Anonymous wrote:Actually, what the girls did was criminal. They produced child porn and then they showed it to a minor.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:No one is saying the boys are blameless. Many are saying the girls are blameless. I'm curious how many of you are actually parenting teens.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:It's not like a woman walking down a street with a purse open and a thief takes her wallet! It's more that that the woman handed over her wallet and then was surprised by what the recipient did with the wallet.

Yes. Perhaps it (the porn) is similar to another contraband substance. The porn was handed over like the wallet, and up to 50 families are sorry that the money was squandered.

If a kid sends another kid a package of [name the dangerous drug] and the other kid uses it to get high or otherwise amuse himself, who is to blame? Only one party? Don't all moms despise the drug dealers who give their kids drugs? Don't all moms cry if their own kid uses dangerous drugs?

These moms crying misogyny are pathetic examples of a bad education. It reveals serious desperation to even attempt such an accusation.

All of the participants are guilty of participating in something entirely dishonorable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know the family of the younger boy personally and I can tell you, he is an absolutely wonderful kid...a wonderful kid who did something incredibly stupid. He comes from a great family where both parents are extremely involved as both parents and in the community. In no way do I excuse any of it, but the girls put these pictures out knowingly and willingly. For anyone to say that it is just the act of these one or two boys is simply not true. It was the act of many, on both sides. Q

He's deceiving you all. My parents, friends' parents, family friends, etc all thought I was the most wholesome and responsible teenager in the world. I was up to all sorts of nonsense and none of them had a clue.

And speaking from my own experience, what the "community" sees frequently bears little or no relation to what really goes on in someone's home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, what the girls did was criminal. They produced child porn and then they showed it to a minor.

And all the receiver needed to do was hit "delete." No one forced anyone to open a website, compile and label pictures, and send out links so others could view the pictures. Many more counts of possible criminal activity for the ones involved in the creating and organizing of the website.

No. Actually "deleting" is called destroying criminal evidence - the crime being creation (by girls) and distribution of (by girls) child porn.

So. Is your contention that the boys were somehow forced to collect pictures, create a website, post and organize pictures, and then send out links to the site to others? They were innocent victims of the senders of these pictures?
If not, you must see greater degree of apparent intent to harm on the part of those whose names are connected to the account.

No. I think the boys should have told their parents, their parents should have notified the police and the girls should have been convicted of providing porn to a minor.

So... since they did not notify authorities. Both the boys and girls should be TREATED THE SAME. Imagine that, girls and boys are equal. Stop making girls the victim it is not good for anybody.

I do not think sharing the pictures with a friend is a bigger deal than getting naked and taking a picture then sending it to friends.

It is not the same. Creating and circulating a website takes many more steps and adds several issues of culpability.

And not all the pictures involved nudity, so some young people who did not get naked have also been exposed to danger.

What danger?

The danger that pictures labeled with a child's name could end up in the hands of someone with bad intent who could find out where the child lives.

That could happen with Instagram too. You have to be invited to the dropbox just like Instagram.

Some Instagram accounts are public. Others are private.

In comparison, you need a specific link to access a Dropbox account. At some point, a link to a Dropbox account could be posted on a public forum, allowing broader access to its contents, but there is no allegation this occurred here.

Anonymous wrote:10:31- The difference with those other stories is that no one was trying to defend the people who were being investigated or charged. People are posting here because they are surprised that anyone would try to defend the actions of people creating this kind of website.

Actually I specifically recall the West Springfield incident and being shocked by it. I'm pretty sure it was discussed here (it was certainly discussed in our house).
And here, I don't know of any post "defending the actions" of the boys. I think it's more a reading comprehension problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, what the girls did was criminal. They produced child porn and then they showed it to a minor.

And all the receiver needed to do was hit "delete." No one forced anyone to open a website, compile and label pictures, and send out links so others could view the pictures. Many more counts of possible criminal activity for the ones involved in the creating and organizing of the website.

No. Actually "deleting" is called destroying criminal evidence - the crime being creation (by girls) and distribution of (by girls) child porn.

So. Is your contention that the boys were somehow forced to collect pictures, create a website, post and organize pictures, and then send out links to the site to others? They were innocent victims of the senders of these pictures?
If not, you must see greater degree of apparent intent to harm on the part of those whose names are connected to the account.

No. I think the boys should have told their parents, their parents should have notified the police and the girls should have been convicted of providing porn to a minor.

So... since they did not notify authorities. Both the boys and girls should be TREATED THE SAME. Imagine that, girls and boys are equal. Stop making girls the victim it is not good for anybody.

I do not think sharing the pictures with a friend is a bigger deal than getting naked and taking a picture then sending it to friends.

It is not the same. Creating and circulating a website takes many more steps and adds several issues of culpability.

And not all the pictures involved nudity, so some young people who did not get naked have also been exposed to danger.

What danger?

The danger that pictures labeled with a child's name could end up in the hands of someone with bad intent who could find out where the child lives.

That could happen with Instagram too. You have to be invited to the dropbox just like Instagram.

