[LINK] why calm, rational thought is required....

[Adam Todd]

At 12:21 PM 11/02/2007, Howard Lowndes wrote:
>You are overlooking one important factor.  This is in  the US where the 
>sanctimonious religious right rulz.  If they ain't getting any then why 
>should their kids...
>
>http://news.com.com/2102-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=st.util.print

I've been reading this more and discussing it with a few people.  Here's 
some comments:



In other words, under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally 
permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they 
document it.

Amber's attorney claimed that the right to privacy protected by the Florida 
Constitution shielded the teen from prosecution, an argument that a trial 
judge rejected. Amber pleaded no contest to the charges and was placed on 
probation, though she reserved her right to appeal her constitutional claim.

* So what the Judges decided was that two children, who in the next 
paragraph they say are immature and don't have the ability of foresight, 
should be crinialised, convicted and punished, for doing something they 
evidently did not have mens rea (criminal intent) to do a criminal act in 
the first place.

* Seems in the USA, you are a criminal, even if you didn't intend to commit 
a crime.  Moreso of the Judge says you aren't a criminal because you are 
too young and immature to know you have done something that might under 
other circumstances have been criminal.




Wolf speculated 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."


* So what the judge is saying is that the ordinary home computer, assumed 
to run Windows is an unsafe environment for private and confidential materials.

* You know the really sad part of this story.  Both 16 year olds now have a 
LIFE TIME conviction for SEX OFFENCES and will not be able to work with 
children, will not be able to be employed in most jobs.  Can not apply for 
most university or college positions.  Can not marry in many states where a 
licence will not be issued to a person who is convicted of a sex 
offence.  The list goes on.

* A judge can't convict a person for what he things they may do.  A Judge 
can only convict a person that has DONE something CRIMINAL.  Saying they 
"may have sold the photos to child pornographers" is completely 
wrong.  They also hadn't shown the photos to their friends so the judge has 
to be wrong in convicting them on that basis too.

* This is a classic example of Orwell come true.  Convicted of crimes that 
haven't happened, but might happen.


Appellant was simply too young to make an intelligent decision about 
engaging in sexual conduct and memorializing it. Mere production of these 
videos or pictures may also result in psychological trauma to the teenagers 
involved.

* The judge is saying that the kids might suffer psychological damage as a 
result of the photos.  My goodness.  Don't you think two children that the 
Judges say are too immature for their own good, are more damaged through 
the conduct of horrendous legal proceedings discussing their private sex 
lives in a Court room and criminal investigation, with family, friends and 
anyone else?  And worse being convicted of a crime they hadn't actually 
done, that is making pornography to sell to child pornographers, or to give 
to friends, leaving them on the sex offenders register for life?

* That isn't traumatic and psychologically damaging?  Would it not have 
been better to say to the kids "Um, this isn't a good idea, we really don't 
want to see you Fuc*ing."

* But no,  The Adults who are suppose to me mature and intelligent, use 
their own reasons for not accepting it as a reason for convicting and 
harming the kids.  Which brings us to:



Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be 
done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not 
mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible 
negative implications of producing these videos.



So really, what's going on here, clearly in the Judge and the Parents 
words, is that they are concerned about what affect these kids having sex, 
is having on their lives.   Oh God!  Judge and Parents - GET A LIFE!