I agree. Parenting isn't what it used to be back in the day. Parents now are relying on other people and things to parent our children.

If every parent started taking their role as a mother or father seriously then we can get back to how things used to be. But its hard when so many of us are trying to be our kids friend instead of a figure of authority in their lives.

Actually Don - Kolee is right. When I was a boy all the neighborhood adults looked out for us kids. We seldom were caught doing stuff our parents. We all have to be part of a community. I'm a single guy and all the neighborhood kids know they can come over in my yard if I'm outside. I've talked with them and taught them things like gardening. They act a lot better in my yard at times because I won't put up with anything. Even the kids I've tossed out of my yard for whatever reason tend to come back again. They don't have to but I think it's because I try to teach them. Kids really like to learn whether it's intelectual or just learning proper behavior.

Exactly what ever happened to the days when you can be corrected not just by your parents but by a neighbor. We need to look out for all kids and not just our own. And you are right Dave, kids do love learning! So we have to ask ourselves, what are we teaching them?

Chris, Dave, you two keep talking about the past as if, "It takes a villiage to raise a child," were the prevalant attitude just a few generations ago. I have no idea how you were raised, but forty years ago, my grandfather would *never* have let someone else discipline my father. On the rare occasion when someone did, that person would soon know just how little it was appreciated. Chris, if you truly mean it when you say in some of your other comments that parents need to take parenting seriously again, then it is contradictory to this concept to say that the said parents' neighbors are to share in that responsibility also. Is that not the same as "relying on other people and things to parent [one's] children?" Those were your words, remember.

My thoughts also extend to a concern that reaches beyond the issue of extended responsibility. Dave, you might be a nice guy and all that, but in many places, a parent isn't just going to let her child run off to any neighbor's house with the promise that he'll teach him something in the back yard. What Mr. Friendly Neighborhood Gardener might want to "teach" a child might actually involve his basement, a video camera, and a pair of handcuffs.

What you two advocate here amounts to *less* parental responsibility, not more.

Amen, PrimeSoup. I'm going to go a little further and say, Dave-MLPS, you sound just plain creepy especially when you say "they don't have to [come back]" - where in the world do those words - "have to" - come from? And you say you "don't put up with anything." If any single neighborhood guy expressed such unwarranted etitlement of "authority" over children, I'd tell my kids to stay waaayyyyyyyy clear of him.

You have some real paranoia issues. You totally bought into the fear factor here. Sad really

Carla, you've missed the point. How far a parent extends his worry regarding his children is an entirely individual matter, and if the situation that Dave describes is acceptable to a given parent, that's his risk to take, and I haven't suggested otherwise. I would contend, however, that the attitude I describe of, "Better safe than sorry," reflects the feelings of a great many more parents than your dismissal gives as credit. Perhaps I am wrong on that specific point, but even if so, your judgment is still misplaced, as that itself wasn't the ultimate point I was trying to illustrate.

What I was ultimately suggesting is that both Dave and Chris are actually advocating the logical *opposite* of what they *said* they would find preferable, i.e. *more* responsibility reflected by adults. Their attitudes on how to accomplish that are each self-contradictory. You may think that the attitude I suggest in rebuttal is paranoid, but at least it is consistent.

Prime Soup I understand what you are saying. Let me make myself clear. Parents should do ALL of the parenting!!

I was just making a point that as a kid I couldn't get away with stuff just because my parents weren't around, if a neighbor saw me doing something stupid, you bet my parents were hearing about it! Personally though if I see some child doing something stupid I'm not going to turn a blind eye to it, whether it be my child or not, but if we were all doing our jobs, there would be no necessity in that.

I also spent my childhood in an area where if you did something wrong, my parents would most likely hear about it before I could even make it home. And it wasn't out of line for a neighbor to tell us kids to stop doing something we weren't supposed to be doing - even if we weren't on their property. I moved to a large city in my pre-teen years and things were quite different there. Fences kept neighbors from interacting much and the sense of community was lost.

If these parents knew each other - even passively - the police most likely would not have been called. But people seem too busy to take time and get to know the parents of their kids friends and they aren't willing to risk a negative reaction from a parent and turn to the police or school administrators first.

