Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
You can shout in all-caps as much as you want about it, it doesn't make the above any less true.
2) I expect no less from Manasshole. I grew up next door, and it truly is the unwashed crotch of the soul-sucking vortex that is Northern VA. [Bobbit territory, y'know.]
a) Charging them with felonies and putting them on a sex offender registry
b) Forceably giving them a shot to give them an erection, making them strip, and taking pictures of said erection against their will
c) Talking to the kid about the dangers of sexting
THINK FUCKING HARD ABOUT THIS ONE OK???
@5: CAPS LOCK LETS YOU KNOW THAT I AM RATIONAL AND REASONABLE AND OUGHT TO BE LISTENED TO AND TAKEN SERIOUSLY!!!!!11111
Yes, it's technically child porn. But clearly the intent of anti-child porn laws is not to punish children for taking photographs of their own body. If you really want to follow the law to that extreme...than there's really no arguing that the officers taking the photos aren't producing child pornography in an even more blatant way.
To punish a kid for taking a photo of his penis a bunch of adult men are going to strip him naked and photograph his penis several more times?
That's insanity and Dan deserves to be a little hysterical about it.
Also: if the girl sent any pictures herself, she also produced child porn. They either both should be arrested and photographed for creepy proof...or, the sane option, this whole thing needs to be dropped.
I VOTE EVERYONE USES CAPS LOCK FOR THE REST OF THE WEEK!!! give this dead blog some life.
we can go back to the Conservative way of blogging on monday
"Yes, it's technically child porn. But clearly the intent of anti-child porn laws is not to punish children for taking photographs of their own body."
I think society has an interest in preventing children from doing stupid stuff that can last on the Internet forever before they understand what the consequences can be. If you think a 17 year old (or a 15 year old) can consent to that, then let's talk about lowering the age of consent.
"If you really want to follow the law to that extreme...than there's really no arguing that the officers taking the photos aren't producing child pornography in an even more blatant way. "
A photo of your child in a bathtub isn't necessarily pornographic. The intent of the photo does matter, even though I'd suggest avoiding taking such shots and posting them to Flickr. In this case taking photos for evidence is about as pornographic as a medical diagram (i.e. it's not intended for fapping, it has a non-erotic purpose, therefore it's not porn).
"Also: if the girl sent any pictures herself, she also produced child porn. They either both should be arrested and photographed for creepy proof...or, the sane option, this whole thing needs to be dropped."
I think it's more likely that the boy was able to consent than the girl was. I don't think either one needs to go to prison, but they both need to see professionals at this point.
In the prosecution of a minor-aged teen male for sending images of a sexual--actually a natural--nature to another consenting female teen, I advise you to cease and desist from the very real child abuse in which you are complicit. Seattle is hella enraged over this matter . . . and is gearing up a media frenzy in opposition to your further pursuit of this prosecution.
You think this kid having to register as a sex offender is going to teach him a valuable lesson about the internet? Nope...it's going to ruin his life.
Also, I would say any time you're going to induce an erection and then photograph it...you've gone a long way from a kid taking a bath.
Also: "I think society has an interest in preventing children from doing stupid stuff that can last on the Internet forever before they understand what the consequences can be."
If you can't consent to sending the images...how can you be held responsible as a sex offender and child pornographer for taking them?
"You think this kid having to register as a sex offender is going to teach him a valuable lesson about the internet? Nope...it's going to ruin his life."
You're right. Our criminal justice system is in many cases, including this one, too focused on retribution. Throwing the kid in jail or making him register as a sex offender isn't going to help anyone. We need to do something, just not what is happening here.
"Also, I would say any time you're going to induce an erection and then photograph it...you've gone a long way from a kid taking a bath."
If the punishment is some therapy and classroom work I don't think we'd need to get to the point where that would be necessary. We have two stupid kids that don't know better. We need to teach them why what they're doing is a bad idea.
tl;dr Don't make child porn. Not a good idea. If you're a child and you make it, we need to explain why it's a bad idea.
Hurry.
"If you can't consent to sending the images...how can you be held responsible as a sex offender and child pornographer for taking them?"
