"The case began with the girlfriend, not the defendant, sending photos of herself to the boy. Yet, she has not be charged"

She's female, therefore she's the victim. Why would they punish the victim?

I started to comment to the other thread, but I wasn't sure I had the facts clear. But yeah, it seems to work like this:

Boy sends nude pic to girl, boy is guilty of producing child pornography.

Girl sends nude pic to boy, boy is guilty of possessing child pornography.

Female Privilege: Being able to commit the exact same acts a male and not be charged with a crime while he is.

That minor fact drives me nuts.

Yes, the girl's parents were probably beyond upset. I suspect they know people and that's why the boy got pulled in with all kinds of force.

What happened to the world of, her parents calling his parents, and *both* of the children being grounded and the offending toys (phones) removed for an extended period of time? Some of my best teen-aged lessons were learned sitting in my room at home with only my thoughts for company.

You guys are sufficiently outraged about the gender issues - I'll let you handle that part.

But - forcing an erection? Really? That's legal?

flbeachmom has a good point. I suspect the girls parents do not approve of the boy and were using this as a way to "get rid of him."

Now, before the police state checks your hard drive, everyone go erase the baby-bath photos you took! I know, you thought you were recording baby's first bath or the way your toddler put bubbles on his chin and said "beard!" but you were really creating child porn. Shame on you!

It's sad that the cops can't just scare the kid out of his mind (threaten charging him with child porn, explain exactly why what he did was a terrible idea, as well as the consequences), then say that because it's a first offense, the DA has decided to drop charges, and let him go. That's the obvious solution to most of these cases, where kids are being stupid kids with technology, and not fully understanding the implications of their use of that technology.

This is a hard case...

"But - forcing an erection? Really? That's legal?"

That did kind of get lost in the uproar... this isn't the first time recently that cops have gotten, or claimed to have gotten, a warrant that gives them the power to impose an invasive medical procedure on a suspect. Remember the story a few months ago about the guy who was forced to undergo a colonoscopy? Now we have a case of a warrant claiming the power to introduce arbitrary drugs into the suspect's body. If they can do this, then they can also force administration of psychotics or hallucinogens to compel confessions.

There is a crucial modifier that is missing from this article. Nowhere does this author specify that the pictures that she sent to him were nudes. It just says she sent him pics first. Never said they were nudes photos.

The law is an ass.

What happened to the world of, her parents calling his parents, and *both* of the children being grounded and the offending toys (phones) removed for an extended period of time?

You recall the Katelyn Hunt case or the Robert Marucci case in Florida? Sometimes the parents in these cases are people you just cannot deal with over the phone.

--

Nobody seems to have noticed this or given any explanation as to why -- not that either of them should be charged, basically for being a teenager and doing what teenagers do.

Actually, for being gross and decadent in ways that were unusual even in the hardly Victorian world of 1978.

I sent some my emails to some addresses provided by Lisa Simeone, however, I believe the decision to charge the boy and not the girl is perhaps because apparently the boy was told repeatedly (by whom it's not clear) to stop sending nudes.

That's the only thing I will even partially defend about this, and it's just a clarification, not a defense.

"It's sad that the cops can't just scare the kid out of his mind"

I find it sadder we as society can't educate the cops and DA into not being total fucktards just because they can. And worse, we can't even scare them into not being total fucktards.

As Patrick said, it's not clear exactly what kind of photos the girl sent to the boy and whether they would qualify as pornographic. If they were also nude pics then yes, the double standard definitely gets me mad. It was the girl's parents who turned the boy in.

Hope the girl's parents took her phone away from her to reinforce the concept of her responsibility in this mess.

She did not have to open the pictures and the boy should have stopped as soon as he was asked.

No winners in this one and the police involvement is troubling.

Part of the reason she's seen as the victim is perhaps because she's 2 years younger.

But they're both legally underage, so I'm not sure that the two year difference should be a factor.

Thank god for him the boy was underage. He'd be on the lifetime sexual offenders list without anyone making a peep if he'd been one year older.

"Nobody seems to have noticed this or given any explanation as to why -- not that either of them should be charged, basically for being a teenager and doing what teenagers do."

I guess I have higher standards for what teenagers should do. The authorities abusing this kid are in the wrong but acting as if sending nude photos of yourself is ok behavior and to be expected? Sorry but no. Not every teenager does this and the great majority know it is a supremely stupid thing to do and control themselves.

I read somewhere else that the girl was sending nude pics to the boyfriend, the boyfriend sent a video of himself masturbating, the girl sent one back. Girl's mother found out, went to police and pressed charges. Then all the rest of what's being reported after police get involved. Perhaps boy's parents should have an indignant hissy fit and go press charges against the girl as well, or perhaps they already tried that and it was refused. In any case, this doesn't need to go to trial or anything else. This was teenagers being stupid, not some predatory crime. The cops are being abusive and violating the supposed criminal in the same manner he supposedly commited the crime, i.e. nude pictures of himself. Now they are creating their own and passing them around to use against him.

And even more importantly, who told boys that girls want to see that? I mean, even grown men think that women have the same reaction to seeing porn - they don't!! Flashers, Brett Favre, Anthony Weiner, and every other idiot who takes off their shirt and their shorts for the camera has missed the most basic thing in the world - we don't want to see it. We just wanted to know you liked ours. Idiots.

You expect law enforcement to let a perfectly good law go to waste?

Depending the how the sex offender registry is built in his state he can still end up on the list even if he is/was a minor when it occurred.

Lamont; "forcing an erection"

I noticed that right away. it goes with the other posts from the other day; forcing a catheter up the "drunk" bicyclist.

If any of these "medical" procedures were forced upon women it would be called "rape."

So, it should be the same when done to men.

Further, I'll bet some of the cops are getting their jollies off making this kid squirm: "come on kid, let's see you get an erection"

I know several cops and don't generally like to call any cop a pig. but, in these two cases that is exactly what they are - filthy pigs!

And, lastly, the parents of that girl are the real reason for this whole thing starting - I guess they thought their "little" girl wasn't a slut. And now they want the law to prove themselves right.

He'd be on the lifetime sexual offenders list without anyone making a peep if he'd been one year older.

He'll be on the list for life anyway