What is this world coming to????? Why do you have to pick and pick on things that so simple? Lets all remember that these are kids!! Why should we mark these children as perverts? Let kids be kids im not saying that the whole situation should be ignored im simply saying that we all were kids one point in our life and im pretty sure we all have those things that we know we shouldnt have done maybe we just kept them to ourselves since we didnt get caught. We need to inform our children about right and wrong. We need to not give up but learn how to be role models to them. Taking this situation and blowing it out of porportion is not being good role models. Now that these children will have this on their record what else ,where else and who else will they be able to turn to without being labeled?

If this was not treated as a serious threat, how exactly would you keep the so called "real perverts" from taking advantage of this loop-hole in the law and exploit it for their own child-pornography trafficking? On the surface it's easy to say "kids will be kids" and on that agree. But if the law is not tight enough and enforced in all circumstances it will open up more problems then law enforcement has the resources to deal with.

and that's abunch of bs...ruining kids lives...their ability to suceed in the work force...do you know what sex offenders have to go through?! These are kids doing stupid kid things that should be dealt with by the school and parents NOT legally!!! Not for this; there is a time and place for legal action; this is not the way to handle this...the consequences are way too severe for a child's poor judgement. Its a scientific fact that the part of our brain that does the reasoning isn't fully developed until we're in our early 20s; its why so many teenagers make so many bad choices even when they should know better; but to punish them for the rest of their lives?! Not a reasonable solution at all.

maybe if they start charging these kids with crimes they will stop doing such stupid stuff, and start to think a little bit before they act. oh, btw, in my state and 18 yo can tap a 14 yo and not get charged with statutory rape. which, given the mind set of 14 year olds is about the stupidest law in the world. The age of consent is absurd given the activities of today's teen agers.

THEY ARE KIDS NOT ADULTS there is DIFFERENCE... when you were a kid 15-18 and you had sex.. were you a statutory rapist? a child molester? NO you were a young adult having sex so they send each other pictures so what?... they are probably having sex too.. why does it matter? teens have been having sexual relations since the beginning of time.. these kids should not be charged with anything.. they are kids.... this is what kids do.. maybe kids should think more about who they are sending this stuff to.. but they are kids doing what kids do.. it seems people are becoming dumber THERE ARE BIGGER ISSUES than kids sending pics to each other... look at the economy.. stop making a big deal out of NOTHING

That is the funniest story I have ever heard in my life!  The poor dad that had no clue his friends' daughter's naighty picture was on his phone and got cold clocked and arrested for it. Wow!  (I bet his son got beat too, the old kick the dog parable).

Seriously though, I am 31 and I remember being in high school and my friends showing me pic's of one of the girls.  It was the best thing at the time.  We were young, stupid of adult seriousnes, and just full of hormomes and nonsense.  These kids are not child predators, they are just teens being teens.  The technology just makes it more available to a lot more people now.  Yes, parents need to teach their kids and talk to them about the dangers out there, yes there should be some correction by the parents but the schoos and cops?  Come on.  They are kids not crimanals.  We all make stupid on the spot decsions at that time in our lives.  If you catch your kids doing something like this, take their cell phones and internet away for two weeks (trust me, it will be the END of their lifes).  Then make them mow the grass and hoe the garden, if you live in the city, make them volenteer at a homeless shelter.  Make em work.  Cause when you work, you think.  Don't freaking arrest them, that is not the message you need to send.  That will just make them think they are bad and may not ever understand.  Way overreaction. 

Still laughing about that story.

These kids are not criminals they are being stupid, not thinking of the potential consequenses. We all need to take respocibility and start teaching our kids what is right and wrong, as well as holding them accountable when they do something wrong. We also do need to have a dialogue with the parents of our kids friends and if they won't teach their children or don't take seriously your concerns then you curtail the time your kids spends with theirs, and it doesn't matter if that kid is 3 or 17. Take responcibility for your children and teach them to respect themselves and others and for them to take responcibiltiy for themselves!! It shouldn't be up to the police to take care of this.

As far as the comment of statutory rape made in one of the past posts, yes it is the law that if an 18 year old is dating and having sex with a person under 18 or the consent law for that state they can be charged with a sex crime and be forced to register as a sex offender. That law isn't always fair, and I think to make someone a registered sex offender if they have not raped anyone, or are not a pedophile not only ruins their life but is a disservice to the rest of us trying to keep our children safe.

Maybe that goes back to teaching responcibilty though, and making sure our sons and daughters understand what the consequences are.

KFish, there is a disconnection in your logic. You are addressing the matter of children, i.e. minors, taking what is arguably "pornographic" pictures of themselves and then sharing them, and then you defend your opinion that these actions make them criminals by citing the lines drawn in cases of statutory rape. The gap in this logic rests in the fact that statutory rape is generally treated as a case in which one sexual partner is a minor *while the other is NOT,* since an eighteen-year-old is not considered a child under most laws in the US, and that changes the implications of any sexual behavior under scrutiny. Since you were initially talking about the behavior of minors with *other minors,* such an analogy does not logically fit.

Here is what *does* logically fit: One minor having consentual sex with another minor, which is not generally criminal; a minor writing an erotic story, either for himself or for other minors who consent to read it, which is not generally criminal; a minor sharing pornographic material (depicting consenting adults) with another minor who consents to view it, which is not generally criminal (although how the first minor *obtained* said pornographic material might be, depending on the circumstances, and even in a case where it does prove to be criminal - such as an adult supplying the pornographic material to the minor - the crime was *not* committed by the minor, who would be considered a victim in the case).

Considering the vein in which other sex crimes are defined, a minor who takes arguably pornographic photos of his or her own body and then distributes them to *other minors who ultimately consent to viewing them* does not fit with the rest. Is such behavior smart? I doubt it. Is such behavior generally desireable? Probably not. Is such behavior criminal? *No.*

Throughout this analysis, I have consciously emphasized the assumption of mutual consent. In such cases where a minor sends arguably pornographic photos of himself and then distributes them to other minors who *do not* wish to view them, then perhaps the act becomes analogous to indecent public exposure, which is a crime - though not always a felony - in most places in the US regardless of whether the person who committed the act is an adult or a minor. Even in this case, however, distribution of child pornography is an excessive and inappropriate charge. This is what happens, though, when a prosecutor wants to get his name in the papers as an advancement for his career.

PrimeSoup,

Very good posting. I would also add that a simple nude (or semi-nude) photo in itself is not "pornography". Explicit sexual conduct in the photo should be considered "pornography". All of the articles that I've read have stated that the photos were not sexually explicit.

Seejur, let's take your argument to its logical extreme: If the punishment for *all* crimes, felony or misdemeanor, adult or child - hell, let's throw in parking violations, just to be vindictive - was the death penalty, that would stop nearly all activity that could even *conceivably* be viewed as criminal, since the price for being caught would be too high. What you achieve at the same time, however, is a series of violations regarding every US citizen's eighth-amendment right to not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment for his crimes. I believe that the same applies in these cases. Charging these minors with felony distribution of child pornography is excessive, *especially* if one takes the view that it is meant *merely* to inflict fear and thought rather than to imprison.

My husband's co-worker was arrested in his office for having nude pictures of underage girls on his computer at work. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison. He was 21 years old.

You are considered an adult for judicial reasons at the age of 18.

Why should an 18 year old be charge for child pornograpy while a 17 year old gets off scott free?

KFish,

I highly doubt that your husbands co-worker was sentenced to 7 years in prison for ONLY having nude (or semi-nude) photos of minors. I'll bet that there also were sexually explicit photos with minors, which is an entirely different situation.

KFish, you are once again making an analogy that *does not fit* the situation. The charge of distributing child pornography in the cases discussed by the poll involve minors who have taken pictures of *THEMSELVES!* If an eighteen-year-old posesses a nude photo of *himself,* then the resulting photograph *cannot* be viewed as "child pornography" because *the model is not a child* in such a case!

In order for your anecdotal analogy to fit the situation, we would have to be talking about a minor who takes photographs of *other* nude minors and then distributes them. I won't speculate about the implications of such a scenario, as not only would I not be sure what I would conclude, but it is *not* the subject of the poll in any case.

Do you get it now?

Jim, thanks for your encouragement. In truth, however, each state defines both "pornography" and "child pornography" in its own ways, but I believe that a federal prosecutor in particular would not strictly agree on the criteria with which you draw the line when defining "child pornography."

The US legal code, in Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure), Part 1 (Crimes), Chapter 110 (Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children), Section 2256 (Definitions for the Chapter), subsection 8, defines "child pornography" as, in part, "... any visual depiction, including a photograph... of sexually explicit conduct, where - (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct...." Previously, in subsection 1, it defines a "minor" as "any person under the age of eighteen years."

So far, this corresponds to the distinction you have made. In subsection 2(A)(v), however, the section defines "sexually explicit conduct" as, in part, actual or simulated "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person," (emphasis added by myself). Strictly speaking (and the law usually does just that), this would include nude photography of various (though perhaps not all) natures where such photography features a minor, and it would *certainly* include the nature of the nude photography of which some of the cases represented by the poll are the subject. In the articles *I* have read, I distinctly remember several of the cases describing male minors who took photographs of their genitals and then sent them to female students. To most legal settings, this would probably fit the definition I've provided above, *if* the circumstances were typical of the cases for which these child pornography laws were initially written, which I do not believe to be true in the cases featured here. You're right, Jim, that federal child pornography laws require the pornography to depict "sexually explicit conduct," but what I think you don't understand is that in many cases, the law regards nude photographs *to be* "sexually explicit conduct."

The argument I would make is that a charge of distributing child pornography is excessive in these cases not because the photographs don't generally fit the criteria for child pornography - by most accounts, they do - but rather because the "culprits" and the "victims" - the "exploiter" and the "exploitee" - in these cases are each one and the same individual. That the photographs were *self-portraits* - however graphic - *and* that they did not take them for the gratification of an adult audience together require, in my opinion, a different interpretation, one similar to a hypothetical case in which a minor writes his own erotic story or draws his own nude artwork. Is he allowed, under the law, to create such things but not to possess them or to show them to his peers? It doesn't make any sense.

What is somewhat scary in the case of these children is if they are tried in juvenile court, (I believe) there is no jury of "peers" or any jury at all. That would then leave it solely up to the interpretation of one person (the judge). I believe that if a jury had to decide a case like this, it would be extremely unlikely to get twelve people to find them guilty of child pornography beyond any "reasonable" doubt.

I would agree that if either sex took a photo zoomed in to only their pubic area, they would have a much harder time defending that.

I believe that if a jury had to decide a case like this, it would be extremely unlikely to get twelve people to find them guilty of child pornography beyond any "reasonable" doubt.

If the poll here is any indication, Jim, I'd say that you're right.

your going to say that the kid whose naked photos (who the kid allowed to be taken) being passed out would ruin his/her life? Please! Yeah it would be hurtful, and difficult, but what about the kid who had a lapse in judgement and has to pay for it for the rest of their life with a felony record? Now THAT is a ruined life and that is sad...a kid in highschool is different from a 30 or 40 year old pervert. Their obviously should be a cut off age and some regulations around child pornography but they need to be better thought out than just slamming these kids with serious felony charges that WILL ruin THEIR lives.

hilarious! But I completely agree

yes! Fire them now! What a bunch of ridiculousness...

Agreed......look at the results of the question.

The ones doing the charging better hope the ones being charged do not band together and send the pictures to them......then they might find themselves in the hot seat.

What a bunch of ridiculousness...

Exactly why are we not putting the real criminals away!

I agree. I believe to use the charge " child pornography" in this way is disgraceful. Child pornography is a horrific thing however what their talking about here is to the extreme of ridiculous. Maybe indecent exposure if its unwanted by the other teens but "child pornography" and being labeled a sex offender is out of the question. I find that offensive being a parent of a child that was hurt by her uncle. I think its ridiculous. There is a difference between someone abusing a child and teenagers being teenagers. The prosecutors need to get over their high horse and find a real job.

If they have a fake ID and are in a Bar you'd have to have a really crappy lawyer not to get off, because you didn't commit a crime as far as you know your with someone over 21 although the girl could be charged with all sorts of things. At first I thought they shouldn't be charged but after reading some of these comments I think it depends on each case, like if you send someone elses pic to 35 people that is criminal but if you send a pic of yourself to your boyfriend that should not, now if he sends it to all his freinds that's a different story. I really don't see how you could charge someone for recieving the thing though.

O please! You, sir, need to get off your soapbox and remember what it's like to be a teenager. Are a few innocent pictures your piggest concern as parents of teens? Aren't you wasting your time, and the courts time? I'm not saying that as parents, dicinplinary action shouldn't taken. You should certianly use your power as parents and take action as parents as you see fit, but instilling legal labels such as "sex offender" ruin the teen's future and is a misuse of the term. As a teen I understand this responce to the sexual pressure on teens today, not that i've taken part in it. These teens aren't future pornographers, child molesters, or sexual devients. As hard as it may be for you to understand, MomV, this really is the newest technological incarnation of "teens will be teens" as it relates to sexuality. You can't hold teenagers to the same standards as adults, especially in the relam of sexuality because adults do not experience the raging hormones, the social pressure, and the general confusion that is puberty. Of course one could argue that kids should exhibit control over their hormones, but such minor infractions do not warrant such rash legal action.

they don't encourage kids to have sex, hormones do that, but if they do decide to have sex then I would hope they would do it as responsibly as possible. I bet you would rather have a pregnant teen with aids than teach them to be responsible about something their going to do anyway. because humans have sex, we're supposed to.

