What is Digg?303 Comments
- FarcicalFart, on 10/12/2007, -14/+425"It means that computers are not safe," said Jeannie. "I don't want to have one in my house. Under even under the strictest rules and the strictest security, your computer is vulnerable."
Yea, if you suck at the internet. - Konrad9, on 10/12/2007, -4/+198You can drive drunk and kill an 18 year old and only get parole, but you can't look at kiddie porn.
Gosh I love this country. - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+186Law enforcement like this really scares me. How do they get so blind as to persue a case like this? How do people with so little common sense get into positions where they can weild their ignorance?
- JC4P, on 10/12/2007, -12/+166I really want to say pics or gtfo but i'm not going to.
- Fascist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+145America needs to seriously reform its judicial system.
- Bean945, on 10/12/2007, -2/+142"I got the Web site from a bunch of friends at school." (After being caught looking at adult porn sites)
Yeah, i've used that one too. - borninda818, on 10/12/2007, -12/+140"porn is bad"
I beg to differ - buckynekkid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+120What is the point of a polygraph? If you fail it will be seen as instant guilt (even if you're not guilty), if you pass, it doesn't matter because 'we don't believe it anyway.' Any accused has nothing to gain from a polygraph.
- GenerousLinus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+95Great! I'm glad 20/20 was there to help. Now where the hell were they when that teacher got sentenced to 40yrs in prison for porno pop-ups?
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -6/+97Oh and it's stories like this that make me never want to cooperate with cops, ever. You never know what their motivation is.
- Misogyny, on 10/12/2007, -2/+88Two minors can legally have sex. If they photograph it it's production of child pornography. Our legal system is in need of some correction here.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+95"How do people with so little common sense get into positions where they can wield their ignorance?"
A democracy ensures that people elect their equals as their representatives. - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+85It depends on the boobs really. Send me a photo at sockpuppets at gmail dot com and I can tell you.
- jtjenn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+85Even child rapists and murderers don't have to serve that long.
- mayhemt, on 10/12/2007, -17/+100Obviously they have Windows+IE+ignorance..the lethal mix for Viruses Intrusions Spywares Trojans Adwares (VISTA)
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+77The 'minors in sexually sugestive poses' thing is *****. Basically, the law enforcement can clasify any picture of a minor (even if fully clothed) as child pornography if they believe that the minor is in a sexually sugestive pose.
For this reason, if they really really want to convict you, they can look through your cache and most likely you will have such a picture there (from some banner ad or whatever). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+76I agree, it is completely rediculous. I agree that child pornography is wrong, but he was 16, hes not 18. Hes underage, just like the person in the pictures. For example, I really don't understand why like a 15 year old can get in trouble for having pictures of his 14 year old on his computer.. THEY ARE BOTH UNDERAGE.. Yes, I don't think kids that age should be sending eachother pics of themselves naked.. but sometimes the law is just rediculous.
"I have to stay away from children," said Matthew. "I cannot be around any area where there might be minors, including the mall, or the movies, or restaurants or even church. To go to church I have to have written consent from our priest, I have to sit in a different pew, one that doesn't have a child sitting in it."
Thats horrible.. - lgc90, on 10/12/2007, -18/+90"The internet is not a dump truck. It's a series of tubes..."
- Vic333, on 10/12/2007, -0/+63That's why "No Tolerance" policies don't work. Each case has to be looked at by someone with an ounce of sense.
- hobbers, on 10/12/2007, -4/+65This kid is a minor himself. Child porn is anything under the age of 18, right? So even if he was in possession of the pictures, what were they? Other 16 year old girls or something? Come on, this is freaking ridiculous. Next thing you know, they'll be prosecuting 14 year old kids under peeping tom laws because they were looking through their neighbor's daughter's window. What the hell is wrong with people nowadays? If you see something like that happening, tell the parents - his dad will give him a good talking to, ground him for a week, and everyone moves on with life.
Also, on another topic, I don't understand how child porn is grounds for being labeled a sexual offender. Unless the guy took the pictures himself, he never committed any sort of physical sexual offense. - baimingsheng, on 10/12/2007, -2/+60Please tell me that prosecutor is out of work and being charged for wasting tax dollars; he should be sued! but of course he would be immune for that... "just doing his job" ... yeah, sure.
- headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+59It is kind of odd that a 16 year old kid could get charged for looking at images of under aged girls. Does that make it illegal for him to see his 16 year old girlfriend naked?
Of course I realize that's not exactly the case here, but really.. where do you draw the line? - Niffer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53@elCapitanNemo
There is no doubt that what you're saying is true but you have to look at this situation from the eyes of the person charged. When I was around 13 or 14, I was interested sexually in girls my age. This was during the AOL years of the internet and my curiosity got the best of me at times. Luckily for me, my father caught me and not the FBI. He explained to me that even though it was normal of me to be interested in girls my age, it was not ok for me to be seeking them on the internet. As you say, he explained to me the severe abuse that no doubt happens when a young person is photographed for sexual pleasure and why that was so wrong for even me to perpetuate that cycle. It bothers me that anyone could look at this case and think this kid was a predator. When something like this happens, EVERYONE involved in the case needs to be educated that this desire is normal, but in this context, ultimately something that is very wrong.
"digg me down if you like kiddie porn."
nice try - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+50"And even though there was no proof that Matthew personally downloaded those nine pictures, it would be difficult to prove his innocence."
This part is particularly frightening to me. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? - Anand999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+42That's the stupid thing. This kid could have consensual sex with another minor and at most get a stern talking to by his parents. But looking at naked pictures of a minor could have landed in jail for the rest of his life.
- Holosiren, on 10/12/2007, -0/+42The United States sexual offense laws are absolutely broken. They're absolutely ineffective at preventing rape - under-aged or otherwise - and they operate on hysteria rather than fact. "Charged with showing pornography to minors"... what *****. They were sixteen and he was sixteen. Is there no context in prosecution these days? To all the fanatic mother-lobbying groups out there: Do you really think these horribly executed and poorly conceived laws are going to prevent your child from getting raped in the ass?
Arizona is a terrible state. - Aldrenean, on 10/12/2007, -3/+43Federal law: 16 is the age of consent. If two kids under 16 have sex, it's statutory rape... for the guy. In every case. How repressed are we.
- JeremyBanks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+41RTFA, he wasn't actually labeled a sex offender in the end.
- lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43What happened to the right granted by the Constitution saying:
"Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; ___nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;___ nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I find it revolting that they have one for each image rather than one for the bunch! It's like I hit a cop twice and get jail for 10 years rather than five for assault on official. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40I don't believe that a minor should ever be charged with child pornography. A minor looking at another minor (unless it's something extreme, i.e., a 17 year old looking at pictures of a 5 year old) is, in my opinion, natural. Hell, most of the time I'd assume that they wouldn't even think that it's wrong, nor would they think about the consequences of it. The prosecutors are essentially saying that you're not allowed to be sexually attracted to women unless they're over the age of 18, even if you're 16 or younger. I would never condone looking at child porn, even as a minor, but nevertheless I can understand why a minor WOULD look at porn of girls of the same age that they are.
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38Oh noes, I'm a 16 yr old boy and I look at porn!
- CkMaverick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+34Does this mean if he looked in his own pants he could get another 20 years tacked on?
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34a) Only in yor head.
b) Why do you TYPE like THIS? - radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32Actually, that teacher didn't got sentenced yet. She COULD face 40 years, but most likely that won't happen.
- modpancake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29The whole article on one page: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=2785054
- ArsenicTea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+27I am curious about those laws. I used to send my boyfriend (now husband) boob pics to his cell phone for a laugh, and we were both only sixteen/seventeen. Anyone know definitely whether that kind of thing could get a person in trouble?
- AriaStar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28"And even though there was no proof that Matthew personally downloaded those nine pictures, it would be difficult to prove his innocence."
WHAT THE ***** EVER HAPPENED TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY?!?! He shouldn't have to prove innocence. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26I'm not sure we can at this point. I'm afraid the precipitous slide into collective insanity is just going to continue. You can't legislate common sense.
Why does it seem to me that huge chunks of our society have completely taken leave of their senses? - TimRogers, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23Or not.
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -0/+22A few years ago, a 15 years old girl in PA sent some 'sexually explicit' (no idea what that really means) pictures of herself to some IRC chatroom. She got charged with creation and distribution of child pornography.
- planksconstant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21true, but here in America, we deny the fact that teenagers have sexual desires just like real people. and our backwards legal system gives us things like this where honestly the kid did nothing wrong. people need to get it through their heads that teenagers are going to look at porn, have sex, and probably turn out just fine. and to give a kid 90 years of jail-time for nothing, or some other kid jail-time cause he was 18 when he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend...
its just insane - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21There was a time in the US when you actually had to commit a crime in order to be jailed. Now you merely have to be in possession of a forbidden object. Notice careful the difference between commit and possess. It's not semantics. One is an active verb, it requires a person to form intent and to act (or attempt to act) on that intent. Possession is passive. It requires no intent, it doesn't even require awareness. This is an extremely dangerous legal trend.
Nonsense like this is the result.
This kid was unjustly endangered because of the actions of a third party. He had no knowledge of the porn on his computer. Are you sure you're not in possession of child porn? It's not just porn, any forbidden object is subject to the same injustice. Did your co-worker accidentally leave some pot in your car when you gave him a ride home? What about a forged prescription? The list is long. Far too long.
It has to stop. - ic349, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Just another classic example of someone trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of some poor kid.
...and, it drives me crazy how people get on the internet then think that all these free screensavers, wallpaper programs etc are really free. My mom had a backdoor program loaded on her computer after installing a wallpaper program because she wanted pics of horses. Seemed innocent enough until 20 gig of her HD was used as a porn server. - tweak50, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20@Misogyny
Thats not true in every state. State of Wisconsin a minor cannot have sex. Period. If two minors have sex and are caught and charges pressed, both parties will be prosecuted. It's dumb I know, just thought I would clarify your statement. - lunarnall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20Exactly... Everybody knows that being a minor and looking at pictures of your peers is worse than going out and having sex with them all, right?
- EmperorNorton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20in germany 16 year-olds are allowed to read playboy.
your damn puritan country sucks. - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20I saw that exact headline at Times Square.
Do they use RSS to display the news on the tickers? - pegisys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19or the ISPs need to start telling about, or giving out, firewalls.
every time someone I know needs help with their PC they never have a firewall or anti-virus software, most of the time the trial of whatever software that came with the computer runs out and they are just unprotected - diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28They don't run Windows.
- Lordavid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1890 years for looking at child porn, but PAROLE for killing someone while drunk driving...
http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5933882
Oh, the world we live in... -
Show 51 - 100 of 291 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is