Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Cellphones Communications Government Your Rights Online

Florida Reduces Penalties For 'Sexting' Teens 295

SonicSpike sends word that Florida has changed how law enforcement deals with teenagers who send racy pictures to each other over their phones. Quoting CNN: "Before Saturday, a Florida teenager who sent or received nude photos or video could have been charged with a felony and forced to register as a sex offender. But a new law, recognizing the proliferation of cell phones and computers, eases the penalties for 'sexting' infractions. A first offense is punishable by eight hours of community service or a $60 fine; the second is a misdemeanor and the third is a felony. ... Under House Bill 75, teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it, did not solicit the image and did not send it to someone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Florida Reduces Penalties For 'Sexting' Teens

Comments Filter:
  • Curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nialin ( 570647 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @02:28AM (#37581820)
    What about persons previously convicted? I doubt they're gonna retroactively "fix" those kids' lives.
    It's still pretty fucking stupid to charge them in the first place.
    At least it's a step in the right direction, albeit a small one...
  • Re:So, where's... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02, 2011 @02:30AM (#37581836)

    Since there are penalties there... still no common sense.

  • by harvey the nerd ( 582806 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @02:33AM (#37581850)
    "....teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it"

    Seig Heil !
  • Re:So, where's... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ethanol-fueled ( 1125189 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @02:39AM (#37581870) Homepage Journal
    So teenagers with breasts are not allowed to, well, be teenagers; but parents are still allowed to push their pre-teen kids into beauty contests complete with swimsuit competions and prostitute dress-ups? []

    The types of people who villify sexting are the dirty old men-types who jack off to teen porn and pop boners watching their daughters play in the pool while being pissed that they couldn't have the same fun when they were younger, then spend the rest of their time praying for forgiveness and validating their perversions by projecting them onto others.
  • It may be 2011 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gmhowell ( 26755 ) <> on Sunday October 02, 2011 @02:41AM (#37581874) Homepage Journal

    But Puritanism is alive and well in the United States.

    I find it ironic that some of those complaining loudest about the impending Sharia Law in the US and Europe are among those most likely to demand various Levitical Laws in the US.

  • Still Very Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @02:57AM (#37581928) Homepage

    A fine step from very evil to ... less evil, but still very evil.

    Under House Bill 75, teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to report it, did not solicit the image and did not send it to someone.

    So let me get this straight: A 16 year old's girlfriend sends him a picture, he is guilty unless he reports her to the police?

    First, bite my shiny metal ass.

    Second, good luck upholding that when it goes to a court above the Florida level.

    Third, to expand on item one; holy shit are you a bunch of nasty assholes. Up until a circuit or the Supremes knock this foul law flat on its ass, it is going to put a lot of kids in really nasty quandaries about their obligations to the people they care about versus the state. Honestly, I figure it's safe to assume you will be creating thousands of anti-authoritarians in one stroke of your pen. I'm sure the year 2021 thanks you for the increase in civil disobedience you are creating.

    Fourth, they're just body parts. They can't hurt you. How does it make sense to put kids into the ironically named "correctional system" because they received a picture of a breast? You think they are going to come out better people? That it will improve our future? You are bat-shit-looney if you believe that.

  • by mph_sd ( 564445 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @03:07AM (#37581946)

    Yeah, a better law would have been:

    "....teens who receive explicit images won't be charged if they took reasonable steps to delete it"

    still more reasonable: teens who receive explicit images won't be charged.

  • Re:Still Very Evil (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @03:08AM (#37581948)

    people in favor of such 'laws' are not *thinking*.

    they are 100% guided by that so-called 'good book'. once the good book speaks, mind is closed and there's no hope of getting thru.

    jesusland, usa. all over the fucking place, even in progressive states.

    the 60's gave us a step forward. reagan and his cronies began the back-step into the middle ages again and other than a short pause (about 10 yrs or so ago) we've been marching more and more toward jesusland, usa.

    all the whole, making fun of the muslims who are just as stubborn as our christians are. no better and not all that much worse when it comes down to it.

