McLean hish school porn site -Wash Post

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Parental supervision is not as easy as you think unless you jail your kids. I am pretty strict, but my MS kid went to a birthday party last night and I wasn't there. How would it be my fault as far as supervision if they did something bad. I think parenting plays a HUGE role, but more in raising kids morally to do the right thing when you aren't around.

How late was the party?
About how many kids?
How well do you know the host parents?
How much do you trust them to do what they promised you?


6:30-10:30, my husband was one if the drivers. Family is our best friends. Still can't control what the other kids decide to do in their basement. Pretty sure the parents didn't sit with them the whole time. Be realistic.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think pps are making a (not unreasonable) assumption that the girls voluntarily took a pic of themselves and forwarded it to someone. I don't think anyone assumes the girls intended their pics become part of a porn site and widely available. No one here seems to understand the role of "intent" in this scenario.


Presumably the girls intended the pictures to go only a limited number of recipients, while these two boys wanted the pictures to be accessible to lots of people. But the girls have or should have an understanding of social media and email/text: once you send something to someone, it can and will be forwarded to everyone in the world, regardless of your intent.

The boys did a very wrong thing. The girls did a wrong thing, too. Certainly the wrong thing that the boys did was much greater, which is why they will get in trouble with the law. The girls will get a pass from the law, even though they should know better.


I actually think creating child porn is worse than sharing it but to each his own. Porn, of course is a legal term, these are probably pictures of girls boobs.

The girls will only get a pass because they are not 18yo yet. If the girls were over 18 there is no crime.


Child porn is an extremely serious crime that can quickly land you in prison for a very long time. There are real criminals out there who hurt children, either by creating child porn or by sharing it and creating a demand for it. (I understand why you might find creating it worse than possessing it, but the law comes down hard on both of those activities.)

Pictures of high school kids really aren't in the same category, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the judge who sentenced the West Springfield boys last year.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think pps are making a (not unreasonable) assumption that the girls voluntarily took a pic of themselves and forwarded it to someone. I don't think anyone assumes the girls intended their pics become part of a porn site and widely available. No one here seems to understand the role of "intent" in this scenario.


Presumably the girls intended the pictures to go only a limited number of recipients, while these two boys wanted the pictures to be accessible to lots of people. But the girls have or should have an understanding of social media and email/text: once you send something to someone, it can and will be forwarded to everyone in the world, regardless of your intent.

The boys did a very wrong thing. The girls did a wrong thing, too. Certainly the wrong thing that the boys did was much greater, which is why they will get in trouble with the law. The girls will get a pass from the law, even though they should know better.


I actually think creating child porn is worse than sharing it but to each his own. Porn, of course is a legal term, these are probably pictures of girls boobs.

The girls will only get a pass because they are not 18yo yet. If the girls were over 18 there is no crime.


Child porn is an extremely serious crime that can quickly land you in prison for a very long time. There are real criminals out there who hurt children, either by creating child porn or by sharing it and creating a demand for it. (I understand why you might find creating it worse than possessing it, but the law comes down hard on both of those activities.)

Pictures of high school kids really aren't in the same category, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the judge who sentenced the West Springfield boys last year.


I agree with you. I think the laws need to change, 17 yo boy and girl can have consensual sex and it is legal, but if they share a naked photo it is child porn. Does not make sense. I doubt most kids know this is a crime.
Anonymous
Does anyone know the law exactly? I don't think its poem if they send it to each other, I think it's porn if there is intent to distribute like in a shared website or something. That's why I think the boys are in more trouble.
Anonymous
18 US Code Section 2252:

(a) Any person who—
(1) knowingly transports or ships using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means including by computer or mails, any visual depiction, if—
(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) such visual depiction is of such conduct;
(2) knowingly receives, or distributes, any visual depiction using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or which contains materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, or knowingly reproduces any visual depiction for distribution using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or through the mails, if—
(A) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) such visual depiction is of such conduct;
(3) either—
(A) in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or on any land or building owned by, leased to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the Government of the United States, or in the Indian country as defined in section 1151 of this title, knowingly sells or possesses with intent to sell any visual depiction; or
(B) knowingly sells or possesses with intent to sell any visual depiction that has been mailed, shipped, or transported using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce, or has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or which was produced using materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including by computer, if—
(i) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(ii) such visual depiction is of such conduct; or
(4) either—
(A) in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or on any land or building owned by, leased to, or otherwise used by or under the control of the Government of the United States, or in the Indian country as defined in section 1151 of this title, knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, 1 or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other matter which contain any visual depiction; or
(B) knowingly possesses, or knowingly accesses with intent to view, 1 or more books, magazines, periodicals, films, video tapes, or other matter which contain any visual depiction that has been mailed, or has been shipped or transported using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or which was produced using materials which have been mailed or so shipped or transported, by any means including by computer, if—
(i) the producing of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
(ii) such visual depiction is of such conduct;
shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b)
(1) Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, but if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, section 1591, chapter 71section 1591, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, or sex trafficking of children, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 15 years nor more than 40 years.
(2) Whoever violates, or attempts or conspires to violate, paragraph (4) of subsection (a) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both, but if any visual depiction involved in the offense involved a prepubescent minor or a minor who had not attained 12 years of age, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or if such person has a prior conviction under this chapter, chapter 71, chapter 109A, or chapter 117, or under section 920 of title 10 (article 120 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), or under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward, or the production, possession, receipt, mailing, sale, distribution, shipment, or transportation of child pornography, such person shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for not less than 10 years nor more than 20 years.
(c) Affirmative Defense.— It shall be an affirmative defense to a charge of violating paragraph (4) of subsection (a) that the defendant—
(1) possessed less than three matters containing any visual depiction proscribed by that paragraph; and
(2) promptly and in good faith, and without retaining or allowing any person, other than a law enforcement agency, to access any visual depiction or copy thereof—
(A) took reasonable steps to destroy each such visual depiction; or
(B) reported the matter to a law enforcement agency and afforded that agency access to each such visual depiction.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the law exactly? I don't think its poem if they send it to each other, I think it's porn if there is intent to distribute like in a shared website or something. That's why I think the boys are in more trouble.

