Your 14-Year-Old Daughter Is Probably A Child Pornographer
The teen years are the years of acting like you removed your brain and left it under your bed. Not for all teens (I know, not for your teen), but for a lot of them.
They do some seriously dumb things, and then they do some things that are just kinda bad judgment. For example, when a girl sends naked pictures of her titties to that boyfriend she thinks she will be with FOREVER (translation: until he breaks up with her on Tuesday and makes out with Ashley behind the bleachers).
It turns out that in Massachusetts, your daughter is a sex offender if she does such a thing. In fact, because there is apparently no actual crime in Massachusetts, the Assistant District Attorney there may have state troopers focus their efforts on that terrible criminal, your daughter. Clarence Fanto writes in The Berkshire Eagle:
The perils of "sexting" -- sending sexually explicit messages and photographs by cellphone -- include potential criminal prosecution, according to Berkshire Second Assistant District Attorney Robert W. Kinzer III.As the head of the DA's computer crime unit, which includes several state troopers, Kinzer cited "kids, young adults, even adults who think it is a good idea to take nude or semi-nude photos of themselves on their cellphones and send them to other people via text message."
..."When you send that text message, you have disseminated child pornography" and when it is shared and shown to others, they are in possession of child pornography, [Kinzer] pointed out.
"We do not have any exceptions in our law for kids who are really in love, for girls who wanted to do it and for guys who promised they wouldn't share it, or for two kids who are dating," Kinzer said. "A nude photo of [a minor's] exposed genitalia is child pornography."
..."I'm done telling what the law is," Kinzer said. "When they start sharing photos like this, we are going to start charging people with the manufacturing, dissemination and possession of child pornography, and they're going to go to court.
"They're going to face [prosecution], probably not jail time unless they've got bad records. But that's OK. They'll just be put on probation and they'll get to register as a sex offender, and that's a great box to check off on any job application," he continued. "You're going to lose jobs and relationships, and you'll spend the rest of your life as a registered sex offender."
Pledging to ruin young lives on the taxpayer dime! You go, Kinzer!
via @IAMMGraham
What a douche.
Lindsayloowhoo at February 19, 2013 12:01 AM
One of you step up and say this guy can change the law.
You want that? You want a DA to prosecute or not prosecute on a whim?
It's not just the 14-year-old with the hots that isn't thinking here.
If you don't want to be prosecuted for something, CHANGE THE DAMNED LAW FIRST.
Radwaste at February 19, 2013 2:16 AM
What happened to the days when you had to be an adult to be charged with crimes like this?
Probably when we lost our adult supervision.
And I forget, is stating that Robert Kinzer is a dickless moron libel or slander?
DrCos at February 19, 2013 3:28 AM
Pardon me, Robert Kinzler III.
Oh, and in the article, he is quoted further...
...[young people] have the biggest potential to hurt themselves. We need to make sure they understand what is out there and what can happen. Let’s educate ourselves so we can communicate meaningfully with them and let’s set clear, firm boundaries that we adhere to."
So arresting them, and making them registered sex offenders for the rest of their lives is how we set 'boundaries' now?
DrCos at February 19, 2013 3:42 AM
At least once a day I am glad I didn't have kids.
Today, this moment came when I read this article, at 7:00 a.m. central standard time.
Pirate Jo at February 19, 2013 5:00 AM
How about "it's none of his damn business" what pics kids send around? What part of "privacy" does he not understand? Teenagers do dumb things, the best the adults can do is to try to ignore them (and limit the damage) until their brains reactivate.
However, this also goes to show how utterly stupid the definition of "child pornography" is. We are always told that the goal is to protect children from sexual exploitation by pornographers. For this reason, the law prosecutes people who have, morally and ethically speaking, done nothing wrong (or, at most, wronged themselves).
What is this, the modern version of collateral damage? Instead of "We had to destroy the village in order to save it", we now have "We had to destroy this child's life in order to save her"?
Idiots.
a_random_guy at February 19, 2013 5:31 AM
I wish I could make it illegal for teenage girls to apply eyeliner, either rimming only the bottom of the eye or doing the whole raccoon thing..
No eyeliner for teenage girls! Who's with me? Also none of that fucking fruity sprays they douse themselves in!
Ppen at February 19, 2013 5:36 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/02/19/your_14-year-ol.html#comment-3612113">comment from PpenI know, PPen. There are things you just need to be told when you're 14. One of them is not to send titty pix -- by your mom, not the government -- and another is that it is not sexy to use eyeliner to make yourself look like a sullen, two-legged raccoon.
