[rey]

This may get pulled, but if we leave the stupid jokes aside and look at it for what it is, invasion of privacy and fourth amendment rights (sadly it is such distasteful cases as this that help to ensure our rights) we might stand a chance.

Odd that they would encourage "LGBT" clubs or acceptance in school and then go after this. Would they do this if it was two guys? I am not defending the kids or this practice but the logic is strange. Not only would the police be guilty of what they accuse the boy of, they would be showing it to a court room full of people. THey are already guilty of taking pictures of him in a non-aroused state. Is it pornography only if a particular form of media is used, i.e., pictures, video, etc? Are they not gulty of child porn if they expose themselves to one another in private with no pictures or engage in sexual relations without recording? Where are all the "get government out of our bedrooms" type who ask them in by calling for laws legalizing homosexual marriages and such? Where are the parents? And what of the mentality of the "law enforcement" people who pursue such avenues in a case? Talk about a just following orders crowd. Very bizarre

There is another story on this at "Think Progress" but stories from that site are not allowed here (Another 4th issue as it is Jim's property).

[dware]

Wasn’t this the plot of “Porky’s”?

[TigersEye]

The article doesn’t go into detail but I take the kid only took pics of his own anatomy? It seems a little bizarre to me to charge a kid with making/distributing child porn for that. Ruin his life for being a dumb ass?

[Red Badger]

... so they could try to prove he committed the crime of capturing such images of himself

ACLU......Pick up on the red phone.................

[Responsibility2nd]

Old news.

There were several threads on this matter last week.

[Wuli]

the real question to me is why is not a private communication, no matter what it is, a private matter between sender and recipient, regardless of age, and ONLY if the recipient objects to the communication and believes the communication was “abusive” then a civil matter, not a criminal matter

yes - kids should, by law, be protected from lascivious abusive adults, but supid behavior between consenting stupid minors should not reach the criminal level, they should remain a civil matter if their is grounds for an objection about what was communicated

it seems to me too many parents refuse to take charge of their children and do them a great disservice by not playing a stronger role in vetting, and limiting who their children associate with - they allow their children to play with fire in their associations and then the same parents cry foul when their kid gets burnt