McLean hish school porn site -Wash Post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI..the girls took the pictures of themselves and sent them out themselves through various means..fb, twitter, email. Nobody else took pictures of them.

In these cases, I wonder why they don't also hold the girls liable. What they are doing sounds like creation and distribution of obscene matter by social media.

The difference is that the girls likely shared private photos with one person. They didn't put them on social media for all to see. I love the blame the victim mentality on here.

I don't think there is a social media standard. Distributing to one person is enough. Do you want some girl sending naked pictures to your teenage son? I don't. I also don't want my teenage daughter sending nude pictures to others. Period. No tolerance for this crap. Until you hold both sides accountable this will continue.

[Anonymous]

The only safe thing to do if you receive such a pic, whether from friend or boy/girlfriend, is to immediately alert the police, right? At that point, you're in possession of child porn, and the person who sent it has broken all kinds of laws and there is a record that you received it. Even if you escape criminal prosecution, the school will move against you. Your choice at that point is to hope tht the fragile friendships of high school hold, and none of it ever comes to light through the weakest link in whatever web knows of this, or go to the authorities immediately.

That's gotto be a no-brainer.

[Anonymous]

You all are coming up with assumptions. We don't really know what happened. Just wait for the investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI..the girls took the pictures of themselves and sent them out themselves through various means..fb, twitter, email. Nobody else took pictures of them.

And these two boys compiled and aggregated them into a repository. Their crime is far more serious than whatever foolishness the girls did.

Not really. Boys were given these pictures. They shared the pictures. It was just easier to put them in a shared area that it was to text them all over.

Not exactly a devious mind.

Are you kidding me? "The teenager worked with an older student, a senior at the school, to collect and disseminate photos through the online file-hosting service Dropbox, according to the court documents."

They sought them out. They didn't passively receive them. Then they archived them. Then, in cases where faces were obscured, they made the effort to label the individual photographs with names. That is pretty devious. And felonious.

Not devious, maybe innovative. The laws are all jacked up. Those boys could legally go to the girls house and view them naked and it is legal, but if they view a digital image of them it is pirn. That does not make any sense. They could also have sex with these,girls and it is legal but having a digital image of them is illegAl. Still, does not make sense.

Wrong analogy. The collection and archiving of pictures that weren't even intended for them as recipients and attempts to distribute them is more closely analogous to gang rape. These girls may consent to a one-on-one encounter in their bedroom. They never gave consent for the accumulation of their images for the purposes of packaging them with others and mass distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all are coming up with assumptions. We don't really know what happened. Just wait for the investigation.

Yes, DCUMers never jump to conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Wrong analogy. The collection and archiving of pictures that weren't even intended for them as recipients and attempts to distribute them is more closely analogous to gang rape. These girls may consent to a one-on-one encounter in their bedroom. They never gave consent for the accumulation of their images for the purposes of packaging them with others and mass distribution.

Really, it's more like Napster. They went after the major sites, including Pirate Bay and Napster, but not the individual users, either uploaders or downloaders. It's not at all like gang rape.

[Anonymous]

The only victims are any girls who had pictures taken without their knowledge.

The girls who took pictures and sent them out voluntarily should also be charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Wrong analogy. The collection and archiving of pictures that weren't even intended for them as recipients and attempts to distribute them is more closely analogous to gang rape. These girls may consent to a one-on-one encounter in their bedroom. They never gave consent for the accumulation of their images for the purposes of packaging them with others and mass distribution.

Really, it's more like Napster. They went after the major sites, including Pirate Bay and Napster, but not the individual users, either uploaders or downloaders. It's not at all like gang rape.

Napster involved music piracy. We're talking about the sexual exploitation of children. Consent to have a picture taken or shared with one person does not extent to consent for mass distribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Wrong analogy. The collection and archiving of pictures that weren't even intended for them as recipients and attempts to distribute them is more closely analogous to gang rape. These girls may consent to a one-on-one encounter in their bedroom. They never gave consent for the accumulation of their images for the purposes of packaging them with others and mass distribution.

Really, it's more like Napster. They went after the major sites, including Pirate Bay and Napster, but not the individual users, either uploaders or downloaders. It's not at all like gang rape.

Napster involved music piracy. We're talking about the sexual exploitation of children. Consent to have a picture taken or shared with one person does not extent to consent for mass distribution.

I know that Naptser is about copyright infringement while this is about putting up (probably voluntarily taken) nude pics of high school girls. It's not rape, and it's not "child porn," which is designed to protect young children from really evil people who view, create, and distribute it.

Eventually, maybe when these high school girls and boys grow up, we'll need to change these laws to make more sense.

[Anonymous]

The article I read made no mention of the pictures being taken voluntarily. Can anyone provide a link to where people read that these were voluntarily taken pictures?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Wrong analogy. The collection and archiving of pictures that weren't even intended for them as recipients and attempts to distribute them is more closely analogous to gang rape. These girls may consent to a one-on-one encounter in their bedroom. They never gave consent for the accumulation of their images for the purposes of packaging them with others and mass distribution.

Really, it's more like Napster. They went after the major sites, including Pirate Bay and Napster, but not the individual users, either uploaders or downloaders. It's not at all like gang rape.

Napster involved music piracy. We're talking about the sexual exploitation of children. Consent to have a picture taken or shared with one person does not extent to consent for mass distribution.

Girls know their boyfriends are going to show their friends, just like they show their own friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article I read made no mention of the pictures being taken voluntarily. Can anyone provide a link to where people read that these were voluntarily taken pictures?

Even the cops assume it was voluntary because they have cases like this every week and the pictures are voluntary, until they break up then the girls want the picture back.

From the article...
It’s not clear whether any of the girls pictured knew that their photos would be seen by many other students. In some child pornography cases involving teenagers, victims have given photos to someone they are dating but later found that they were publicly broadcast..

[Anonymous]

At least one of the two parents should be focused on what their kids are doing. It isn't rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least one of the two parents should be focused on what their kids are doing. It isn't rocket science.

Do you have high school children? It's not that easy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article I read made no mention of the pictures being taken voluntarily. Can anyone provide a link to where people read that these were voluntarily taken pictures?

Even the cops assume it was voluntary because they have cases like this every week and the pictures are voluntary, until they break up then the girls want the picture back.

From the article...
It’s not clear whether any of the girls pictured knew that their photos would be seen by many other students. In some child pornography cases involving teenagers, victims have given photos to someone they are dating but later found that they were publicly broadcast..

I read that but it doesn't say that these particular girls gave these pictures voluntarily to anyone. Is there a different article that states this? So many of the posts here seem to indicate that there is knowledge that the girls gave these boys the pictures knowing that they were being published.