Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/17/2009 4:22:46 PM PST by NCjim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last
To: NCjim
Ask yourself: should the police be involved when tipsy teen girls e-mail their boyfriends naughty Valentine's Day pictures?

No!

2 posted on 02/17/2009 4:23:53 PM PST by NoLibZone (To preserve this nation a strongly worded email is in order!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

ugh...brave new world


3 posted on 02/17/2009 4:24:12 PM PST by wardaddy (I'm for Sarah. Nuff said, you either get it or you don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

I’m sure I will be told that we have to stick with the old standards, but we really need a new line in the sand about what requires registering as a sex offender.


4 posted on 02/17/2009 4:25:27 PM PST by Mr. Blonde (You ever thought about being weird for a living?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

yup toss the book at them and the parents


5 posted on 02/17/2009 4:25:37 PM PST by al baby (Hi mom. I love sarcaism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

No way. Unless her boyfriend happens to be 47.


6 posted on 02/17/2009 4:26:41 PM PST by Feline_AIDS (Because canine AIDS ain't funny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

OK. This is just dumb... and we wonder why our criminal system is so overworked...


7 posted on 02/17/2009 4:27:46 PM PST by John123 (The US may be going down the drain, but everyone else will drown first...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim
If convicted, these young people may have to register as sex offenders, in some cases for a decade or two.

That'll teach 'em!

Sigh...

Eventually sex offender registries are going to be meaningless when they're filled up with kids like these. Serial pedophiles and violent rapists are going to blend in easily on registries full of public urinators, johns and hookers, mooners, skinnydippers and now "sexters."

Maybe that's the point.

8 posted on 02/17/2009 4:28:10 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

Let the parents handle it!


9 posted on 02/17/2009 4:28:58 PM PST by neocon1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.


10 posted on 02/17/2009 4:29:12 PM PST by ConservaTexan (February 6, 1911)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

bttt


11 posted on 02/17/2009 4:29:35 PM PST by jackv (Just shakin' my head!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim
So, why was the pricipal snooping through the phone's files?

What gives him the authority to do that?

15 posted on 02/17/2009 4:31:31 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Obama says we should listen to our enemies, but not to Rush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

I would say:

E) Get a new line of work. You suck at your present one.

Call the parents. Don’t hesitate. Bring the kids to the office, get the parents there WHEREVER they are and do not allow the kids to leave, or back into the school, until they have visited with:

1. A Doctor (for a checkup - yes even little girls get awful STD’s)
2. Their Pastor/Priest or whoever they have

THEN call the Department of Social Services. I know - they are idiots - but that is the protocol and it should be observed.

The Gobmint would have you do it the other way around - call them first - but the other two MIGHT NOT HAPPEN if you do.

After EVERYONE has had a meeting (altogether, in the same room, in some cases it is called a CHINS, or Child in need of support) the next course of action should be decided.

Something is wrong and there should be an adult somewhere in that chain, I hope, to help sort it out.

Let’s stop this BS about how “normal” it is to send kiddie porn around the internet.


16 posted on 02/17/2009 4:32:38 PM PST by jessduntno ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWpU8sX10_4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim
No teenager who has a naked picture of his GF should be a sex offender unless he forcibly stripped her down to take the photo.

This is insanity. Probably a high percentage of FReepers would be thrown in the klink today for the fooling around they did as teenagers. Why can't people look at this stuff rationally? Am I the only one who remembers what it was like to be a kid?
17 posted on 02/17/2009 4:33:59 PM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim
A 15-year-old girl in Ohio and a 14-year-old girl in Michigan were charged with felonies for sending nude images of themselves to classmates.

Probably one of the best moves I ever made in raising a teen was when I got her a cell phone I had texting and internet blocked on her phone.

In all honesty it was because I knew she could not be trusted to limit her use of those facilities but had I ever read about such things I would have been on the phone the next minute to have them blocked.

18 posted on 02/17/2009 4:35:41 PM PST by Pontiac (Your message here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim
Simple.

Let the parents of the “denuded” child decide whether or not charges should be pressed.

That way the school is protected from “outraged” parents .

19 posted on 02/17/2009 4:36:36 PM PST by RedMonqey (Arm yourself if you must. For your enemies surely will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

13 year old girls didnt mail or even dream of having a nude picture taken when I was 13, and I knew a lot of them

This is what is happening to the morals of our country, Thanks in part to Bill Clinton who did the most to lower those morals. Before Clinton Oral sex was sex. Most kids didnt do it. Didnt know about it in fatc, but Bubba clued tham in and it’s been down hill ever since , with prayer out of school and sex educations classes in.


22 posted on 02/17/2009 4:38:21 PM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim
Say you're a middle-school principal who confiscated a cell phone from a 14-year-old boy, only to discover it contains a nude photo of his 13-year-old girlfriend. Do you (a) call the boy's parents in despair; (b) call the girl's parents in despair; or (c) call the police?

None of the above.
First off, if I'm the principal and I confiscate the phone, I simply confiscate it, I don't go through it.
Moreover, if I accidentally notice such a picture, I pretend I didn't see it. It's not my business what students are saying to each other over private communication lines that extend beyond school.
25 posted on 02/17/2009 4:43:43 PM PST by arderkrag (Liberty Walking (www.geocities.com/arderkrag))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

I wonder if they’d say anything if the two parties involved were queer? So far I’m only seeing straight kids getting harassed over this.


26 posted on 02/17/2009 4:44:44 PM PST by MahatmaGandu (Remember, remember, the twenty-sixth of November.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim
Ask yourself: should the police be involved...

It seems this is not only a gross violation of common sense, but also a bogus legal issue.

The only reason for sex offender status is that the girl in this situation is underaged. The boys would not be cited if they had a picture of a nude woman who was of legal age.

Why? Because the underaged girl, for the purposes of the law, is considered non compis mentis (not of sound mind) because of her age.

Well then, what about the boys? They too are underaged. Which means their activities in receiving said picture (given that they did not in any way force the girl to disrobe) were done as equally underage, equally non compis mentis, juveniles.

Otherwise they would be being tried as adults, over a crime which is a crime solely because of the underage status of the girl, when they themselves are just as underaged as the girl.

And if the law is "protecting" her because she is not yet of age to protect herself, then it likewise must be invoked to "protect" the boys from their mistakes in precisely this identical subject matter.

In short, unless there is an adult who is deemed responsible under the law who can be charged, no one can be charged - for the very reason the law "protecting" juveniles exists. And if you try to charge the boys as adults, you are forced to make the same presumption for the girl, in which case there is no charge to make because there are no juveniles left.

Criminalizing kids fooling around - especially making it a life-sentence - is insane. It cannot be morally nor legally justified, and serves to create tyranny and undermine the validity of true child abuse. And in doing so, it sets up the eventual destruction of genuinely protective child abuse laws.

40 posted on 02/17/2009 4:55:24 PM PST by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NCjim

How the he** can it be against the law to send nude photos of yourself, even if you are an under aged teenage girl? This just borders on the ridiculous and shows how far down we have fallen. Felony charges against these kids for doing something that they have probably done in private already, show their bodies to their boyfriends and girlfriends. Sounds like the problem of the parents and none of the business of the frickin’ school or any other government agency. All of these kids are under age, so where’s the crime? An adult receiving kiddy porn? Nope. An adult sending nude photos of his/her self? Nope. No crime, just BS government interference in parents business.


41 posted on 02/17/2009 4:56:11 PM PST by calex59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson