We live in a zero-tolerance world where people fear that the one exception and judgement call they make will come back to bite them. Instead, we get stories like this and even MORE lawsuits than they'd get if they just took a moment and went case-by-case, but by doing it this way, they have the protection of "we were following the rules".

There will always be people who will claim that this kind of thing IS child porn and pedophilia, and alas, they're usualy the ones with access to letterhead and lawyers.

It occurs to me that if these kids think sending nude pictures of each other is ordinary, then just imagine what they'll do for honeymoon keepsakes ten years from now.

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.

I have a feature in the July issue of Reason magazine on this very subject

They interviewed the girl and the mother in the PA Tunkhannock case over the weekend. They showed the "sex" picture of the girls. They were wearing plain white training bras and you would see a lot more skin on the typical beach than they were showing.

This is a case of extreme overreach by a zealous prosecutor than actual sexting. What got me in the interview -- the prosecutor was still trying to defend his actions.

As I said before, the proper response in the PA case os for the attorney for the girl(s) to call the DA to his office, sit him down, push a pad, a pen, a pistol, and a bullet across the table and say "You know what to do."

Then make all this zero-tolerance bullshit illegal, and fire anyone in a position of authority that cannot be trusted to use their judgment properly.

It's about time we had consequences for stupidity in this country, instead of making workarounds like "zero-tolerance" to aid and abet the stupids.

Once we get the stupids out of the teaching professions, we can put them to work picking lettuce, and send the illegals back to Mexico, thus solving two problems.

Peter Cumming ... presented a paper on children's sexuality ...

Pure comedy gold.

Anybuddy remember the Donahue TV show? It used to be famous. I can't remember what the topic was, but at one point they were talking about some scandal-of-the-moment, maybe a congressman caught hunching in secretary or something, or some sort of story where nude photos were reaching out from the past to hurt people. There was this one little old woman in the audience who was obviously not much interested in scandals or the sillier parts of sexuality anyway... You could tell she was looking around at the other women in the studio and trying to figure out why all the hens were so titillated. And she said, "Well, why don't we all go down to the Post Office on our 18th birthday and have our picture taken naked, and that will be the end of it?" It made a lot of sense.

And then there's this.

I do not think that these kids ought to be punished as pornographers--that's ridiculous to begin with, Add on to that the gender bias that has a girl writing a paper and a boy registering as a sex offender for the same offense and I do not see how anyone can possibly justify such nonsense.

However, it is also nonsense to say that sexting is nothing more than a digital form of spin the bottle. Spin the bottle never produced anything permanent (at least not in my day!). Sexting does. How many of you would like to be reminded of your childhood stupidities every time you apply for a job or go on a date?

Amy,
You and I both know the poor girls were talked into it by the big bad boy in these cases. How dare we hold women/girls responsible. They are all innocnet and light and would NEVER be caught dead doing something as unlady like as posting nude or semi nude photos of themselves to boys.

Yeah rrrriiiiiggghhhhhtttttttt!!!!

I hope the prosecutor in the PA Tunkhannock case gets nifonged. We are allowing these @$$clowns to ruin these boys lives over something that in the past would have only been worthy of suspension or a bit of parental wall to wall "counseling".

Youre right however that the girls in almost everyone one of the recent cases were let off scott free while the boys must now register as sex offenders or sexual predators.

The girls are just as guilty because THEY sent the pictures to the boys which means they took them,reviewed them,edited and sent them off. Under the letter of the law wouldnt that be the illegal creation of child porn if the girls were under the age of consent in whatever state they lived in?

Dont see a whole lot of media coverage on that do ya.

The Other Mike D

This gets more retarded every time I hear about it. This is a parenting issue, not a legal issue. Kids are not known for their forward-thinking. It also waters down the meaning of "sex offender" so much that nobody is going to take it seriously much longer.

Except for employers. Nobody wants to hire a "convicted sex offender".

Spin the bottle never produced anything permanent (at least not in my day!).

I object to that statement, as the result of a game of spin the bottle some 46 years ago.

Nevertheless, this will continue to become more ridiculous until someone famous has a son or daughter caught up in it. I look forward to that debate.

No, they'll just make it go away, or they'll find a way to profit from it.

Either way, there's two sets of rules. One for us, and one for the Beautiful People.

"...a "bored" Florida boy was charged for sending a photo of his genitalia to a female classmate"

Crimony! All the things you could take a photo of when bored and this was the choice? Better you snap yourself getting drunk or stoned--those charges won't get you registered as a sex offender.

Just read a very funny commentary by Bruce Cameron about something very similar. It talks about the Zero-Intelligence policy.

http://www.creators.com/lifestylefeatures/bruce-cameron.html