Comments on Hot Not-Even-Barely-Legal Action
This really upsets me. I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't receive any magical decision-making powers on my 18th birthday that made me exponentially more able to discern right from wrong. If they can legally have sex with each other, and are considered empowered to make that decision for themselves, then it follows that they should be capable of deciding to take consensual, personal-use photos of that legal act. She wasn't posting these pics for the world to see - she emailed them to her boyfriend. It is not reasonable to EXPECT that someone will hack into your email and steal your pictures. It's a possibility, sure, but as the author points out, it's also a possibility that someone could steal physical copies of the pictures - it doesn't mean taking them should be illegal. That a prosecutor actually took this case is abhorrent, and that the judge thinks he is doing this girl a favor by upholding the invasion of her privacy is a testament to why we need to pay closer attention to elected (and appointed) judges. They have so much power over people's lives, and so little attention is given to how they wield it.
These kids were 16 and 17. When I think back to the crap I did at that age I wonder how anyone can be upset that kids that age have sex, take pictures and do all the other crazy shit kids do.
This is totally bizarre. The whole argument (and a good one, IMHO) for banning child pornography is that it exploits children. So here we have a teenager apparently being convicted of...what? Exploiting herself? When one person is both the victim and the perpetrator of the same crime, things have gotten truly weird.
I think it could only be exploitation if she and he were selling, or intending to sell the photos to third parties for personal gain. Prosecuting the kids is absolutely ridiculous. Yes they did something stupid, but it sounds like their parents are eating tons of crow right now. If they are responsible, they are classless fuckheads. I hope the decision gets overturned somehow.
This really touches on the idea of "consensual crimes" in a democracy, doesn't it? If two parties consent to exchanging something between themselves, and no one is unduly injured, what's the fucking problem? Why are these things a crime?
I'm with Aislinn.. this is full of tortured logic, and condescension.
It leads me to think: what is the most effective meme-structure that we can use to dismantle this pernicious "Puritanism"? Gah!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).