The recent case of the West Springfield teens involved just sharing the pics among the 4 friends. Not what the law intended, in my opinion, but shows a problem when the existing/old laws on the books have not caught up and are applied against new bad behavior.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the law exactly? I don't think its poem if they send it to each other, I think it's porn if there is intent to distribute like in a shared website or something. That's why I think the boys are in more trouble.

The recent case of the West Springfield teens involved just sharing the pics among the 4 friends. Not what the law intended, in my opinion, but shows a problem when the existing/old laws on the books have not caught up and are applied against new bad behavior.


So then this is much, much worse.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:What is the source of the evidence that these particular pictures were taken voluntarily? It does not say that in the Post article. Is this an assumption being made or is there evidence elsewhere?


If the picture were involuntary the charges would be different.


At this point only search warrants have been filed as part of an investigation; charges have not yet been filed. The Washington Post article gives no indication that any authorities have stated that these pictures were taken voluntarily.
Just because we might know of cases where pictures were taken voluntarily does not mean that that is the case in this particular instance. We really do not know either way, so it seems a bit hasty to assume.
Anonymous
Preteens and teens with too much freedom or parents that are too busy end up using their dumb teen brains to parent themselves. The teen brain will make bad decisions! Preteens and teens need parents to help them through the land mines of hormones, sex, alcohol, drugs etc. Do not assume anything with a teenager. Also be a good role model. Parents should not drink often, do drugs, gossip, and should teach kids how to be modest, caring, respectful of themselves and others, and how to maintain their reputation. Being a teenager is tough. Teenagers need good parents! Parents today are too obsessed with good grades and getting into the right college. But look at the reality. Parents should spend more time worrying if they are sending their kids off to a school with lots of binge drinking and hooking up. Teenage and college students do not seem to respect each other anymore. It is all about getting the best grades and the into the best school to get the best job. Respectful dating relationships now are seen as a waste of time and young adults think that the opposite sex is just their to use. People need to make quality respectful relationships a priority.
Anonymous
The heroin OD of the McLean student last summer, the incident where kids reportedly got caught with prescription painkillers on a band trip, now this.

What the hell is going on at McLean HS???
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know the law exactly? I don't think its poem if they send it to each other, I think it's porn if there is intent to distribute like in a shared website or something. That's why I think the boys are in more trouble.

The recent case of the West Springfield teens involved just sharing the pics among the 4 friends. Not what the law intended, in my opinion, but shows a problem when the existing/old laws on the books have not caught up and are applied against new bad behavior.


So then this is much, much worse.

Well, different. It seems to be that the WSHS teens took pics of unsuspecting victims (and then shared the pics among themselves) and the MHS pics were taken and originally posted by the girls themselves.
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.


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.


I feel so bad for this 16 year old. He is a juvenile and he is going to be judged and convicted before every going to court. To have 16 years old adolescents convicted of child porn for other 16 year old's pictures is just wrong.
FruminousBandersnatch
Member Offline
Wow. 6 pages and no one's blamed Landon or lacrosse culture, yet. What is DCUM coming to?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I think pps are making a (not unreasonable) assumption that the girls voluntarily took a pic of themselves and forwarded it to someone. I don't think anyone assumes the girls intended their pics become part of a porn site and widely available. No one here seems to understand the role of "intent" in this scenario.


it wasn't a porn site. It was a dropbox site which is for backups.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I assume that in the posts to follow, people will be tempted to use the boys' names. I do not live in McLean nor do we have any association to the HS. Let me remind people not to use names in very sensitive matters like this.


It is disturbing to me that your first impulse is to protect the boys who did this. Deeply, deeply disturbing. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, yes, but if charges are brought and convictions rendered, I would like their names published far and wide.


first instinct is to protect adolescents from adult justice. That is just the right and moral thing to do.
post reply Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)
Message Quick Reply
Go to: