So Saying That Folks Should Follow Christian Morals is NOW A Firing Offense

That's really rich coming from IzzytheLiar. Is beanie your sock puppet,
Iz?

Now shut up you foul mouth punk.

So JTT has no friends to threaten you?

coldjoint says:

Quote:

So JTT has no friends to threaten you?

JTT has no friends, period.

In general, I don't think this is a free speech issue, which pertains to actions on the part of the government.

Now the idea that a child rapist can be given a lessor sentence than
someone with a picture of that rape is insane and outrageous to me

That mental health treatment and long term monitoring would service
the society better then just locking up those men for decades and
throwing away all their skills and abilities as in many cases we are
talking about research scientists and doctors and others with skills
that should not lightly be thrown away. At least that should be the
case for those who had not in any way been a direct danger to children
other then collecting that sick material.

I do think that the fact that a young man can have sex with a 16 years
old girlfriend legally in many areas of the US but both he and his
partner are in danger of facing serous criminal charges and being
listed as a sexual predator for life if she would dare to send him a
sexual picture of herself to him is insane. It is using the law that
was sold as a mean of protecting young people as a mean to harm
them instead and to no useful purpose.

Has that happened, Bill ?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jan/14/child-pornography-sexting

American teenagers are increasingly facing prosecution as sex offenders as a result of the rapidly spreading practice of sending explicit photos of themselves by mobile phone — a trend known as "sexting".

In the latest case, three teenage girls in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, who sent nude self portraits, and the three male classmates who received the images, have all been served with child pornography charges.

The girls have been charged with manufacturing and disseminating child pornography while the boys are accused of possessing it.

In Wisconsin, a 17-year-old was charged with child pornography after posting naked pictures of his girlfriend, who is a year younger, on the internet. In Rochester, New York, a boy aged 16 faces seven years in jail for circulating an image of a girlfriend to friends.

"Sexting" is fast becoming a moral and legal headache for school heads and police throughout America. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy last month published a study suggesting one in five teens had sent or posted images of themselves in various stages of undress.

Jim Brown, an official at Glen Este high school in the Ohio town of Cincinnati, told the Cincinnati Enquirer: "If I were to go through the cell phones in this building right now, of 1,500 students I would venture to say that half to two- thirds have indecent photos, either of themselves or somebody else in school."

Prosecutors are facing increasing dilemmas because case law has not kept up with the impact of digital media on teenage behaviour. Young adults can face lengthy sentences resulting from relationships with younger teenagers, with penalties varying state by state.

Federal law also requires hefty punishment for teenaged relationships that span the legal start of adulthood at 17. An 18-year-old in their last year of high school who dates a 14-year-old in the first year faces up to 30 years in jail for a first offence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexting

Legal cases[edit]
In 2007, 32 Australian teenagers from the state of Victoria were prosecuted as a result of sexting activity.[32] Child pornography charges were brought against six teenagers in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, in January 2009 after three girls sent sexually explicit photographs to three male classmates.[33]

In 2008, a Virginia assistant principal was charged with possession of child pornography and related crimes after he had been asked to investigate a rumored sexting incident at the high school where he worked. Upon finding a student in possession of a photo on his phone that depicted the torso of a girl wearing only underpants, her arms mostly covering her breasts, the assistant principal showed the image to the principal who instructed him to preserve the photo on his computer as evidence, which he did. The court later ruled that the photo did not constitute child pornography because under Virginia law, nudity alone is not enough to qualify an image as child pornography; the image must be "sexually explicit". Loudoun County Prosecutor James Plowman stood by his initial assessment of the photo and says he would not have pursued the case if the assistant principal had agreed to resign. Instead, the assistant principal got a second mortgage on his house and spent $150,000 in attorneys' fees to clear his name.[34][35]

In July 2010, Londonderry High School teacher Melinda Dennehy pleaded guilty and received a one-year suspended sentence for sending racy photos of herself to a 15-year-old student.[36]

In Fort Wayne, Indiana, a teenage boy was indicted on felony obscenity charges for allegedly sending a photo of his genitals to several female classmates. Another boy was charged with child pornography in a similar case.[37]

Police investigated an incident at Margaretta High School in Castalia, Ohio, in which a 17-year-old girl allegedly sent nude pictures of herself to her former boyfriend, and the pictures started circulating around after they had a quarrel.[38] The girl was charged with being an "unruly child" based on her juvenile status.[39]

Two southwest Ohio teenagers were charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a first-degree misdemeanor, for sending or possessing nude photos on their cell phones of two 15-year-old classmates.[40]

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. on March 25, 2009, for threatening teenage girls who were the subject of allegedly risque photos with prosecution on child pornography charges if they did not submit to a counseling program.[41] The case is[42] Miller, et al. v. Skumanick. Skumanick stated in an interview with Julie Chen on CBS News's The Early Show that his office decided to make an offer of limiting penalties to probation if they attend a sexual harassment program.[43][44] The girls and their parents won a ruling that blocked the district attorney, who appealed. It is the first appeals court case concerning sexting.[45]

Legislative responses[edit]
In Connecticut, Rep. Rosa Rebimbas introduced a bill that would lessen the penalty for "sexting" between two consenting minors in 2009. The bill would make it a Class A misdemeanor for children under 18 to send or receive text messages with other minors that include nude or sexual images. It is currently a felony for children to send such messages, and violators could end up on the state's sex offender registry.[46]

Vermont lawmakers introduced a bill in April 2009 to legalize the consensual exchange of graphic images between two people 13 to 18 years old. Passing along such images to others would remain a crime.[47]

In Ohio, a county prosecutor and two lawmakers proposed a law that would reduce sexting from a felony to a first degree misdemeanor, and eliminate the possibility of a teenage offender being labeled a sex offender for years. The proposal was supported by the parents of Jesse Logan, a Cincinnati 18-year-old who committed suicide after the naked picture of herself which she sexted was forwarded to people in her high school.[48]

Utah lawmakers lessened the penalty for sexting for someone younger than 18 to a misdemeanor from a felony.[49]

In New York, Assemblyman Ken Zebrowski (D-Rockland) has introduced a bill that will create an affirmative defense where a minor is charged under child pornography laws if they possesses or disseminate a picture of themselves or possess or disseminates the image of another minor (within 4 years of their age) with their consent. The affirmative defense will not be available if the conduct was done without consent. It also creates an educational outreach program for teens that promotes awareness about the dangers of sexting.[50]

See also[edit]

http://www.wpxi.com/news/news/mom-of-teen-accused-in-sexting-scheme-speaks-out/nGYLn/


GREENSBURG, Pa. — The mother of a Greensburg Salem High School teenager involved in an alleged "sexting" scheme is speaking out, saying her son did nothing wrong. Authorities said three teenage girls allegedly sent nude or semi-nude cell phone pictures of themselves to three male classmates. Those involved are facing charges, and the mother, who asked to have her identity concealed, said she is outraged.
Police said the girls are 14 or 15, and the boys charged with receiving the photos are 16 or 17. None are being identified because most criminal cases in Pennsylvania juvenile courts are not public.
"This is going to ruin his life," the boy's mother said. "My son did not know this girl. He had seen her around school, and it was texted to him. He did not take the picture."
The picture that prompted the arrests of six of the high school's students is of a female student. It was a self portrait in which she appeared completely nude, police said. The photo was discovered in October when a teacher confiscated a student's activated phone in class, which is a school violation.
During the police investigation, other phones with more pictures were seized.
"I could see if my son took the picture of the girl," the boy's mother said. "My son just received this as a text message, which by the way, the principal said the whole school had it on their phones."
The Greensburg Salem School District issued a statement on Tuesday saying there was “no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds or during the school day other than the violation of the (school's) electronic devices policy.”
Police said the girls are being charged with manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography while the boys face charges that include sexual abuse of a child.

None of which excuses your behaviour.

Agreeing for the most part with the criminal laws of the UK instead of my own nation concerning the proper level of punishments for having sickening child porn material need no excuse either.