It wasn't too long ago that parents would marry their kids off at 13 or 14.

Maybe we should confiscate their sex organs till they're 18.

That's great Bill. Are we supposed to look to Europe as a model culture? Legalize prostitution? Should we start issuing textbooks with centerfolds to help our students learn? Do you have any discipline or restraint in your daily diet? You sound like like a 9th circus court judge!

Don't get me wrong, I don't want us to be Europe..particularly in politics, but, in this case you are right Bill. We are way too hung up on sex, the body, nudism...etc. The naked body is as natural as it gets and if anyone wants to show it off, it should be their business. Again, don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want my teenager or any young person to make a spectacle out of themselves, but, it should be their natural right. Our culture makes it "obscene" and "perversed" when it really shouldn't be. We should focus on violence and other real problems with this country.

I agree 100% Bill! Absolutely nothing wrong with it! It is the non-thinking programmed people in our society that try to "make it" bad by trying to punish or attack anyone that speaks out again'st something natural like this. Most of them even believe the earth was created first and then the rest of the universe. They know they are right! Galileo learned this the hard way. Look how long it took before people finally conceded that Galileo was right! Those prosecuters relatives probably worked for the Catholic church during Galileo's trial! It's important to always stand up and speak out again'st thinking like this!

Simple nudity is not sex! Teenagers sharing non-sexual nude photos of themselves should not be a crime. A topless teenager is not the end of the world, or a crime if she took the photo of herself and sent the photo herself. I highly doubt that any normal boy is going to complain to the police if they happened to receive that photo. The only "victims" in this case are the teenagers that are charged with felonies for daring to share these photos.

Now if the teenagers are sharing sexually explicit (that means actual sexual activity to those that don't understand the difference) photos, that's a different story.

However, I still believe that these should be family issues and not the business of the legal system. Branding a teenager as a "sex offender" for life is gross abuse of the legal system and will needlessly ruin their future. How in the world does doing this make our society better?

I agree, these kids should not be charged with child pornography.

What we need is to educate our children to ensure they're aware of what can/will happen to any photo they send electronicall to anyone, anywhere. Before sending any photo, you must be comfortable with gramma seeing, or with it showing up on a billboard. If you wouldn't be, then don't send it.

There's nothing wrong with adults "sexting" each other, or sending nude photos to each other. The issue is with the under-18 sect.

Or the gosling? :)

James...your comment is idiotic. Nudity does not equal pornography...goose or gander.

Does it hurt to be that stupid? Get over yourself!

And someone should investigate all of those prosecutor's family photo albums and have them arrested for child porn if any of the photos include a nude child. Why should they be treated any differently?

This whole thing is insanity. Our court systems can't handle the load of just the major crimes and they are wasting our tax dollars on this?

Actually, in some places you can be charged for that, too.

Yeah, like Iran...

Yeah, well, just don't take film of your naked baby playing in the tub to Wal-Mart...I have read several articles detailing how parents were arrested, charged with child pornography, and their children taken away because some overzealous film developer turned the pictures over to police...and Missouri is a lot closer than Iran.

the ADULTS who distribute and view these should be held accountable and charged but something different needs to happen with these kids...they are just kids for christsake! what if it was your son or daughter in highschool being charged with a felony and their hopes and dreams going down the drain for something like this? I bet you'd be singing a different tune; unless of course your one of those horrible parents who doesn't give a crap about your kids...Just saying, what if it was your kid being charged and your kid is saying "Mom, dad, I'm scared, it was just joking around, it was stupid, I know, but I'm not a sex offender!" What would you tell your kid? Yes, you are a sex offender; you deserve to have your permanent record blemished and your life ruined for sending or receiving pictures of your nude friends. Seriously?!

Why are the parents looking at sites that have their kids naked on them?? Someone should look into that!

Ah, parenting. I check the history on my computer every night so I can see where my kids went on line. Parents are responsible for their "children" so these poor young innocent children who post naked pictures should be held responsible for distribution of pornography

So should the parents be charged as well since they are responsible for them?

If childhood pornography is being distributed from their home maybe they should have a clue. If their child was giving out beer they would sure be held responsible