What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
620 Comments
- krets, on 10/29/2007, -26/+671Pics or it didn't happen.
- SheilaNoya, on 11/12/2007, -22/+650This might be as bit off topic, BUT...
The world sure has changed. We used to all have pictures of our kids playing naked in the back yard "kiddie pool", laying on a furry rug, or playing in the bathtub. We would proudly show them to everyone and we thought they were "cute". Now parents are afraid to let their kids take their clothes off because someone might assume something "sexual" is going on.
The human body is a natural and beautiful thing. It's a shame that the religious nuts have managed to convince everyone that nudity is shameful, disgusting, and must be illegal at all times. - Cerialthriller, on 10/28/2007, -2/+428so wait, in most states a 16 year and 17 year old can legally ***** each other, but they cant look at each other naked? WTF. I guess they'll have to start teaching the "Hole in the sheet" method in highschool sex ed. now.
- unfilterthought, on 10/27/2007, -3/+411Wonk wonk wonk~
Sex offender laws should REALLY be based on age proxy. -.-
10 year old + 40 year old = BAD
16 year old + 17 year old = NORMAL!!!!!
17 year old + 20 year old = Still not so bad! - whatthefu, on 10/28/2007, -14/+369***** sex offender laws. They are in serious need of repair. They are WAY too ***** broad.
- glasnostic, on 10/28/2007, -5/+277Fondling a minor is a crime worthy of sex offender status.
But what if you masturbate as a minor?
Same applies to photos.
Taking a pic of your self naked when you are a minor does not constitute a sex crime.
These idiot prosecutors need to realize what they are trying to do to these kids. They want to destroy the lives of two youngsters simply because they are engaging in perfectly normal adolescent activities.
IMHO the prosecutor should have his life ruined if he continues with the prosecution. - whistlerpro, on 10/27/2007, -3/+241Ridiculous.
- krets, on 10/29/2007, -22/+255Poor guy, all that trouble to create a new Digg nick and you don't even spell his name right.
- f0rr3st, on 10/28/2007, -7/+209Whoa, whoa there hippie. Why don't you take your "beautiful human body" and get out of here. In the US nudity is shunned. Why can't we look at something constructive like American torture porn Hostel 2?
- plizard, on 10/27/2007, -2/+167basically. when i was 19 and my gf was 16 her parents didn't care but the law would. now that im 25 and shes 22 her parents still don't care and the law is fine with it.
- ericatdigg, on 10/25/2007, -8/+147
SEX OFFENDER LAWS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING ANYMORE.....
IF YOU ARE CAUGHT PISSING IN A PARK YOU CAN BE LABELED A SEX OFFENDER. NOW YOU ARE ON THE SAME LIST AS SOMEONE WHO RAPES A CHILD.
WTF IS WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY. WHY DO OUR LAW MAKERS ALLOW STUPID ***** LIKE THIS TO GO ON. - thecatcantalk, on 10/27/2007, -0/+133By a 2-1 vote, the appeals court didn't buy it. Judge James Wolf, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion.
Wolf SPECULATED (emphasis added) that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own. And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: "The two computers (can) be hacked."
Judge Wolf SPECULATED? In a courtroom? In a written opinion? From the BENCH, in a case over which he was presiding? Where the ***** did he go to law school? Speculation is inadmissible, and does not constitute proof of intent. The pictures were NOT distributed, offered for sale, or stolen via an outsider hacking into either kid's computer over a network. The charges are garbage, this was a witch hunt. - neodem, on 10/28/2007, -0/+128"Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives"
um.. so labelling them as sex offenders won't do any damage to their careers and personal lives at all.. now would it? Also.. so when he turns 18 they have to break up since having sex then would be against the law. So, to get that straight, the law says it's cool for them to have sex now but not next year... ahh.. America - swicklund, on 10/27/2007, -6/+130The formula you seek is
if ( younger_age >= older_age / 2 + 7 ) {
NORMAL;
} else {
JAILBAIT;
} - joshhan, on 10/29/2007, -1/+120Perhaps ChrisHansen was already taken?
- bamirza, on 10/28/2007, -9/+105Quagmire: Hey sweetie how old are you?
Girl: 16
Q: You're 1st
Girl: Moooooommmm!!!!!
Q: I like where this is going! GIGGITY! - WNW3, on 10/29/2007, -2/+98Doesn't matter, still hilarious.
- fcukbush, on 10/26/2007, -5/+95They found out how the hotmail user is when they arrest them. At which point they should see how ***** rediculous it is to charge them with producing child porn.
"the law is the law" is no defence for when the law is an ass. - glasnostic, on 10/25/2007, -1/+89If it goes to trial, I certainly hope the jury knows about jury nullification
- r55741, on 10/28/2007, -2/+89the solution is undercover 12 yo police officers
- NSMike, on 10/27/2007, -2/+88Actually, there was a case where almost the exact same circumstances occurred, and the parents of the girl found out, got furious, had the guy charged and convicted as a sex offender. When the guy moved somewhere a few years after college, some guy in his neighborhood looked up the sex offenders living there, and went ahead and murdered them. Just for being on the list, without knowing the specifics of the conviction. And his neighbors SYMPATHIZED WITH THE MURDERER.
- Schmapdi, on 10/25/2007, -0/+86If only there were some sort of special person who could "judge" laws and make sure they were applied with some standard of common sense and fairness.
- Sarevok9, on 10/26/2007, -1/+84Its amusing that both of them now have a sex crime on their records and have to register as a sex offender.... before their even 18. Thats not going to ruin the remainder of their lives or anything, now is it?
