I'm sitting here watching the news and all of a sudden the people start talking about children sexting each other... apparently it has some people freaking out. Its a big enough issue that some states are trying to make laws about it. Sexting is defined by them as not only being words... but sending images of themselves. Thus they call it distribution of child pornography and possession of child pornography.
They've talked about jail time, classes (akin to driving school kinda classes...but w/ sexting >_> , fining the parents, whether or not to give the kid a criminal record.... does anyone have any further insight into the situation? does anyone have anything that they would like to say that either agrees or disagrees w/ the other people's suggestions? do you have any suggestions? ...or do you care?
I kinda agree with that but what they are calling 9it is new form of child porn. When they put it that way it sounds serious, but when they call it sexting, then it sounds childish and weak.
Of course it's child porn. Any porn depicting a child is child porn. But why should they give a ****? They aren't being ***** or molested, and they certainly aren't harming anyone. The greatest travesty of justice is the prosecution of victimless crimes.
I could see your line of thinking and I agree that it is a victimless crime, till the sender get's embarrased. What if the sender ment for it to be private and it goes public and now everyone saw it? My guess is that's what the gov't is afraid of.
If the people want porn, give them porn. If the people want to sext each other, then let them. There should be NO reason why any of this should be illegal. It is as much a "hobby" as masturbating. I don't even...where's the counter-argument in this? I see "It's related to child porn!", "It's gross! They are just children!", and was expecting "God will punish them for their sinful crime!", but nothing that really holds water.
OH YEA? MY FAUCET DOES! *drip* oh ****. there isn't much of a reason why it is banned but I would like to start the question why did it start? who thought of putting their **** on display first?
I could see your line of thinking and I agree that it is a victimless crime, till the sender get's embarrased. What if the sender ment for it to be private and it goes public and now everyone saw it? My guess is that's what the gov't is afraid of.
This isn't a religious thread. Stop posting things that have little relevance to the topic. I believe that by sexting someone a picture of yourself nude, you are thereby liable for any shame and embarrassment you receive. It's your own bloody fault that you sent your trailer trash boyfriend a picture of you ****. When the government gets involved in stuff like this, they are further limiting our freedoms.
a lot of the time rules aren't put into place or really enforced until something bad happens... so they're there moreso to prevent the earlier mishap... I saw no particular source, but the I think HLN news show said that a girl sent her boyfriend an image... they broke up sometime later on... he is mad at her... he distributes image(s)... her reputation is ruined... she kills herself. I have no knowledge of this being true... It takes just a few people committing suicide over something for the ones that make the laws to base their positions off of... whether justified or not. They supposedly don't want this style problem happening again. Does this change anything?
of course I wrote all this before reading >_> ... the whole thing about government imposed morality and its fallaciousness... but whatever
That's his and her problem, not ours. Futile, useless, and victimless crimes do not need to be stopped. They're stupid, let them be stupid. Children don't learn from being smart.
if people are getting hurt, and the parents aren't doing anything to stop it... for whatever reason... then I think the issue still needs to be addressed and fixed. If this is the only way then I am perfectly fine w/ making it a punishable offense. If they can do something about it... community service (and the like) and not give them a criminal record then I think its ok. Granted... their numbers aren't as large as some people make them out to be, but we have parents who give their crying children large amounts of alcohol to make them go to sleep at night... issues need fixing and if the gov't is the only entity that's willing and/or capable of doing it (even if its not their norm... or what they should actually be engrossed in) then they should do it.
I would just like to say, holy ****. Every time I enter WEPR, it's an all-on-one against me. Every single ****ing time, my head is placed on the chopping block.
Now, there are way too many posts now for me to respond to. Therefore, I will just go and give my stand as to why pornography should be forbidden to minors. Now, so that you people don't complain about bias, the website I will be using is purely psychological, the American Psychological Association. Children, when exposed to pornography, have a higher tendency to think of sex as a basic funtion, and believe women to just be sex objects.
...studies are beginning to show relationships between Web porn use among young people and sexual attitudes. For example, those who frequent porn sites more often are more likely to view sex as a purely physical function and to view women as sex objects. They're also more likely to hold such views if they perceive the material as more realistic, research finds.
In one study surveying 471 Dutch teens ages 13 to 18, the researchers found that the more often young people sought out online porn, the more likely they were to have a "recreational" attitude toward sex--specifically, to view sex as a purely physical function like eating or drinking.
In the study, reported in the December 2006 Journal of Communication (Vol. 56, No. 4, pages 639-660), the team also found a relationship between porn use and the feeling that it wasn't necessary to have affection for people to have sex with them.
In a related study in the March issue of Sex Roles (Vol. 56, No. 5/6, pages 381-395), the Dutch team found a link between the type and explicitness of sexual media the teens saw and their tendency to view women as sexual "lay things." The more explicit the material viewed, the more likely young people were to see women in these ways--and Internet movie porn was the only media type to show a statistically significant relationship, they found.
Now, I hope that at least someone will actually go with my viewpoint. I'm getting tired of arguing with 10 people at once.
victimless? if true... someone committed suicide. That is "her" problem... but it could've been prevented... I understand if you think that is Darwinian Social survival of the fittest... but I think if it could've been stopped in some way then it should've been. again... who knows if its true. The news station actually referenced several... but only used one as a story.