  • Re:Still Very Evil (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hedwards ( 940851 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @03:08AM (#37581950)

    That's how child porn charges work and that's why this area of law desperately needs reform. You're guilty of possession of child porn if somebody sends you a photo whether or not you see it and worse whether or not you solicit the image. Child porn charges without a mens rea requirement are just an incredibly easy way to frame somebody for a felony if you've got some reason for wanting them sent to prison.

    Supposedly, if you accidentally download some, you should report it to the FBI, but I don't think anybody in their right mind would do that.

  • Re:Curious (Score:3, Insightful)

    by guybrush3pwood ( 1579937 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @03:12AM (#37581954) Homepage

    That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

    Well, it'd certainly release them of the need to kidnap kids to get the photos themselves. I see this as a win-win situation.

  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by durrr ( 1316311 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @03:13AM (#37581958)
    Did you miss the part where they have to report it? Meaning you have to share it with the law enforcement or you might get in trouble.
    Whoever made that law is a huge wanking pervert.
  • Re:Curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @03:53AM (#37582066)

    Plus, this isn't a matter of consenting adults,

    Yes, it is. They are of age to legally consent to sex, but not legally able to consent to signing a model release. This leaves the gray area of taking a picture of a legal activity being illegal, possession of a picture of that legal activity is illegal, and it doesn't matter if its you taking a picture of yourself, it can still be a felony. They can consent to the acts photographed, so they are consenting. "adult" is meaningless now. The age at which the courts have decided someone can be tried as an adult is 12. Cigarettes at 18/19 (mostly 18, but more going to 19), voting at 18, porn at 18, drinking at 21. "Adult" is a meaningless tag used and abused for emotional responses, unrelated to logic and reason.

    Yay arbitrary lines which, at best, are wrong only 50% of the time.

  • Re:Still Very Evil (Score:4, Insightful)

    by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @04:11AM (#37582114) Homepage Journal
    He also wasn't all that happy with the money changers(Wall Street) as well, but the "Christians" tend to forget that part too, as the religious right extolls the virtues of people who crash the economy.
  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @04:45AM (#37582200) Homepage Journal

    Pragmatic? You're asking for a pragmatic approach?

    Accept the fact that teen's bodies are flooded with hormones, and they only think of sex for about 36 hours each day. (Yes, I know, for children and adults, there are only 24 hours in each day - teens live in a different continuum!) The little bastards are always going to be thinking of sex, they speak sex, they look sex, they breathe sex. Pragmatism dictates that we leave them the hell alone, to deal with their own demons, in their own way.

    If YOU don't want to see pictures of naked teens, then DON'T LOOK AT A TEEN'S PHONE!

    Dumbasses . . .

  • by jcr ( 53032 ) < .ta. .rcj.> on Sunday October 02, 2011 @05:01AM (#37582236) Journal

    Wee bit of a fifth amendment problem there... You can't compel anyone to report a goddamned thing if it might incriminate them.


  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hairyfeet ( 841228 ) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday October 02, 2011 @05:18AM (#37582302) Journal

    Oh the whole "save teh childrenz!" thing is royally fucked and we have been way past sane for quite awhile. Some examples include the guy who wrote the "pro pedo" book that is now rotting in jail. Nobody accused him of touching anybody, no pics or anything, just his thoughts and opinions on paper. I seem to remember someone writing about a time when people could be arrested for their thoughts. There is also the guy doing prison time for writing his fantasies in his journal which his shrink told him to do, another thoughtcrime. Then there is the guy who went to jail for dirty Jap cartoons, again no kids, just pen and ink. as a friend that works in the state crime lab told me these laws are so badly written you could draw a stick figure and scribble "nekked kid" on it and theoretically be guilty of child pron!

