McLean hish school porn site -Wash Post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have first hand info about the facts or evidence in this case. I do know, more often than not (as most humans do), when looking at a photo, whether it was posed or taken surreptitiously. Come on.

But you haven't seen these pictures, have you? So, how could you possibly know either way?

Nobody know either way. But most girls take photos of themselves, share them, then regret it. Most teen cases are not unwilling victims. Let it play out. We will see. But my opinion is that these girls are just mad they gave their "boyfriend" a picture and it went viral.

Really, I highly doubt that "most" girls out there are taking explicit pictures of themselves. And it just does not logically follow that giving one person a picture equates to permission for that person to publish that picture on a porn site. There's a huge leap there.
Of course these girls and their families must be angry. These boys deliberately took actions to humiliate these girls and place them in danger. Who wouldn't be angry in these circumstances? If it does turn out that the boys were given the pictures, they broke the trust they had with the other person. And the article mentions 52 different folders: that's a lot of girls allegedly willingly handing over pictures.
And yet, there are people out there who are saying that it is not the fault of the boys, they just couldn't help themselves. Apparently, when presented with a picture of a naked or partly naked girl, a boy just can't help opening a web site and collecting as many other pictures as he can and making it possible for others to see them, too. It clearly must be the fault of the person who has been humiliated and endangered.
Being foolish and immature is one thing, taking advantage of the trust of another and holding a person up for public ridicule is in a whole other category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have first hand info about the facts or evidence in this case. I do know, more often than not (as most humans do), when looking at a photo, whether it was posed or taken surreptitiously. Come on.

But you haven't seen these pictures, have you? So, how could you possibly know either way?

Nobody know either way. But most girls take photos of themselves, share them, then regret it. Most teen cases are not unwilling victims. Let it play out. We will see. But my opinion is that these girls are just mad they gave their "boyfriend" a picture and it went viral.

Really, I highly doubt that "most" girls out there are taking explicit pictures of themselves. And it just does not logically follow that giving one person a picture equates to permission for that person to publish that picture on a porn site. There's a huge leap there.
Of course these girls and their families must be angry. These boys deliberately took actions to humiliate these girls and place them in danger. Who wouldn't be angry in these circumstances? If it does turn out that the boys were given the pictures, they broke the trust they had with the other person. And the article mentions 52 different folders: that's a lot of girls allegedly willingly handing over pictures.
And yet, there are people out there who are saying that it is not the fault of the boys, they just couldn't help themselves. Apparently, when presented with a picture of a naked or partly naked girl, a boy just can't help opening a web site and collecting as many other pictures as he can and making it possible for others to see them, too. It clearly must be the fault of the person who has been humiliated and endangered.
Being foolish and immature is one thing, taking advantage of the trust of another and holding a person up for public ridicule is in a whole other category.

My understanding is that, from a legal perspective, an underage girl who sends a nude picture of herself to another person has engaged in the same misconduct as the underage boy who may or may not have solicited it, but then forwards it to a third party.

It has previously been noted that Dropbox is not a "porn site," but instead a file-sharing site with restricted access, and it is by no means clear how many people had access to it before a McLean student who was forwarded a link to the site reported it to the school 's resource officer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have first hand info about the facts or evidence in this case. I do know, more often than not (as most humans do), when looking at a photo, whether it was posed or taken surreptitiously. Come on.

But you haven't seen these pictures, have you? So, how could you possibly know either way?

I said I didn't know. Why are you pushing this in a circle?