Amy Alkon at February 19, 2013 6:00 AM
You want that? You want a DA to prosecute or not prosecute on a whim?
I think you just described the job profile of the typical prosecutor. Well, they don't make their decisions on a whim, exactly, more like on what will look best when they make their run for governor in a few years.
Astra at February 19, 2013 6:10 AM
"You want a DA to prosecute or not prosecute on a whim?"
Are you kidding? That's what they do. Prosecutorial discretion is what's hip and cool these days. That rule of law stuff is dead-white-men thinking.
Cousin Dave at February 19, 2013 6:52 AM
You want that? You want a DA to prosecute or not prosecute on a whim?
They already do that. See Instapundit's paper. Abstract (emphasis mine):
Though extensive due process protections apply to the investigation of crimes, and to criminal trials, perhaps the most important part of the criminal process -- the decision whether to charge a defendant, and with what -- is almost entirely discretionary. Given the plethora of criminal laws and regulations in today's society, this due process gap allows prosecutors to charge almost anyone they take a deep interest in. This Essay discusses the problem in the context of recent prosecutorial controversies involving the cases of Aaron Swartz and David Gregory, and offers some suggested remedies, along with a call for further discussion.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 19, 2013 7:01 AM
I am SO sick of this shit. When #2 was 15, we caught her sexting with some guy. I took her damn cell phone away from her for 2 months. I also texted the guy and told him who he was sexting with. When I gave her back her phone, it was totaly restricted to only family and a couple of friends' numbers. For well over a YEAR. I told her I'd un-restrict her phone when she could prove to me she could behave with it. I just took it off restriction last month and we have had no problems, so far (knock wood). These things are for the PARENTS to take care of, not a court.
Flynne at February 19, 2013 7:10 AM
> Also none of that fucking fruity sprays
> they douse themselves in!
Does that still go on? I thought that was a 1973 thing, like smoking dope through cherry papers, Boone's Farm and Frankenstein.
Skyrocketing gas prices, presidents in disgrace... Some things never change.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 19, 2013 7:11 AM
Excellent link, Cridmo, spanks! I LOVES me some Edgar Winter!
o.O
Flynne at February 19, 2013 7:18 AM
It may be crazy, but I hope this idiot DA does prosecute these cases, becasue making 14yr old girls registered sex offenders will be shock to the system, that may get society to stop and re-examine these laws and lifetime punnishments. Often based more on hysterical fear than hard evidence. Society, in general, is fine jailing the 14 yr old boy who recieved the photo, because it views all men/boys as perverts. but young girls it sees as innocent.So jailing some may wake society up to the illogic of it's laws and views.
Joe j at February 19, 2013 7:24 AM
I agree with Joe j.
dee nile at February 19, 2013 7:47 AM
The Aztecs preferred human sacrifice in local, abject ceremony.
In modernity, we enjoy poisoning the lives of distant children in similarly ritual offerings, now called "shock to the system."
Martians, watching for millenia through powerful telescopes, will recognize the impulse.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 19, 2013 7:53 AM
I too am with Joe j. It wasnt until women were getting stuck with lifetime alimony that people en masse began to question the illogic of it
lujlp at February 19, 2013 8:37 AM
Hey, this is cool. When y'all are done bustin' this DA and dropping the law enforcement for minors, I can get my girl Suzi to send her pics all over for me. All I have to do is show people the phone is hers. She has a lot of hot friends in middle school, too, and they want to show off, yes they do. Ever see that "Girls Gone Wild" video? That's the same crowd in a coupla years. Nobody even had to pay them!
Boy, these cameras really bring out the details nowadays, don't they?
-------------------------------
Yeah, I'm a sockpuppet. I'm just really tired of people who don't notice how things work, in that the possession of a phone is not tied to one person. Just as with guns.
Child Pornographer at February 19, 2013 9:37 AM
Would it be untoward to say that this DA Kinzer is a complete cocklozenge?
Dangerboy at February 19, 2013 10:03 AM
Let me get this straight - if a teenage girl starts popping out a litter of fatherless children, the state will reward her with a lifetime of welfare, subsidized housing, and food stamps. If a teenage girl texts her tits to her horny boyfriend, the state will destroy her with a lifetime on the sex offenders registry.
Martin at February 19, 2013 10:09 AM
> Hey, this is cool.
Textual sarcasm can quickly become so bitter and isolated that the reader has no idea what point was intended.
> Yeah, I'm a sockpuppet
And the reason you're afraid of expressing these ideas under your usual name is that...?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at February 19, 2013 10:12 AM
Wow, Martin, hit that nail right on the head! Love the way you simplified the situation so even DA Kinzer can understand what he is doing.