    For one a little closer to TFA how is THIS for fucked up: In several states I can marry a girl as young as 14 with their parents permission. I can marry her, bang her any way my little heart desires, again completely legal, but if I take a picture of my wife naked I'd be a child pornographer!

    This whole damned thing has become another red scare, only instead of commies we see pervs behind every tree. what we seriously need is some common sense laws but sadly politicians have learned they can stir up the rabble and get more votes by pushing the "save teh childrenz!" button.

  • Re:Curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dhalka226 ( 559740 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @05:37AM (#37582348)

    It's still pretty fucking stupid to charge them in the first place.

    That's the real problem with this country. Somewhere along the way we became infatuated with law and not justice. If anybody in the chain, from the police to the prosecutor to the judge, dare to actually question whether ruining somebody's life over something stupid is the right thing to do they are labeled as "activist" -- codeword for not believing that some politicians somewhere that you've never met and who know nothing about the incident in question know better than you what's right.

    If we could trust our public servants, if we could trust that the police and prosecutors and judges would exhibit common sense and consider justice for all parties, including the accused, then I would support laws like this. It would allow, for example, two 16-year-olds to exchange naked pictures if they want to without fear of having their lives ruined by the state and without some truly absurd requirement that they report each other to the authorities, while at the same time providing for consequences if they break up and decide that an awesome way to hurt each other is to start posting those pictures all over Facebook.

    We can't, of course. Laws like this are proof enough of that. "We recognize how terrible our last law was so we'll give you a warning before we ruin your life for the exact same thing." That's moderation in our society, and I see no signs of it changing. The right thinks this is the greatest thing ever and the left lacks the balls to stand up against it.

  • Re:Curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @05:50AM (#37582380) Journal

    [...] taking the pictures oneself is a really bad idea.

    It's a bad idea to unscrew a lightbulb and stick your finger in the socket. Are we going to punish such stupidity as well? Perhaps we should leave such things for what they are: simple rules of life parents ought to teach to their children.

    That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

    How? And if it were true, so what? If your naked picture is already out there on the internet and downloaded by thousands of people, who cares if one of those people happens to be a paedophile? Contrary to belief that is popular in certain circles, kiddy porn does not magically turn paedophiles into child molesters.

  • Re:Curious (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sjames ( 1099 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @05:55AM (#37582398) Homepage Journal

    No, it's a stupid charge. Sexting is one of those many things a minor might do that should be handled by parents rather than judges and cops.What else should be charged as a misdemeanor and heard by a judge? Out after curfew? Not studying? Forgot to take out the trash again? Drinking from the milk carton?

    There's a lot of good reasons not to sext, and I'll bet a heart to heart with mom or dad will convey them a lot more meaningfully than what the kids would no doubt call "a stupid lecture from some old man who's just pissed he can't get it up without a popsicle stick" or some such.

    I would argue that if the so-called adults in the "justice" system were actual adults, there wouldn't need to be an exception either.

  • Re:Curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @06:52AM (#37582518)

    That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

    I sat thinking about this for a bit, and you know what?

    I think that's actually a good thing.

    Hell, if there were any nude pics of me from when I was 13, 14 years old, and the fact that a pedophile used them for wanking material instead of going out and actually hurting a child, even better.

    There is a line between fantasy and action. I'm sure a lot of us have at times, in the dark of our own bedrooms, momentarily thought about what something would be like, something you wouldn't normally do - and not just because it's illegal. The thrill of the forbidden, the ability to let something play out inside your head. It doesn't mean that the next day you go out and actually DO that for real.

    It's the same with this.

  • Re:Curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02, 2011 @06:54AM (#37582522)

    It's not a stupid charge, it was a stupid penalty.

    Oh, so sorry Mr. Pedant. Let me correct that: "It was stupid for the Prosecution to waste taxpayer resources filing charges and pursuing a lawsuit."

    Plus, this isn't a matter of consenting adults, if they were adults they wouldn't need an exemption from the normal child porn charges that would result from dealing in these types of photos.

    Except that for many purposes, they ARE adults. For example, if you're 16 in most US states you can legally participate in sex but if you take a picture of yourself doing so, now you're producing "child porn". And that's bad, because it's obviously SO damaging to yourself to take a picture of what you're doing.

    There are going to be times when there's a covert camera

    Off-topic, we're talking about teenagers taking pictures of themselves, not voyeurism.

    pictures have a way of being liberated by an angry ex or lost when a phone is either lost or stolen

    Off-topic, we're talking about teenagers taking pictures of themselves, not theft, revenge, etc. each of which are already crimes.

    That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors

    Well that's not what's happening here. Reducing from a felony with required sex offender registration is not the same thing as "decriminalizing".

    side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

    Still not legal to take the pictures. Still a crime to distribute them. Still a felony to pass them along to a third party.

    Oh, I'm sorry, did you have any valid points to make, or are you just here to spread around more of this "OMG Pedophiles are coming to get you" bullshit?

  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WillDraven ( 760005 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:02AM (#37582542) Homepage

    The other terrible thing about the sex offender registries is all the horrible regulations one has to live with if you end up on the list. My dad has a friend who lost the lawyer lottery (and admittedly wasn't smart enough to realize it at the time) and was advised to plead guilty to a sex crime when his ex wife convinced their daughter to claim he had touched her inappropriately in the middle of their ugly divorce. He now isn't allowed to live within 5000 yards of any schools or daycare facilities. He just rented an apartment and was told after moving in that somebody living nearby is running a daycare in their house so he has 10 days to find a new place to live. There is a database of daycares you can check before you move somewhere, and the database said his new address was in the clear. It was only after he paid his non-refundable deposit and moved all of his stuff into the place that the sheriff came by and said "Oops, turns out there IS a daycare nearby. Too bad, get out within 10 days or you go to jail for a felony. have a nice day!"

    Terrorist watch, no-fly, felony, and sex offender lists are the new yellow stars. Anybody who claims America doesn't have classes or a caste system is either misinformed or lying.

  • Re:So, where's... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shentino ( 1139071 ) <> on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:33AM (#37582624)

    Someone getting nailed on kiddie porn charges for THEIR OWN PICTURES is what is ridiculous.

    You can't get much more victimless than that.

  • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:55AM (#37582674)
    The bestiality thing is a bit of a joke, because it was already effectively illegal under broader animel cruelty laws - and with the precident to back up that interpretation too. Making a law to explicitly outlaw it is really just moral grandstanding - publicly attacking some icky sex thing to boost the Family Friendly credentials of a few politicians, even though it doesn't actually change a thing.
  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @07:57AM (#37582676)
    Depends on the lawyer. Public defenders are generally kept overworked to the point where they just don't have time to make a defence. That's the way the state likes it - every time a person gets found innocent of a criminal charge, it makes the police look like idiots. Unacceptable.
  • Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02, 2011 @08:00AM (#37582690)
    They are getting a little less evil but only for "crimes" that could accidentally impact the lives of white, middle class kids. The only reason this law is getting a second look is that it happened to hit "good kids." The laws that impact brown or black people still stand.
  • by skegg ( 666571 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @08:04AM (#37582704)

    Any teen who photographs their own body should be charged for possessing child pornography.

    And any teen who masturbates should be charged with sexually molesting a minor.

    Finally, all breast-feeding mothers should be charged with indecent exposure to a minor.

  • Re:Still Very Evil (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Damouze ( 766305 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @09:48AM (#37583004)

    "They will make an arrest (looks good), seize the computers, and then the prosecutor will attempt to get the accused to plead guilty on reduced charges (once again it looks good). "

    That is why plea-bargains are the worst kind of mistake ever invented as far a concepts in justice systems goes, side by side with the concept of a jury. The former is fundamentally flawed because it does not make sense to criminalize perjury, but at the same time allow for a suspect to confess to something he did not do in exchange for a lighter conviction. The latter is fundamentally flawed because having lay men determine the guilt or innocence of a person is virtually the same as having a lynchmob execute the suspect right away.

  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @09:54AM (#37583032)
    A lot of districts make those laws to be deliberatly impossible to obey, with the intention of driving sex offenders as far away as possible.
  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DJRumpy ( 1345787 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @10:15AM (#37583102)

    Yes, but the problem is that now that they DO know that this is what happens, and it's relatively harmless, they refuse to fix the law with a little sanity and instead seem totally incompetent and out of touch with reality.

  • by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @11:12AM (#37583372)

    Parent is spot on. I've always lived in the USA and I've seen it happening around me; somehow I'm not affected by the foolishness as nearly everybody else around me is. It is easier to see this from the outside.

    Its much worse to see this stuff happen 1st hand and have everybody think you are some sort of fanatic nut if you speak out, protest or do anything that is not sanctioned by some powerful group. ACTIVIST IS A BAD WORD. Fact and opinion are blurred; the Rove strategy of creating alternative realities is now pervasive. Admitting you spend your nights watching TV reality shows is normal; you are a freak if you do anything else. Being actually informed is no different than somebody using only sound bites on the crap TV news - in fact, they'll feel you are less informed because you don't know about the latest BS issues in the mainstream news or celebrity gossip. They'll also feel they understand something because they heard the sound bites. Being kept busy working, buying, and consuming there isn't much time; plus it seems that the only reason many issues can be followed is because they've discovered that heavy obfuscation isn't necessary; keeping secrets isn't necessary either-- just exploit information overload.

    Even the language is warped; it is hard to even discuss many issues because there is too many errors to correct first. To avoid being dismissed as a nut or creating confusion one has to severely limit conversation to such pointlessly tiny baby boring steps and work long term towards an actual issue... if you bump into some sacred cow then emotional blocks kick in and its a whole other mess. For example, both sides have been calling Social Security an entitlement.

    Crisis / Fear games - is how it often works here; people who are worried bury their heads in TV; they can't handle it. Plans are made up in advance; then crisis opportunities are created or the plans are adapted to an actual crisis which is usually amplified. A higher level of terrorism goes on continually. The trick is old as mankind but the techniques have been refined.

    There need not be some big-brother thought police (although some are bent on that angle so its coming) they have working control over the populace that produces decent results all on its own. Like some sort of social virus, it'll run, spread, and mutate on its own allowing the benefits of crowd sourcing. This modern sophisticated approach will eventually allow for all the things authoritarians have done in the past but without the black and white simplicity that leads to their downfall. Its smart social engineering at work; 1984 mirrored advanced conventions of the day (1940s) but it is just a short book with just 1 approach and things have progressed. Americans are ironically quite conformist all on their own.

  • Re:Wow (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tmosley ( 996283 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @11:23AM (#37583420)
    Minor? The third picture constitutes a felony! You could breach that limit in a few minutes!
  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @11:31AM (#37583436) Journal

    Couple points of order:

    * You don't define "back then", so...
    * before 1900, it was fully expected that half the children born would die of something before the age of five, and that only 1 in 5 would make it to puberty.
    * before 1800, puberty was pretty much considered to be adulthood insofar as sex was concerned in most nations and cultures - and before 1900, marrying at sixteen was considered normal. Children were expected to work as soon as they could gain enough mental acuity and strength to do so, be it on the family farm or in the factory. The only exception involved kids of more well-off parents, who were expected to get an education that would scare today's kids.
    * before 1700, the prohibitions on fornication (notice that sex for procreation isn't considered that) were put in place by church authorities, but was widely ignored unless it became politically expedient to pay attention to.

    Some other cultural bits...

    * Back then, what would be considered as teen sex usually happened after the teens were married, or in a house of prostitution. Girls were kept from "fornicating" because potential suitors by and large demanded a virgin bride. OTOH, many teen boys of affluent parents were encouraged by their fathers to visit a brothel, if only to get some experience in the matter.

    * For most guys, you either did it with your wife, did it in a brothel, or you hadn't hit puberty yet. Any outliers in that data set usually involved adultery, which was harshly dealt with. What you had left was not enough to be statistically significant., and if you had sex with a girl but didn't marry her, she'd be the first one to scream to the authorities demanding marriage (else you either faced charges of rape, or an outright lynching by her family).

    * Speaking of brothels, they were not only popular, but legal damned near everywhere (or at most studiously ignored by the local constabulary).

    * The whole idea of banning fornication and and adultery revolved around the idea of lineage and property rights (your kid inherits the herds, land, or whatever - not some other guy's kid). This stretches back to the very historic concept of inheritance, and why most religions have that prohibition in place - as a concept, it is that damned old. But, you yourself mention the pragmatism as well. :)

    As for today, kids are treasured far more highly, even to the point of legal worship over ideals that earlier civilizations really couldn't give a damn about. It is certainly wrong to harm a kid, to exploit one, or to molest one. This is common sense to a civilized modern human being. OTOH, there comes a point where at least biologically, a person is no longer a child, and the law has to allow for the adolescent to start taking steps into the world of adulthood. As long as it doesn't involve an adult taking advantage of that period of growth, the law should just leave the teenager the hell alone in that regard.

  • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ottothecow ( 600101 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @12:50PM (#37583816) Homepage
    I'm pretty sure the way 3 strikes rules work is that the penalty applies the third time you are convicted.

    Presumably this means you have already been in front of a judge *twice* who has told you that this behavior will result in a felony charge. Whether or not you agree with a 17 year old taking nude photos of themselves being a felony-worthy offence, someone who gets caught doing it after being in court for it twice before has only themselves to blame. The law is on the books and actively enforced, so until that law is changed you had better follow the damn thing (and I wouldn't suggest risking sex offender status and a felony in order to try your luck at getting the supreme court to change the law).

  • Re:Curious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheGratefulNet ( 143330 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @03:02PM (#37584398)

    this is a very good reason for why jury nullification is so damned useful!

    it lets people follow their hearts and not some hard-and-fast cold set of rules and if they made the right judgement call, DAMN THE LAW.

    LAWS ARE GUIDELINES. stop being robots and value each decision. see if its worth following; not every law in every case, is.

    encourage individual thinking. we are not robots and should stop acting like we have zero judgement ability in ourselves. in fact, the average person is just as qualified to judge issues of 'right and wrong' as any judge or laywer. its not hard. if its hard, you're doing it wrong.

  • Re:Wow (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BitterOak ( 537666 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @03:42PM (#37584606)

    Did you miss the part where the penalties if you don't report it are very very minor?

    Does it matter that the penalties are minor? If someone sends you an unsolicited pic, and you delete it right away, why should there be any penalties at all?

  • Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dahamma ( 304068 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @05:09PM (#37585150)

    But if a 16 year old sends a photo to another 16 year old with the consent of both, what business is that of law enforcement and how in hell should either be guilty of *any* criminal offense, whether it was the first, second, or third time? The new law is still absurd.

  • Re:Curious (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shutdown -p now ( 807394 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @05:13PM (#37585190) Journal

    That being said, by decriminalizing sexting by minors it's likely to have the side effect of opening up an entire realm of photos to pedophiles that were previously harder to come by.

    Does anyone get hurt by some pedo wanking off to a "sexted" photo?

    It seems to me that this isn't the case. So why is it a problem?

  • by russotto ( 537200 ) on Sunday October 02, 2011 @06:36PM (#37585740) Journal

    Grant was wrong. Nowadays, governments can do whatever they want to lawbreakers and not only will everyone around them be unsympathetic to their plight ("Well, you knew you weren't supposed to walk on the you're in for a beheading and it's your own fault") but even the lawbreakers will buy into that reasoning.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson