time on my own) I had a break down within 6 months, simply couldnt cope. I'm not sure I agree (though I know I am heavily biased) anything beyond a casual control is workable. People will naturally test boundaries - and the stricter you make them the more "underground" the response is. Im a big fan of keeping it casual so that what goes on is easy to spot - and if it goes too far stepping in heavily has more impact :) But then, each to their own! I dont have kids yet so this could change :P
- jseliger 17y ago
  Which reminds me of pg's essay "Lies We Tell Kids": http://paulgraham.com/lies.html http://paulgraham.com/lies.html .
- asciilifeform 17y ago
  > It makes as feel as though the casual absolute control we have over them is slipping http://groups.google.com/group/talk.rape/msg/2db5c83cb619b1b5?dmode=source&output=gplain http://groups.google.com/group/talk.rape/msg/2db5c83cb619b1b...
bestes 17y ago
Minors are not capable of making sound decisions, which is why they should be treated differently (and usually are). But, I disagree that this is the core issue. I believe that this is not a crime. At all. Not even a little bit. The idea that it is illegal for those under 18 to do anything sexual is wrong. It moves to preposterous when you start calling them sex offenders. Why? Because it is a natural and normal part of growing up. The body secrets huge amounts of testosterone/estrogen during puberty. Humans are designed/programmed/whatever to start thinking about sex at this point. Finally, because kids are actually people too. They do get to make decisions. Small ones at first, but bigger ones later. A 17-year-old that is going out with an 18-year-old should not have to break up with their significant other simply because of the magical 18th birthday.
- TheAmazingIdiot 17y ago
  Aside that viewpoint, "Child Porn" in many statutes include fully clothed youngsters doing what is 'not the norm for that age group'. Pretty much any image of people under 18 can be considered Child Porn if that jury thinks so.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Actually not at all: well, definitely not in the UK. Here we use the Copine scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale) It's important to note the ONLY classification that images of clothed children can fall into is #1 (the least "worst" case). However to actually qualify the poses would have to be very sexually sxplicit. Child underwear models, for example, wouldnt normally get categorised there (obviously if there is more extreme indecent material they WOULD be appended as "relevant" images). Your right the jury will be shown an image and if it has a child in it they will cry "OMG CP" but fortunately experts analyse all of the data first and ensure only real indecent images make it to the trial :) I cant say 100% for the US but I believe things work in the same way. EDIT; a colleague pointed me at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test). Apparently in the US you lot are completely unable to make use of a simpel classification scale (I jest, I jest) so things are less cut and dried. In which case I guess your point stands. I prefer our way.
philwelch 17y ago
Your argument is more of a logical gambit than anything. I like it. Another logical gambit is the observation that it's totally legal, in most states, to look at a naked 16 year old in person. Or to actually have intercourse with her.
- woodsier 17y ago
  Certainly is here in Australia.
  - gaius 17y ago
    Practically mandatory in Holland.
hypersoar 17y ago
The justification for banning possession of child pornography was that you could draw a straight line from the images to an act of exploitation. The reason for the laws is not primarily to prevent the spread of the images; it's to prevent the exploitation of a child that lead to their production. When you have teenagers voluntarily snapping pictures of themselves, there is no act of exploitation. Sure, it's not something that should be encouraged, but it's not something that should destroy your life, either.
- asciilifeform 17y ago
  > The justification for banning possession of child pornography was that you could draw a straight line from the images to an act of exploitation This was always transparently moronic. It has never been illegal to possess a picture of a murder, no matter how brutal.
  - gort 17y ago
    However, I take it almost no murders have ever been committed for the purpose of distributing pictures of them.
    - pyr3 17y ago
      But I take it that most statutory rape happens less for economic reasons than most authorities/politicians would like us to believe. Most people that abuse/rape children do so because it has happened to them, not because they find it to be a way to make quick money.
baddox 17y ago
This is just a traditional legal system struggling because it refuses to recognize changes in culture and technology. I don't think anyone is specifically out to get kids, it's just that these people (lawyers, judges, sheriffs, etc.) simply don't understand what's taking place.
- ahoyhere 17y ago
  Also parents. You forget the parents. The parents are nutso control freaks. Americans hate their kids to have even the slightest whiff of sexuality (unless we do it them ourselves in the name of pageantry, or new boobs for sweet 16), and as Americans, our favorite reaction to things we don't like is first, war, and if that's not available, jail, and if that's not available, shooting.
  - pyr3 17y ago
    Don't try to paint everyone with such a broad brush. I posit that in America too many people are apathetic of the legal system so only the hardcore wackos get any sort of political support on social issues such as this. But things like 'save the children' seem to me to be a modern day form of McCarthyism. If I don't support stripping sexuality from children, then I must be a pedophile and just looking to make it legal for me to have sex with children. Or else I "just don't understand" because I'm not a parent myself and all of my views are therefore discounted as if I am not really a part of the same society or even a human being at all.
- pyr3 17y ago
  Not necessarily. I've seen some of the decisions and they don't really make sense. One of the decisions was to 'protect' the children because it was possible for someone to hack their computer, steal the images, and then distribute them -- even though no such distribution had taken place, and the only reason that images came to light is because one of their cellphones was confiscated for an unrelated reason at school. The child was 'protected' against having these images distributed by being convicted of a sex crime and having to register as a sex offender... Sometimes the lack of logic makes you want to rip your hair out. The judge with the dissenting opinion said everything that I wanted to say to the majority judges. I almost want to find him and take him out for a few beers just for performing his job reasonably. I see this as most judges using this as a way to 'make an example' of these children so that others will think twice before engaging in such action. I also believe that they are purposefully misinterpreting the laws to do so. Or maybe they just don't want to be painted politically as not 'caring about the children' or some such nonesense that other politicians/media would paint them in such a light.