Anonymous wrote:10:31- The difference with those other stories is that no one was trying to defend the people who were being investigated or charged. People are posting here because they are surprised that anyone would try to defend the actions of people creating this kind of website.

BS. Of course those involved in those incidents were defended, both generally and, to the far more limited extent discussed on DCUM, on the forum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, what the girls did was criminal. They produced child porn and then they showed it to a minor.

And all the receiver needed to do was hit "delete." No one forced anyone to open a website, compile and label pictures, and send out links so others could view the pictures. Many more counts of possible criminal activity for the ones involved in the creating and organizing of the website.

No. Actually "deleting" is called destroying criminal evidence - the crime being creation (by girls) and distribution of (by girls) child porn.

So. Is your contention that the boys were somehow forced to collect pictures, create a website, post and organize pictures, and then send out links to the site to others? They were innocent victims of the senders of these pictures?
If not, you must see greater degree of apparent intent to harm on the part of those whose names are connected to the account.

No. I think the boys should have told their parents, their parents should have notified the police and the girls should have been convicted of providing porn to a minor.

So... since they did not notify authorities. Both the boys and girls should be TREATED THE SAME. Imagine that, girls and boys are equal. Stop making girls the victim it is not good for anybody.

I do not think sharing the pictures with a friend is a bigger deal than getting naked and taking a picture then sending it to friends.

It is not the same. Creating and circulating a website takes many more steps and adds several issues of culpability.

And not all the pictures involved nudity, so some young people who did not get naked have also been exposed to danger.

What danger?

The danger that pictures labeled with a child's name could end up in the hands of someone with bad intent who could find out where the child lives.

10:31- The difference with those other stories is that no one was trying to defend the people who were being investigated or charged. People are posting here because they are surprised that anyone would try to defend the actions of people creating this kind of website.

Anonymous wrote:Let these rich kids learn the lessons their parents didn't learn.

I think one lesson the kids are now learning is that they really are more interesting and important, because they live in or near McLean.

In the past year or so, there have been local reports of:

- male students from West Springfield filming themselves actually having sex with underage girls, without the girls' consent to being filmed (a tad more serious, perhaps, than what has been suggested here)
- students from Prince William County middle and high schools posting naked pictures of students on an Instagram account
- a 20-year-old Marshall student arrested for coercing a younger student into sending him pornographic images

I don't recall any of these stories led to a 20-page cluck-fest on DCUM.

Just wait until pics of boy parts show up on your kids' social media feeds. All the harping that will go on then. . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, what the girls did was criminal. They produced child porn and then they showed it to a minor.

And all the receiver needed to do was hit "delete." No one forced anyone to open a website, compile and label pictures, and send out links so others could view the pictures. Many more counts of possible criminal activity for the ones involved in the creating and organizing of the website.

No. Actually "deleting" is called destroying criminal evidence - the crime being creation (by girls) and distribution of (by girls) child porn.

So. Is your contention that the boys were somehow forced to collect pictures, create a website, post and organize pictures, and then send out links to the site to others? They were innocent victims of the senders of these pictures?
If not, you must see greater degree of apparent intent to harm on the part of those whose names are connected to the account.

No. I think the boys should have told their parents, their parents should have notified the police and the girls should have been convicted of providing porn to a minor.

So... since they did not notify authorities. Both the boys and girls should be TREATED THE SAME. Imagine that, girls and boys are equal. Stop making girls the victim it is not good for anybody.

I do not think sharing the pictures with a friend is a bigger deal than getting naked and taking a picture then sending it to friends.

It is not the same. Creating and circulating a website takes many more steps and adds several issues of culpability.

But you have to admit that it started (and could not have taken place otherwise) when the girls "posed naked" (according to WaPo), right?

Let these rich kids learn the lessons their parents didn't learn.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, what the girls did was criminal. They produced child porn and then they showed it to a minor.

And all the receiver needed to do was hit "delete." No one forced anyone to open a website, compile and label pictures, and send out links so others could view the pictures. Many more counts of possible criminal activity for the ones involved in the creating and organizing of the website.

No. Actually "deleting" is called destroying criminal evidence - the crime being creation (by girls) and distribution of (by girls) child porn.

So. Is your contention that the boys were somehow forced to collect pictures, create a website, post and organize pictures, and then send out links to the site to others? They were innocent victims of the senders of these pictures?
If not, you must see greater degree of apparent intent to harm on the part of those whose names are connected to the account.

No. I think the boys should have told their parents, their parents should have notified the police and the girls should have been convicted of providing porn to a minor.

So... since they did not notify authorities. Both the boys and girls should be TREATED THE SAME. Imagine that, girls and boys are equal. Stop making girls the victim it is not good for anybody.

I do not think sharing the pictures with a friend is a bigger deal than getting naked and taking a picture then sending it to friends.

It is not the same. Creating and circulating a website takes many more steps and adds several issues of culpability.

And not all the pictures involved nudity, so some young people who did not get naked have also been exposed to danger.

What danger?