Obviously, people have seen the pics, including the authorities, and have drawn certain preliminary conclusions. When no allegations are made that the pics were taken against the girls wishes (as has been said in other similar teen cases recently where the girls appeared to be incoherent), it is reasonable to make the inference that the girls knew when the pics were taken. We're not at trial where rules of evidence apply. We're on DCUM. But still: use your head. And to do that, you have to get it out of the sand.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Really, I highly doubt that "most" girls out there are taking explicit pictures of themselves. And it just does not logically follow that giving one person a picture equates to permission for that person to publish that picture on a porn site. There's a huge leap there.
Of course these girls and their families must be angry. These boys deliberately took actions to humiliate these girls and place them in danger. Who wouldn't be angry in these circumstances? If it does turn out that the boys were given the pictures, they broke the trust they had with the other person. And the article mentions 52 different folders: that's a lot of girls allegedly willingly handing over pictures.
And yet, there are people out there who are saying that it is not the fault of the boys, they just couldn't help themselves. Apparently, when presented with a picture of a naked or partly naked girl, a boy just can't help opening a web site and collecting as many other pictures as he can and making it possible for others to see them, too. It clearly must be the fault of the person who has been humiliated and endangered.
Being foolish and immature is one thing, taking advantage of the trust of another and holding a person up for public ridicule is in a whole other category.

My understanding is that, from a legal perspective, an underage girl who sends a nude picture of herself to another person has engaged in the same misconduct as the underage boy who may or may not have solicited it, but then forwards it to a third party.

It has previously been noted that Dropbox is not a "porn site," but instead a file-sharing site with restricted access, and it is by no means clear how many people had access to it before a McLean student who was forwarded a link to the site reported it to the school 's resource officer.

No, Dropbox is not a porn site, the boys created their own site on Dropbox. A Dropbox site contains whatever the owner places on it. It isn't at all clear how many had access to the site, but anyone who did could have copied the pictures to their own computers.

And, sure, that might be true from a legal perspective, but there's a huge difference between one girl sending pictures to one person with whom she believes herself to be in a romantic relationship, and a boy collecting pictures from 52 different girls and placing them on a website that others can access with the right link. Yes, foolish girl to believe that she can trust a boy, but breaking another person's trust is far worse than being foolish. The right thing to do would be to delete them immediately, not collect them in one site and invite others to view them. These boys had to know that their actions would humiliate the girls involved and put them in possible danger.

The girls' actions hurt themselves, the boys' actions took advantage of a weakness to hurt and humiliate others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have first hand info about the facts or evidence in this case. I do know, more often than not (as most humans do), when looking at a photo, whether it was posed or taken surreptitiously. Come on.

But you haven't seen these pictures, have you? So, how could you possibly know either way?

Nobody know either way. But most girls take photos of themselves, share them, then regret it. Most teen cases are not unwilling victims. Let it play out. We will see. But my opinion is that these girls are just mad they gave their "boyfriend" a picture and it went viral.

Really, I highly doubt that "most" girls out there are taking explicit pictures of themselves. And it just does not logically follow that giving one person a picture equates to permission for that person to publish that picture on a porn site. There's a huge leap there.
Of course these girls and their families must be angry. These boys deliberately took actions to humiliate these girls and place them in danger. Who wouldn't be angry in these circumstances? If it does turn out that the boys were given the pictures, they broke the trust they had with the other person. And the article mentions 52 different folders: that's a lot of girls allegedly willingly handing over pictures.
And yet, there are people out there who are saying that it is not the fault of the boys, they just couldn't help themselves. Apparently, when presented with a picture of a naked or partly naked girl, a boy just can't help opening a web site and collecting as many other pictures as he can and making it possible for others to see them, too. It clearly must be the fault of the person who has been humiliated and endangered.
Being foolish and immature is one thing, taking advantage of the trust of another and holding a person up for public ridicule is in a whole other category.

No, we are not saying the boys are blameless, couldn't help themselves, or aren't guilty of doing something very bad. What we are saying is that child pornography might not be the best/worst charge for the boys, and that the girls were more than merely foolish but are guilty of something bad as well. In my opinion, neither the boys nor the girls should be charged with child pornography, but if the girls did voluntarily take those pics and send them out, they all could be charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


No, we are not saying the boys are blameless, couldn't help themselves, or aren't guilty of doing something very bad. What we are saying is that child pornography might not be the best/worst charge for the boys, and that the girls were more than merely foolish but are guilty of something bad as well. In my opinion, neither the boys nor the girls should be charged with child pornography, but if the girls did voluntarily take those pics and send them out, they all could be charged.

PP here. I absolutely agree. I personally despise the juvenile justice system. I cannot believe how horribly kid's lives have been getting messed up for the past few years.

This trashy behavior should not be criminalized. This isn't a case of a predator stalking kids. It is trashy, vulgar and indicative of low self esteem and the innocence of youth in general. But up to 20 years and a felony record? Hell, no. Both the girls and the boys are equally guilty of having a moral lapse. Imagine what the younger brother of one of these girls is going through! The Moms! It's depressing, all right. I am so sorry for everyone involved. Having your kid's scandal reported in the Washington Post has got to be a low point in one's existence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


No, we are not saying the boys are blameless, couldn't help themselves, or aren't guilty of doing something very bad. What we are saying is that child pornography might not be the best/worst charge for the boys, and that the girls were more than merely foolish but are guilty of something bad as well. In my opinion, neither the boys nor the girls should be charged with child pornography, but if the girls did voluntarily take those pics and send them out, they all could be charged.

PP here. I absolutely agree. I personally despise the juvenile justice system. I cannot believe how horribly kid's lives have been getting messed up for the past few years.

This trashy behavior should not be criminalized. This isn't a case of a predator stalking kids. It is trashy, vulgar and indicative of low self esteem and the innocence of youth in general. But up to 20 years and a felony record? Hell, no. Both the girls and the boys are equally guilty of having a moral lapse. Imagine what the younger brother of one of these girls is going through! The Moms! It's depressing, all right. I am so sorry for everyone involved. Having your kid's scandal reported in the Washington Post has got to be a low point in one's existence.

ITA. Unless the pictures were *taken* without consent, I view both boys and girls as culpable. If you don't want naked pictures of yourself circulating on the internet, then don't allow such pictures to be taken. Likewise, you don't post or distribute pictures of ANYONE without their consent, most especially pictures that could be considered pornographic. I would be appalled if my son OR my daughter were somehow involved with this.

[Anonymous]

No, they are not equally culpable.

... there's a huge difference between one girl sending pictures to one person with whom she believes herself to be in a romantic relationship, and a boy collecting pictures from 52 different girls and placing them on a website that others can access with the right link. Yes, foolish girl to believe that she can trust a boy, but breaking another person's trust is far worse than being foolish. The right thing to do would be to delete them immediately, not collect them in one site and invite others to view them. These boys had to know that their actions would humiliate the girls involved and put them in possible danger.

The girls' actions hurt themselves, the boys' actions took advantage of a weakness to hurt and humiliate others.

Very different levels of culpability here.

[Anonymous]

You live in LaLa land.

Yes, today's girls take pictures of themselves in various versions of undress and give it to their boyfriends. Mostly topless. 52 pictures in a whole hS is NOTHING.

Boys show their friends.

This is not a "porn" site. It is a shared area like photobucket.

Yes. If you give a naked picture of yourself to somebody they are allowed to share it. The only reason this is an issue is that the girls are under age. If they were 18 there would be no crime.

I am sorry your daughters pictures were shared, maybe she needs some counseling to find out why she does not respect herself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have first hand info about the facts or evidence in this case. I do know, more often than not (as most humans do), when looking at a photo, whether it was posed or taken surreptitiously. Come on.

But you haven't seen these pictures, have you? So, how could you possibly know either way?

Nobody know either way. But most girls take photos of themselves, share them, then regret it. Most teen cases are not unwilling victims. Let it play out. We will see. But my opinion is that these girls are just mad they gave their "boyfriend" a picture and it went viral.

Really, I highly doubt that "most" girls out there are taking explicit pictures of themselves. And it just does not logically follow that giving one person a picture equates to permission for that person to publish that picture on a porn site. There's a huge leap there.
Of course these girls and their families must be angry. These boys deliberately took actions to humiliate these girls and place them in danger. Who wouldn't be angry in these circumstances? If it does turn out that the boys were given the pictures, they broke the trust they had with the other person. And the article mentions 52 different folders: that's a lot of girls allegedly willingly handing over pictures.
And yet, there are people out there who are saying that it is not the fault of the boys, they just couldn't help themselves. Apparently, when presented with a picture of a naked or partly naked girl, a boy just can't help opening a web site and collecting as many other pictures as he can and making it possible for others to see them, too. It clearly must be the fault of the person who has been humiliated and endangered.
Being foolish and immature is one thing, taking advantage of the trust of another and holding a person up for public ridicule is in a whole other category.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Really, I highly doubt that "most" girls out there are taking explicit pictures of themselves. And it just does not logically follow that giving one person a picture equates to permission for that person to publish that picture on a porn site. There's a huge leap there.
Of course these girls and their families must be angry. These boys deliberately took actions to humiliate these girls and place them in danger. Who wouldn't be angry in these circumstances? If it does turn out that the boys were given the pictures, they broke the trust they had with the other person. And the article mentions 52 different folders: that's a lot of girls allegedly willingly handing over pictures.
And yet, there are people out there who are saying that it is not the fault of the boys, they just couldn't help themselves. Apparently, when presented with a picture of a naked or partly naked girl, a boy just can't help opening a web site and collecting as many other pictures as he can and making it possible for others to see them, too. It clearly must be the fault of the person who has been humiliated and endangered.
Being foolish and immature is one thing, taking advantage of the trust of another and holding a person up for public ridicule is in a whole other category.

My understanding is that, from a legal perspective, an underage girl who sends a nude picture of herself to another person has engaged in the same misconduct as the underage boy who may or may not have solicited it, but then forwards it to a third party.

It has previously been noted that Dropbox is not a "porn site," but instead a file-sharing site with restricted access, and it is by no means clear how many people had access to it before a McLean student who was forwarded a link to the site reported it to the school 's resource officer.

No, Dropbox is not a porn site, the boys created their own site on Dropbox. A Dropbox site contains whatever the owner places on it. It isn't at all clear how many had access to the site, but anyone who did could have copied the pictures to their own computers.

And, sure, that might be true from a legal perspective, but there's a huge difference between one girl sending pictures to one person with whom she believes herself to be in a romantic relationship, and a boy collecting pictures from 52 different girls and placing them on a website that others can access with the right link. Yes, foolish girl to believe that she can trust a boy, but breaking another person's trust is far worse than being foolish. The right thing to do would be to delete them immediately, not collect them in one site and invite others to view them. These boys had to know that their actions would humiliate the girls involved and put them in possible danger.

The girls' actions hurt themselves, the boys' actions took advantage of a weakness to hurt and humiliate others.

There are a lot of assumptions in your post as to the motivations of the girls involved.

And, to be clear, the press did not state that 52 female students were involved, but instead that there were 52 labeled folders in a Dropbox account containing over 50 pictures. Whether the labels corresponded to different students, or a smaller number of students on multiple occasions, was not revealed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Really, I highly doubt that "most" girls out there are taking explicit pictures of themselves. And it just does not logically follow that giving one person a picture equates to permission for that person to publish that picture on a porn site. There's a huge leap there.
Of course these girls and their families must be angry. These boys deliberately took actions to humiliate these girls and place them in danger. Who wouldn't be angry in these circumstances? If it does turn out that the boys were given the pictures, they broke the trust they had with the other person. And the article mentions 52 different folders: that's a lot of girls allegedly willingly handing over pictures.
And yet, there are people out there who are saying that it is not the fault of the boys, they just couldn't help themselves. Apparently, when presented with a picture of a naked or partly naked girl, a boy just can't help opening a web site and collecting as many other pictures as he can and making it possible for others to see them, too. It clearly must be the fault of the person who has been humiliated and endangered.
Being foolish and immature is one thing, taking advantage of the trust of another and holding a person up for public ridicule is in a whole other category.

My understanding is that, from a legal perspective, an underage girl who sends a nude picture of herself to another person has engaged in the same misconduct as the underage boy who may or may not have solicited it, but then forwards it to a third party.