by mustpax 17y ago

ellyagg 17y ago

No, we just don't like our kids thinking about and having sex. It makes as feel as though the casual absolute control we have over them is slipping.

thismat 17y ago
I would say casual absolute control has been gone for decades. And to follow up on your point, my parents heavily controlled content I was allowed to consume, and slowly introduced me to making my own choices as I showed sound judgment and responsibility to handle it. This system worked out incredibly well, a system I want to emulate for my own children.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  I had the same treatment: but it worked less well for me (mostly due to not being drip fed choices). When I left home for university (first time on my own) I had a break down within 6 months, simply couldnt cope. I'm not sure I agree (though I know I am heavily biased) anything beyond a casual control is workable. People will naturally test boundaries - and the stricter you make them the more "underground" the response is. Im a big fan of keeping it casual so that what goes on is easy to spot - and if it goes too far stepping in heavily has more impact :) But then, each to their own! I dont have kids yet so this could change :P
jseliger 17y ago
Which reminds me of pg's essay "Lies We Tell Kids": http://paulgraham.com/lies.html http://paulgraham.com/lies.html .
asciilifeform 17y ago
> It makes as feel as though the casual absolute control we have over them is slipping http://groups.google.com/group/talk.rape/msg/2db5c83cb619b1b5?dmode=source&output=gplain http://groups.google.com/group/talk.rape/msg/2db5c83cb619b1b...

bestes 17y ago

Minors are not capable of making sound decisions, which is why they should be treated differently (and usually are). But, I disagree that this is the core issue. I believe that this is not a crime. At all. Not even a little bit. The idea that it is illegal for those under 18 to do anything sexual is wrong. It moves to preposterous when you start calling them sex offenders. Why? Because it is a natural and normal part of growing up. The body secrets huge amounts of testosterone/estrogen during puberty. Humans are designed/programmed/whatever to start thinking about sex at this point. Finally, because kids are actually people too. They do get to make decisions. Small ones at first, but bigger ones later. A 17-year-old that is going out with an 18-year-old should not have to break up with their significant other simply because of the magical 18th birthday.

