Of course. Just because something is impermissible doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
2 Likes
Don’t forget to wish him good luck!
yup, that is exactly how I remember it. The idea that a parent should / ought to know the minute details of what their 15 yr olds are up to in their social life, is rather disturbing.
The parent’s role is to be available as an advisor and to recognise when child is in real trouble, and not to live said child’s life and decide right and wrong for them.
Kid will need to stand on her own feet at some point.
7 Likes
In the U.S., children are legally considered chattel until 18. Parents effectively own their children. And yes, there are many who consider that to be a fundamental right.
1 Like
Learning how to hide things from snoops is an important skill.
2 Likes
I agree with you, and this is why I tell people that I’m not raising a child, I’m raising an adult. My job is to make sure my kid is as prepared to live in wider society on his own as I possibly can. Micromanaging his decisions isn’t going to get him there. We’re working on very basic trust issues, such as making choices that lead to positive outcomes, now (he’s 6) so we’ll all be in a better position to deal with the kinds of decisions teenagers face when the time comes.
4 Likes
Or OR the recent uptick in this kind of things is that more 12 year olds
carry around full movie production/distribution studios in their pockets.
Are you really asking that prosecutors and lawmen ignore enforcement more? Do
you want them to be more subjective?
Or would you just like the law changed.
I guarantee no one clutching pearls on this thread has ever called their
legislator and said they want this law fixed.
Yes, of course smartphones are why it is so common. Yet if the same girl
had taken nude selfies 30 years ago with a Polaroid and someone found them
in a boy’s backpack, I highly doubt she’d have faced charges.
Yes, the law should be changed. Lots should. That’s no excuse for the
people who have the ability to minimize the damage bad laws cause to choose
to maximize it instead.
No, I don’t think reducing prosecutors’ discretion to not charge people
would necessarily be a good thing in general. No one is logically
omniscient. We can’t foresee all the consequences of our actions, and
lawmakers don’t always realize how the existing laws will play out in the
real world.
2 Likes
Drive around any suburb around bus time. You’ll see kids of all ages getting out the car or being picked up. Either they are total pansies and can’t walk a 1/4 mile or mom and dad are so scared that their kid is going to be kidnapped. Parents regard children as total idiots unable to do anything on their own.
2 Likes
A real conversation I had with my 14yo daughter.
Me: It’s not that cold. You can walk to the bus.
Her: Everyone else gets driven, why can’t you just drive me!
Me: Because it’s stupid. If you think this is really cold, you better go to college somewhere warm. Otherwise how would you get to class?
Her: I’ll drive to class.
Me: Drive? What car? Freshmen generally CAN’T have cars – and if they did, you’d end up parking further than it his to the bus stop here!
So … she walks. And she hasn’t been kidnapped yet either. Not even once!
6 Likes
These laws predate digital cameras. There was once a time when you really could not take a selfie, because it would take time and money to find out if you really did pose the way you wanted to pose when you held the camera. So pretty much every picture involved one person in front of the camera and one person behind it.
This was especially true for erotic pictures. If you wanted to make a picture of yourself evoking an erotic response in another person, you really did need a photographer who would tell you when you successfully did so, BEFORE pressing the shutter button.
So, if police came across a picture of a child in an erotic pose, it was a clear indication that someone was behind the camera, and that that person needed to go to jail.
So we have laws that reflect that understanding, even though it died out around 2005.
Nevertheless, it’s incumbent on prosecutors to remember that the purpose of the child pornography laws is to protect children, and to exercise judgement when the child in front of the camera is also the person holding the camera. Instead of working to protect children, we have cases of prosecutors setting out to ruin children’s lives. And those prosecutors need to be called out, opposed, mocked, ridiculed, driven from office, tarred, feathered, and treated harshly.
6 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