The same way you do when a kid does anything else stupid. You give them some kind of punishment if need be, but more importantly you teach them what they need to do differently. The means varies from case to case, and in this one I don't think we have any malicious behavior. Professional help for both of them and some classroom time will likely get things sorted out.
Then Dan needs to keep his comments off of the internet. He fancies himself a journalist, for fuck's sake. Keep your fucking emotions out of it as best as you can and inform people.
And for fuck's sake Dan, if you're going to continue giving sex advice to people for a living, you could at least be bothered to learn the definition of "pornography."
A rather ironic post for you to misspell "hard", ain't it Dan?
"if he can consent and she can't, then the charges are completely backwards."
Let's jump away from the photos and go into just plain ol' sex. Let's say we have a 21 year old boy and a 15 year old girl. The age of consent is 18. The 15 year old girl hits on the 21 year old boy, they then have sex.
In that case you have statutory rape, because even though the girl wanted to have sex she couldn't legally consent to sex with an adult and the adult either was or should be aware that sex with a minor is a serious crime.
As for the issue in the OP, neither party can legally consent, they're both pretty close to the same age, and it doesn't sound like anyone's arm was twisted. You need to treat it differently than a sex act with one party that should know better. Certainly this isn't the fault of the 15 year old girl.
Rereading: there's a charge for creation and a charge for possession. She should have both charges, and he should only have the possession one.
I'm just saying that your arguments don't make sense. One person said she should've been charged too, and you responded that he could consent and she couldn't, which didn't make sense in response to that comment.
Also, if I make a kid get an erection and take pictures, are you saying that as long as I'm not doing it to fap to, it's not child porn? That would be seriously problematic.
"I'm just saying that your arguments don't make sense."
You may want to back off on that legal pot.
I said that it's more likely that the boy could consent than the girl could. Either way neither one can consent legally and if you think that all healthy developmentally standard 17 (or 16, or 15) year olds can consent then at that point we have a different discussion, specifically one about the age of consent itself.
"Also, if I make a kid get an erection and take pictures, are you saying that as long as I'm not doing it to fap to, it's not child porn? That would be seriously problematic."
I'm saying intent matters here, both legally and ethically. There are medical photographs and diagrams of a great variety of things that could be pornographic if the point was to fap and not better understand the human body in a scientific sense.
For our post I-502 landscape: I can jerk off to the Sears catalog. It is not designed for that purpose, therefore it is not pornographic.
Producing child porn is illegal because children are hurt during the process, not because people are masturbating when watching it. If nobody masturbated, the production would be just as criminal.
This whole commentary section seems to be losing track of what's important. Laws are not about putting people in prison if they do something we think is icky, but doesn't hurt anyone. It's about putting them in prison for hurting people.
Putting the victim in prison is stupid. It's like putting an adult in prison if they get raped by someone under 18. It's backwards. The law is here to protect us and help those who can't defend themselves. We include children in that.
A law that is meant to defend children is leading to a child being sexually abused to prove that he committed the crime of... taking a picture of himself and showing it to his girlfriend. Not to the whole world or anything, no. To his girlfriend, who for all we know has seen his junk countless times already anyways.
Even if she hadn't, the crime should be exposing himself to someone who didn't consent. Hard to back up when she sent pictures first, but that could make some sort of sense. But no, he's being charged for harming himself by taking a picture of himself. Is he watching live child pornography every time he jerks off, then?
Why does he have less right over his own body than the grown adults who will drug him, undress his and take intimate pictures of him, all of which without his consent, do? How does that protect anyone, ever?
That’s impossible.
Everyone knows that humans don’t develop sexuality until they turn 18 years old.
Stop being silly.
CIENNA MADRID HAS AN ARTICLE UP ON SLOG ABOVE THIS KID COCK STORY
CIENNA WAS THE BEST WRITER FOR THE STRANGER IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS
IM NOT A FAN OF NOSTALGIA BUT SLOG WAS MORE FUN WITH HER AROUND
GO READ HER STORY ABOUT POT
According to law enforcement in the United States, consensual explicit photographs a minor takes of himself and chooses to share are kiddie porn. By contrast, non consensual explicit photographs a minor takes of an unconscious minor he is RAPING, which he then shares without her consent, are totally cool and not worthy of any sort of legal action whatsoever.
Also, child porn is porn made by children, not porn made of children. That's why it's a-okay for the police to take non consensual explicit pictures of this child.
Or am I missing something?
Oh my god what a tool. So something like 50% of teenagers 'need to see professionals'? Where did you crawl in from? Mississippi? I think you need to see a professional.
@27 "I said that it's more likely that the boy could consent than the girl could."
Considering that girls mature much faster than boys I'd be willing to bet that their ability to consent is at least even.
Nobody was exploited by the photo sharing. No harm was done. So, of course the perfectly sensible thing to do here is to have some cops take him down to the station so they can inject some boner drugs into the boy's cock and take a picture of it just to be extra doubleplus certain they're prosecuting the right boner.
They're threatening to non-consensually take a picture of his underage boner (which is a perfectly valid investigative procedure!) to prove that he consensually took and shared a picture of it (which is a crime punishable by 4 years in prison and a lifetime on the sex offender registry!). Because it's important to protect minors from sexual exploitation by adults.
If anyone in this situation should be punished, it ought to be the girl's mom for snooping on her daughter's cell phone.
"Oh my god what a tool. So something like 50% of teenagers 'need to see professionals'?"
Kids shouldn't be making pornography. They by definition can't understand the consequences of their actions.
@34
"Considering that girls mature much faster than boys I'd be willing to bet that their ability to consent is at least even."
Do you think that the 17 year old could (in a practical, not legal sense) consent to posing in some state of undress in Playgirl? Do you think the 15 year old girl could consent to posing in some state of undress in Playboy?
If the answer to either question is yes, then you're saying that we should lower the age of consent (I'm not entirely opposed to this, but 15 seems rather young). If the answer to either question is no, then we as a society have an interest in protecting children from making decisions that they aren't capable of understanding the consequences of.
You: "It's more likely he was better capable to consent."
Me: "Biologically speaking it is not more likely that he was better able to consent."
That's it, that's what I was responding to, end of story.
"we as a society have an interest in protecting children from making decisions that they aren't capable of understanding the consequences of."
And no one is disagreeing with that.
How does stripping him and taking photos of his penis protect him? How does injecting his penis with an erectile dysfunction drug and taking more photos of his penis protect him? How does putting him in a detention center for four years protect him? How does putting him on the sex offender registry as a child pornographer protect him?
If the answer to any of these questions is "it doesn't," then we as a society have an interest in protecting children from abuse at the hands of law enforcement officials.
@36, go away.
Congratulations.
The whole thing should be a complete non-issue. At most something for parents to deal with. It is a complete hysterical exaggeration to classify sexting as 'child pornography'.
Or perhaps they should just rethink their opinions based on a "what and how much harm is caused" sort of basis.
Subject: what the fuck is wrong with you?
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? If you don't get arrested, or at least, at fucking least, fired I will have to rejoice in the fact you must be the shittiest person I have ever heard of in my life and I assume the quality of your life reflects that. Do the right thing, apologize to the boy for being such a perfect example of how horrendously shitty, hypocritical, and fucking maddeningly idiotic adults in power can be, quit, and never talk to anyone again for the rest of your life.
I pray to God you have no children of your own, if so I hope they find the help they need to get over having you as a parent.
As for the rest of your comments, you should read, "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine.
@49 Agreed and since you are a parent you should read Judith Levine's book too, assuming you haven't.
Not necessarily because she snooped but because she caused this stink to begin with.
Or does this insanity only apply when sex and/or pregnancy is in the mix?
Maybe you should talk to a professional about your irrational fear of nakedness if you think that making a naked pic of yourself is such a huge deal.
http://www.theagitator.com/2012/01/02/th…
I feel sorry for you Americans for having to deal with such a high density of crazies.We have to deal with Daily Mail readers and Xenophobes but nothing on this scale. Thank God there's also plenty of sane people like who don't take this shit lying down.
In ‘sexting case’ Manassas City police…
with more contact info:
Why not give those involved a call and express that they're behaving like lunatics?
Douglas W. Keen -- Manassas Chief of Police (703) 257-8000 // dkeen@manassasva.gov
D.E. Abbott -- Manassas Police "Internet Crimes Against Children" (703) 257-8042 // dabbott@manassasva.gov
Please pay attention. Thank you.
Forcing a kid into an erection ? That's sexual assault, if not rape !
I hope the kid can sue him for having planned to sexually assault him, with the complicity of the medical profession.
I hope no health worker agrees to sexually assault the kid under the supervision of the police sickos. But if they do, they deserve to be prosecuted for child rape as well.
It makes me so mad and sad that the worst that will happen to the prosecutors and the cops is that they'll get fired. If there was any justice they'd be up on sexual assault charges.
"It is not the policy of the Manassas City Police or the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office to authorize invasive search procedures of suspects in cases of this nature and no such procedures have been conducted in this case."
http://www.manassascity.org/ArchiveCente…
It is disgusting that they are wanting to take picks of the kids dick. It is sick that the kid has to be subject to a bunch of perverted cops staring at what was meant to be a private pick between two consenting people and is forced erection pick. They should be ashamed of themselves.
It is disgusting that they are wanting to take picks of the kids dick. It is sick that the kid has to be subject to a bunch of perverted cops staring at what was meant to be a private pick between two consenting people and is forced erection pick. They should be ashamed of themselves.
http://www.9500liberty.com/
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2010/01…
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/950…
https://www.facebook.com/PWCGOV
It’s nonsensical for the minor in question to be charged with victimizing himself. Minors can legally sleep with other minors without committing statutory rape. They can also masturbate without having committed child molestation. This same logic applies to sexting, even if our laws as written haven’t caught up yet.
When an adult sleeps with a minor, we charge the ADULT with statutory rape. We don’t also send the minor to jail for committing statutory rape against themselves (using an adult’s genitals to do so). Similarly, we can update our porn laws in such a way where it remains illegal for adults to possess and distribute pornographic images of minors without having to charge the minors themselves with a crime.
So no, one doesn’t have to be a secret pervert to believe that children shouldn’t be among those prosecuted for child porn. This may be a convenient little accusation to lob against anyone who disagrees with your idiotic views, but it’s also inaccurate and intellectually lazy (and, since you’re actually the one defending the non-consensual production of MORE underage dick pics here, a little creepy).
Police didn't give reasons for their decision, but the AP notes a wave of criticism that arose after their porn plans were made public.
You must have some kind of involvement with the therapy industrial complex. They don't need any therapy--just tell them that was a stupid idea and hit them upside the head and take their phone away for awhile.
Also, the mom needs to wake up.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/loca…
In a normal world it would be a stupid idea only because later the kid might decide to be a politician or something and then such photos could come out and cause a scandal.
In our world it's a bad idea because you could be arrested and labeled a sex offender. For making a picture of your own junk and sending it to your SO. How, how is this an exceptional event? He did not publish it, did not send it to innocent strangers, and now he has to be traumatized by all this?
A 17 year old sending pictures of a sexual nature to a 15 year old is something that should be a complete non issue to you and your office. AT THE MOST, ask him to knock it off. But since you are disgusting perverts, you've hatched this absurd plan to take bizarre, creepy, COMPLETELY inappropriate pictures of this minor's penis, and pursue a legal case against him. SHAME ON YOU!
Just about perfect.
Kids do dumb things so you have to tell them "That's dumb; STFU."
They just need to use some freaking common sense when prosecuting
Prosecutor Claireborne Richardson (AKA, The "Legal" Child Pornographer)
crichardson@pwcgov.org
Phone: (703) 792-6050
Fax: (703) 792-7081
Paul B. Ebert -- Commonwealth's Attorney for Prince William County (703) 792-6050 // cwoffice@pwcgov.org
Douglas W. Keen -- Manassas Chief of Police (703) 257-8000 // dkeen@manassasva.gov
D.E. Abbott -- Manassas Police "Internet Crimes Against Children" (703) 257-8042 // dabbott@manassasva.gov
This is part of the description in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3RfS_Kj…
Just sayin...