- inactive, on 10/27/2007, -5/+82Brilliant role-play sir. I stand up from my desk and applaud you
- aliengoods, on 10/24/2007, -4/+76This is the end result of every paranoid parent thinking either terrorists or pedophiles are going to kill their children. Other consequences are the destruction of the Constitution and unlimited power for the executive branch.
- Shigglyboo, on 10/24/2007, -0/+69yeah, so when I was 16 my girlfriend brought over a polaroid camera this one time... sure am glad we didn't email the pics... it's funny how laws are created for a purpose, yet when they do not achieve their stated goal we don't do anything about it.
- d03boy, on 10/24/2007, -3/+72Better yet, just abstain from talking/typing.
- tizz66, on 10/24/2007, -1/+68"Don't blame people of faith. We don't run the country."
LOL are you joking?
"This a result of letting society run riot, which has produced what seems like a pandemic of pedophiles, requiring such laws."
There are paedophiles around, just like there always have been, but the issue has been blown out of all proportion by the media. That makes people scared, which means ever broader laws get enacted, which means more people get arrested, which means the media can say 'look, we told you!'. Things like this are self-fueling. It's nothing to do with religion or lack of, just a media that thrives on instilling fear. - StarlessKnight, on 10/24/2007, -1/+68Because as we all know, if this were a theocracy, there'd be no pedophiles. This isn't a "secular society" problem, it's a societal problem. Don't blame people not of the faith. They don't run the country, either. Knee-jerk advocates do.
- eviltandem, on 10/24/2007, -0/+65That's the most retarded thing I think I have every seen anyone post on digg.
The pictures were of the kids, taken themselves, and on their devices. They are both nearly the same age, and it was clearly consensual. Nobody was hurt, and the law is being twisted in this case against it's original purpose.
All this completely outside the realm of wondering what the police would be doing snooping in email accounts of minors. I would prefer the police stay out of my inbox thank you.
This law was intended to allow police to hunt down adults abusing children. Not children having sex with each other. The stigma of sex offender is huge and will follow these kids the rest of their lives. Somebody needs to beat you with a clue stick... - floridiot2, on 10/25/2007, -1/+65KEYBOARD SMASSSHHH!!
- badassninja, on 10/27/2007, -7/+69You sir, are funny as hell.
- inactive, on 10/25/2007, -0/+58How many days and searches on sex offenders, teens, underage, etc. did you have to do to time this one right?
- PacketScan, on 10/25/2007, -3/+60ARE you F------ Kidding ME>
MURDERS ARE ON THE STREETS AND WE ARE prosecuting kids taking images of them selves.
It was ment as a harmless act by two teens in love..
WHAT the F--- is wrong with this country - Firehed, on 10/24/2007, -1/+58Why boarding school? This is hardly any different than a couple of five-year-olds playing doctor - there's absolutely no psychological damage done. Two people mutually and willingly participating in something where there's no harm to any party should hardly constitute any sort of retribution - let alone a criminal record.
- skifreak107, on 10/24/2007, -6/+61PROTIP: Its not celibacy if you don't have a choice in the matter.
- EricJ2190, on 10/24/2007, -0/+54It says here that you wanted to blank her blank with your blank.
- sleepwalkers, on 10/24/2007, -1/+52Or spoken like someone who realizes that the sex offender laws are, generally, too far-reaching and allow for stupid situations like these.
- centran, on 10/27/2007, -0/+51Consider yourself very lucky. There have been many people in that situation where the severed time and are now labeled sex offenders.
- Nougat, on 10/24/2007, -0/+45They can't get all of us.
- HypocriteDigg, on 10/24/2007, -0/+44If that's child pornography, then them having sex should be a sexual offense too. How $&%^ lame is our system?
- jebus123, on 10/28/2007, -0/+44and when watching yourself naked in front of a mirror, you're looking at LIVE child pornography. That's even worse.
- glasnostic, on 10/24/2007, -0/+42http://www.1dca.org//judges/wolf.html
Idiot judge who wrote majority opinion damning the kids. - DangerStepp, on 10/28/2007, -2/+44So...how about those pics?
- inactive, on 10/24/2007, -1/+42By insinuating that you want to have sex with the sex offender laws you are hereby branded a sex offender and are required to notify all books within a 10 mile radius of your status. Congratulations!
- jiminizer, on 10/24/2007, -4/+44Hang on what's going on here... you used sarcasm, yet you're being dugg up? Never seen that before =P
- shadowblade989, on 10/25/2007, -0/+40I CAN TELL YOU'RE MAD BECAUSE YOU HAVE CAPS LOCK ON
- mason194, on 10/24/2007, -2/+41The law is the law. I had to report those Jews.
- centran, on 10/25/2007, -3/+42Actually read the article. Taking a lewd picture of yourself naked when you are a minor and then keeping that picture can and has been considered a sex crime. You are in possession of child pornography. Doesn't that suck!
- JFitzpatrick, on 10/25/2007, -1/+39It is an interesting shift. I do portrait photography and most parents still -want- the cute naked baby pictures like were often taken in the past but are so paranoid because of how strange our society has become. To that I say... what the hell? Naked babies are adorable. Maybe it's the parent in me talking... but there aren't many things as endearing as when your toddler managed to strip down when you aren't paying attention and go tearing through the house giggling and laughing while you try to catch them. Babies are cute as hell. It's too bad that as a society we've reached this paranoid saturation point where something as innocent and cute as a naked baby is construed as inappropriate.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 627 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is