TheAmazingIdiot 17y ago
Aside that viewpoint, "Child Porn" in many statutes include fully clothed youngsters doing what is 'not the norm for that age group'. Pretty much any image of people under 18 can be considered Child Porn if that jury thinks so.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Actually not at all: well, definitely not in the UK. Here we use the Copine scale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copine_scale) It's important to note the ONLY classification that images of clothed children can fall into is #1 (the least "worst" case). However to actually qualify the poses would have to be very sexually sxplicit. Child underwear models, for example, wouldnt normally get categorised there (obviously if there is more extreme indecent material they WOULD be appended as "relevant" images). Your right the jury will be shown an image and if it has a child in it they will cry "OMG CP" but fortunately experts analyse all of the data first and ensure only real indecent images make it to the trial :) I cant say 100% for the US but I believe things work in the same way. EDIT; a colleague pointed me at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test). Apparently in the US you lot are completely unable to make use of a simpel classification scale (I jest, I jest) so things are less cut and dried. In which case I guess your point stands. I prefer our way.

philwelch 17y ago

Your argument is more of a logical gambit than anything. I like it. Another logical gambit is the observation that it's totally legal, in most states, to look at a naked 16 year old in person. Or to actually have intercourse with her.

woodsier 17y ago
Certainly is here in Australia.
- gaius 17y ago
  Practically mandatory in Holland.

hypersoar 17y ago

The justification for banning possession of child pornography was that you could draw a straight line from the images to an act of exploitation. The reason for the laws is not primarily to prevent the spread of the images; it's to prevent the exploitation of a child that lead to their production. When you have teenagers voluntarily snapping pictures of themselves, there is no act of exploitation. Sure, it's not something that should be encouraged, but it's not something that should destroy your life, either.

asciilifeform 17y ago
> The justification for banning possession of child pornography was that you could draw a straight line from the images to an act of exploitation This was always transparently moronic. It has never been illegal to possess a picture of a murder, no matter how brutal.
- gort 17y ago
  However, I take it almost no murders have ever been committed for the purpose of distributing pictures of them.
  - pyr3 17y ago
    But I take it that most statutory rape happens less for economic reasons than most authorities/politicians would like us to believe. Most people that abuse/rape children do so because it has happened to them, not because they find it to be a way to make quick money.

baddox 17y ago

This is just a traditional legal system struggling because it refuses to recognize changes in culture and technology. I don't think anyone is specifically out to get kids, it's just that these people (lawyers, judges, sheriffs, etc.) simply don't understand what's taking place.

ahoyhere 17y ago
Also parents. You forget the parents. The parents are nutso control freaks. Americans hate their kids to have even the slightest whiff of sexuality (unless we do it them ourselves in the name of pageantry, or new boobs for sweet 16), and as Americans, our favorite reaction to things we don't like is first, war, and if that's not available, jail, and if that's not available, shooting.
- pyr3 17y ago
  Don't try to paint everyone with such a broad brush. I posit that in America too many people are apathetic of the legal system so only the hardcore wackos get any sort of political support on social issues such as this. But things like 'save the children' seem to me to be a modern day form of McCarthyism. If I don't support stripping sexuality from children, then I must be a pedophile and just looking to make it legal for me to have sex with children. Or else I "just don't understand" because I'm not a parent myself and all of my views are therefore discounted as if I am not really a part of the same society or even a human being at all.
pyr3 17y ago
Not necessarily. I've seen some of the decisions and they don't really make sense. One of the decisions was to 'protect' the children because it was possible for someone to hack their computer, steal the images, and then distribute them -- even though no such distribution had taken place, and the only reason that images came to light is because one of their cellphones was confiscated for an unrelated reason at school. The child was 'protected' against having these images distributed by being convicted of a sex crime and having to register as a sex offender... Sometimes the lack of logic makes you want to rip your hair out. The judge with the dissenting opinion said everything that I wanted to say to the majority judges. I almost want to find him and take him out for a few beers just for performing his job reasonably. I see this as most judges using this as a way to 'make an example' of these children so that others will think twice before engaging in such action. I also believe that they are purposefully misinterpreting the laws to do so. Or maybe they just don't want to be painted politically as not 'caring about the children' or some such nonesense that other politicians/media would paint them in such a light.