It has previously been noted that Dropbox is not a "porn site," but instead a file-sharing site with restricted access, and it is by no means clear how many people had access to it before a McLean student who was forwarded a link to the site reported it to the school 's resource officer.

No, Dropbox is not a porn site, the boys created their own site on Dropbox. A Dropbox site contains whatever the owner places on it. It isn't at all clear how many had access to the site, but anyone who did could have copied the pictures to their own computers.

And, sure, that might be true from a legal perspective, but there's a huge difference between one girl sending pictures to one person with whom she believes herself to be in a romantic relationship, and a boy collecting pictures from 52 different girls and placing them on a website that others can access with the right link. Yes, foolish girl to believe that she can trust a boy, but breaking another person's trust is far worse than being foolish. The right thing to do would be to delete them immediately, not collect them in one site and invite others to view them. These boys had to know that their actions would humiliate the girls involved and put them in possible danger.

The girls' actions hurt themselves, the boys' actions took advantage of a weakness to hurt and humiliate others.

There are a lot of assumptions in your post as to the motivations of the girls involved.

And, to be clear, the press did not state that 52 female students were involved, but instead that there were 52 labeled folders in a Dropbox account containing over 50 pictures. Whether the labels corresponded to different students, or a smaller number of students on multiple occasions, was not revealed.

I do not know anyone involved in this situation and I do not live in the vicinity of this school. I have made some assumptions based on my experience of human behavior, as a parent and as someone who has worked with children, just as so many others on this thread have made assumptions. I only know what was written in the Post article, which referred to the site the boys created as a porn site and noted the number of folders and the fact that the account had been "circulating among students."

Again, it is quite a different thing to send one person a picture of oneself than it is to collect photos and make it possible for others to view them, knowing it would be embarrassing to those pictured and put those pictured in a situation that could possibly put them in danger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I do not know anyone involved in this situation and I do not live in the vicinity of this school. I have made some assumptions based on my experience of human behavior, as a parent and as someone who has worked with children, just as so many others on this thread have made assumptions. I only know what was written in the Post article, which referred to the site the boys created as a porn site and noted the number of folders and the fact that the account had been "circulating among students."

Again, it is quite a different thing to send one person a picture of oneself than it is to collect photos and make it possible for others to view them, knowing it would be embarrassing to those pictured and put those pictured in a situation that could possibly put them in danger.

Perhaps you have first-hand experience with having sent someone you trusted an intimate picture, only to find that the person you sent it to later violated that trust, but otherwise your "experience" doesn't equip you to fill in blanks that, for now, remain largely vacant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Really, I highly doubt that "most" girls out there are taking explicit pictures of themselves. And it just does not logically follow that giving one person a picture equates to permission for that person to publish that picture on a porn site. There's a huge leap there.
Of course these girls and their families must be angry. These boys deliberately took actions to humiliate these girls and place them in danger. Who wouldn't be angry in these circumstances? If it does turn out that the boys were given the pictures, they broke the trust they had with the other person. And the article mentions 52 different folders: that's a lot of girls allegedly willingly handing over pictures.
And yet, there are people out there who are saying that it is not the fault of the boys, they just couldn't help themselves. Apparently, when presented with a picture of a naked or partly naked girl, a boy just can't help opening a web site and collecting as many other pictures as he can and making it possible for others to see them, too. It clearly must be the fault of the person who has been humiliated and endangered.
Being foolish and immature is one thing, taking advantage of the trust of another and holding a person up for public ridicule is in a whole other category.

My understanding is that, from a legal perspective, an underage girl who sends a nude picture of herself to another person has engaged in the same misconduct as the underage boy who may or may not have solicited it, but then forwards it to a third party.

It has previously been noted that Dropbox is not a "porn site," but instead a file-sharing site with restricted access, and it is by no means clear how many people had access to it before a McLean student who was forwarded a link to the site reported it to the school 's resource officer.