Kima at February 19, 2013 10:29 AM
Your teenager does not need a mobile phone. I survived to adulthood without one. If you do decide to get your child a phone, just don't let them have one with a camera. Case closed for both boys and girls. No camera in your phone, no problem. This shouldn't even take the intervention of the state! How can parents not see that teenagers will take pictures of their junk and text it to friends? Why would any parent even allow the possibility?
Tyler at February 19, 2013 10:44 AM
Prove intent. Sent to a friend's phone/EMail, probably not meant to go further: posted to Facebook/Twitter probably meant for distribution.
Technically, yes it is "kiddyporn," but if not so intended by the originator go after the person[s] who altered the intent by distributing the photo or text.
Stupidity is not much of a defense. Nor is age, though laws generally treat the pre-adult differently even for pre-meditated murder.
John A at February 19, 2013 10:50 AM
Yep Martin, that sums it up, except it will also destroy the bf's life too. Even if he never even asked for the photos, he is guilty of recieving and possessing of child porn. At least she was guilty of an action.
I will say laws are tough to write and allow commo sense. You want it so no one gets forced to do things, but then have to water down force so it means almost anything.
Joe j at February 19, 2013 10:52 AM
I think the point the "sock puppet" is trying - and failing - to make is that *not* prosecuting sexting would allow real child pornographers to claim that their pics and videos were taken by the kids themselves.
Which is pretty stupid. It may make it difficult to prosecute simple possession of the pictures, but there are lots of reasons why that shouldn't be a crime anyway. Just to name one: it's very easy to remotely plant pictures on someone's computer. It doesn't even take malware, just send a link or mail an attachment. If you have physical access to their computer, even without login credentials, you can plant whole directories full of stuff.
The people you want to nail are the producers. But someone who is distributing new pictures of multiple different kids is not going to be able to explain it away with sexting.
a_random_guy at February 19, 2013 11:44 AM
You want it so no one gets forced to do things,
Maybe you want that. Some folks get off on the idea of forcing others to do things.
dee nile at February 19, 2013 11:47 AM
Tyler said, "If you do decide to get your child a phone, just don't let them have one with a camera. Case closed for both boys and girls. No camera in your phone, no problem."
A teenager can just as easily send a picture through a computer to the phone of another. It's still a possible problem.
Fayd at February 19, 2013 11:49 AM
Tyler said, "If you do decide to get your child a phone, just don't let them have one with a camera. Case closed for both boys and girls. No camera in your phone, no problem."
A teenager can just as easily send a picture through a computer to the phone of another. It's still a possible problem.
Posted by: Fayd at February 19, 2013 11:49
____________________________
Or use a friend's phone. Didn't you think of that, Tyler?
lenona at February 19, 2013 12:01 PM
Exempt teens who do it, and kiddie porners will just pay the teens to send it out. There is no good solution here. But a few teens go to court, it might stop the rest of them.
Besides, I am not okay with selective application of the law. As the law is written, he is correct in his duty. Change the law, don't just tell people they can ignore it at will.
Momof4 at February 19, 2013 1:09 PM
"But someone who is distributing new pictures of multiple different kids is not going to be able to explain it away with sexting."
Yes, they can - you've never heard of torrents. And you've just smiled on the idea that just a couple of child porn photos is OK.
I say this, even as I can tell the difference between a picture and a person, and that a picture is not always of abuse.
Radwaste at February 19, 2013 1:22 PM
Besides, I am not okay with selective application of the law. As the law is written, he is correct in his duty.
And supposing his boss' daughter got busted doing it, you really think he'll file charges in that case?
This country is so fucked up when it comes to sex that prosecutors have charged people for child porn when the "child" in question was 20 something fucking years old
lujlp at February 19, 2013 1:24 PM
Question - how do we go after those who take pictures of girls in the locker room, or over the bathroom stall door and then distribute those photos?
(And yes, I do agree its silly and wasteful to go after a teen girl sending a photo of her boobs to her boyfriend.)
UW Girl at February 19, 2013 3:28 PM
So when they touch themselves are we going to charge them with child molestation and sexual abuse of a minor too?
Robert at February 19, 2013 3:44 PM
Look what harm are we really worried about here?
OK, so some dumbass teenager sends out a boob shot or something. Do we really think her life will be forever ruined?
No, likely ten years down the line she'd look back with some aplomb about her actions, be a bit bemused by her own behavior, but otherwise be completely unaffected.
Its not like any one photo becomes some eternal perv fixation that will result in a daytime t.v. movie on lifetime.
Robert at February 19, 2013 3:52 PM
Fine. Take away all mobile devices with cameras. No camera in the laptop, no webcam for the desktop, no camera in the tablet. The point here is to exercise some sort of parental discretion because TEENAGERS ARE STUPID. They don't have the ability to make good decisions. No, taking away all the mobile devices with cameras isn't going to be a perfect solution, but it will make your daughter work a little harder to make a pornographer of herself. This buys you time. Not time to convince her not to do it, but for her to rethink her decision. Camera phones are too quick. Snap, send, felony. If she has to work for it a bit, she might reconsider.
Yes, I am aware of the silliness of expecting better judgment from your teenage daughter than your district attorney. The irony is not lost on me.
Tyler at February 19, 2013 4:52 PM
Slander is oral, libel is written. But I don't think you got the description quite right. I think a better description is:
Robert Kinzer is a complete idiot that had coitus with his mother and no knowledge of his paternal lineage. I bet if you look into his past he was responsible for the prosecution of those dangerous housewives that bought more than two packages of sudafed in a week.
Jim P. at February 19, 2013 7:03 PM
Kinzer's an asshole. I hope a group of parents drags him out into the street and beats him within an inch of his life.
mpetrie98 at February 19, 2013 7:04 PM
"And supposing his boss' daughter got busted doing it, you really think he'll file charges in that case?"
And so the fallacies continue. This is not about the DA, not really. It's about the law.
Change the law. While you're doing it, tell me that Joe Suitwearer cannot be jailed for having two dozen nude pictures of his 13-year-old niece on his phone because she borrowed it for three minutes.
I really think few of you know how anything works in real life.
EVEN IF THE DA IS A DICK, THE LAW REMAINS AS HE SAID.
Try to concentrate.
Radwaste at February 20, 2013 2:38 AM
Radwaste does have a point: If you don't mind the collateral damage, the one sure way to get a bad law changed is to rigorously enforce it.
Schools have the right to search students' belongs without probably cause. Search every telephone of every kid in every school. Prosecute every single sexting case - throw the kids in jail, no bail, no exceptions. The law will be changed within days.
@Radwaste: The problem is that the prosecutor isn't doing that that. He isn't trying to get a bad law changed by showing how ridiculous it is. He prosecutes a few individual kids, ruining their lives, but not enough to cause enough outrage. We get the collateral damage and still keep the bad law.
a_random_guy at February 20, 2013 3:45 AM
Suppose for a minute that a DA TRIED to change the law.
How?
I suggest that you want the DA to PROSECUTE, not legislate, because that is NOT HIS JOB.
Tell me it is, and you tell me you're HAPPY to have a DA acting as has already been derided.
Radwaste at February 20, 2013 6:15 AM
"Prove intent."
That ship has long since sailed. These days, you can be convicted of violating a law that you didn't known existed even after performing due diligence. In fact, you can be convicted for violating a law when you were doing your damndest to comply with the law.
Cousin Dave at February 20, 2013 6:22 AM
"I suggest that you want the DA to PROSECUTE, not legislate, because that is NOT HIS JOB."
But the theory among prosecutors these days, as Glenn Reynolds and Eugene Volokh have been documenting, is that the legislature gives the prosecutor a grant of authority, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide how and when to use it. So, as the prosecutors themselves see it, legislating is in fact their job. And it's a neat little trick since, in the eyes of the judiciary, "prosecutorial discretion" circumvents a lot of Constitutional constraints. Raddy, are you really prepared to argue that it's within the government's authority under the Constitution to prosecute people for taking photos of themselves?
Cousin Dave at February 20, 2013 6:27 AM
Schools have the right to search students' belongs without probably cause. Search every telephone of every kid in every school.
I don't think you're correct in this statement. I was in high school less than ten years ago, and the school had no right to search a students belongings. They had the right to search school property, so if you left your backpack or phone (without a screen lock on it) in the locker, they could search it. They couldn't compel you to unlock your phone, and if you kept your backpack on your person, they couldn't search it without your permission.
Prosecute every single sexting case - throw the kids in jail, no bail, no exceptions. The law will be changed within days.
This bit I agree with. If you're going to claim that "We do not have any exceptions in our law for kids who are really in love, for girls who wanted to do it and for guys who promised they wouldn't share it, or for two kids who are dating," then there should no exceptions whatsoever. Getting phone records and tracing who has received and sent the offending photo shouldn't be difficult, and every single case should be prosecuted.
Jazzhands at February 20, 2013 7:22 AM
Leave a comment