No, Dropbox is not a porn site, the boys created their own site on Dropbox. A Dropbox site contains whatever the owner places on it. It isn't at all clear how many had access to the site, but anyone who did could have copied the pictures to their own computers.

And, sure, that might be true from a legal perspective, but there's a huge difference between one girl sending pictures to one person with whom she believes herself to be in a romantic relationship, and a boy collecting pictures from 52 different girls and placing them on a website that others can access with the right link. Yes, foolish girl to believe that she can trust a boy, but breaking another person's trust is far worse than being foolish. The right thing to do would be to delete them immediately, not collect them in one site and invite others to view them. These boys had to know that their actions would humiliate the girls involved and put them in possible danger.

The girls' actions hurt themselves, the boys' actions took advantage of a weakness to hurt and humiliate others.

There are a lot of assumptions in your post as to the motivations of the girls involved.

And, to be clear, the press did not state that 52 female students were involved, but instead that there were 52 labeled folders in a Dropbox account containing over 50 pictures. Whether the labels corresponded to different students, or a smaller number of students on multiple occasions, was not revealed.

I do not know anyone involved in this situation and I do not live in the vicinity of this school. I have made some assumptions based on my experience of human behavior, as a parent and as someone who has worked with children, just as so many others on this thread have made assumptions. I only know what was written in the Post article, which referred to the site the boys created as a porn site and noted the number of folders and the fact that the account had been "circulating among students."

Again, it is quite a different thing to send one person a picture of oneself than it is to collect photos and make it possible for others to view them, knowing it would be embarrassing to those pictured and put those pictured in a situation that could possibly put them in danger.

Don't ignore the fact that these girls who take sexually explicit pictures of themselves and then "send them to a friend" are also putting the friend who receives them in danger, too.

[Anonymous]

It's called, "using the delete key." I'm sure kids know how that works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have first hand info about the facts or evidence in this case. I do know, more often than not (as most humans do), when looking at a photo, whether it was posed or taken surreptitiously. Come on.

But you haven't seen these pictures, have you? So, how could you possibly know either way?

Nobody know either way. But most girls take photos of themselves, share them, then regret it. Most teen cases are not unwilling victims. Let it play out. We will see. But my opinion is that these girls are just mad they gave their "boyfriend" a picture and it went viral.

Really, I highly doubt that "most" girls out there are taking explicit pictures of themselves. And it just does not logically follow that giving one person a picture equates to permission for that person to publish that picture on a porn site. There's a huge leap there.
Of course these girls and their families must be angry. These boys deliberately took actions to humiliate these girls and place them in danger. Who wouldn't be angry in these circumstances? If it does turn out that the boys were given the pictures, they broke the trust they had with the other person. And the article mentions 52 different folders: that's a lot of girls allegedly willingly handing over pictures.
And yet, there are people out there who are saying that it is not the fault of the boys, they just couldn't help themselves. Apparently, when presented with a picture of a naked or partly naked girl, a boy just can't help opening a web site and collecting as many other pictures as he can and making it possible for others to see them, too. It clearly must be the fault of the person who has been humiliated and endangered.
Being foolish and immature is one thing, taking advantage of the trust of another and holding a person up for public ridicule is in a whole other category.

I don't think anyone is saying that the boys aren't at fault. I think most people are just saying the girls have culpability too and should be held accountable also. Do you want these girls giving nude pictures of themselves to your teenage son? My answer is categorically no. Should the boys be showing nude pictures to other teenagers, no. I don't think pornography is ok regardless of whether the person passing it to others is the person in the pictures or someone else. You are teaching young girls the wrong thing if you don't hold them accountable for their actions. If a teenage boy sent your daughter a nude picture of himself, would you be so quick to say no harm no foul, or would you be outraged? I say this in the interest of stopping young girls from making incredibly poor choices. Maybe if they knew that sending nude pics of themselves could be treated as distribution of child pornography they might think twice about doing it. The boys also should be held accountable. Accountability on both sides is the surest way of preventing this.