Teens Charged for Sex Tape in Chicago

This is one major problem with the current child pornography laws. A teen should not be arrested for making a video of themself. The whole point of child porn laws is to protect kids, not throw them in jail.

There was a similar incident recently in my area where some teens uploaded a video of a 14 and 16 year old. The police told the teens to take that video down within a certain amount of time and the matter was taken to the parents and the school. This happened on someone's property during a party.

Nothing heard about it since.

My wonder is why teens feel the need to upload smut. It's dumb and irresponsible. I don't agree that pre-18 year olds should be charged as adults. Sure, the bureaucrats want to "protect the people" (from themselves) but are causing more harm than good here. Charge them as juveniles and if it happens post-18 years old, then charge them as adults. If they choose to be irresponsible when the time to be responsible comes around, then that's their fault.

I disagree that they shouldn't be arrested, but I don't think they should be forced to register as sex offenders or child pornographers.

They may think the only people who will see or judge them for that tape are a smallish group of people they know, but sex tapes make the rounds quickly and they can impact future employment or even school enrollment.

There should be consequences. Community service or fines or even juvie time, but the registry is ridiculous when the material being passed around involves no 3rd party.

atombaby said:

My wonder is why teens feel the need to upload smut. It's dumb and irresponsible.

Click to expand...

Teens need a reason to do dumb and irresponsible things?

Cyia said:

I disagree that they shouldn't be arrested, but I don't think they should be forced to register as sex offenders or child pornographers.

They may think the only people who will see or judge them for that tape are a smallish group of people they know, but sex tapes make the rounds quickly and they can impact future employment or even school enrollment.

There should be consequences. Community service or fines or even juvie time, but the registry is ridiculous when the material being passed around involves no 3rd party.

Click to expand...

So, they did something irresponsible that could screw up their future, and the answer to that is to arrest them and possibly give them jail tail, which will also probably mess up their future. Brilliant.

Juvie records are expunged when they reach adulthood.

Shadow Dragon said:

Teens need a reason to do dumb and irresponsible things?

Click to expand...

Ahaha yes we were all teenagers once. There's certainly plenty I regret. It's just a shame that they are doing things like this from so young. Doing this privately is one thing, but then by uploading it for all the world to see (probably intending on only having their friends watch, but of course there's no such thing as privacy on the interwebz) is most certainly wrong.

Just how badly should they be punished? Not a lifetime, I mean the youngest of those four won't be 18 for another four years. To a teenager, that is an eternity.

Will they be made an example of? We'll see what bureaucracy declares about that.

Cyia said:

They may think the only people who will see or judge them for that tape are a smallish group of people they know, but sex tapes make the rounds quickly and they can impact future employment or even school enrollment.

There should be consequences. Community service or fines or even juvie time, but the registry is ridiculous when the material being passed around involves no 3rd party.

Click to expand...

But making poor sexual choices, in itself, isn't a crime. Sexually assaulting or victimizing others is. Teenagers do a lot of things that could negatively impact their lives, but that aren't illegal.

The idea that people should be put through the criminal justice system in order to "save" them really bothers me. I don't think kids and teens should be posting sexually explicit pictures and videos of themselves online, but that's something that should be handled with good parenting or counseling, not being convicted of a crime and put in jail.

Since when should people be arrested and convicted of things that they do only to themselves? That sets a scary precedent. Let's arrest anyone who abuses legal substances such as alcohol or cigarettes, for example, even if they don't commit a DUI or any other crimes.

Even without the registry, being convicted of child pornography can follow these kids around for the rest of their lives. It will put their lives on hold. Being put through the system won't "teach them a lesson." Being put through the system is the worst-case-scenario that teaching them a lesson is supposed to prevent. Ground them. Take away their internet until they're more responsible. Have them talk to a therapist to make sure they haven't been victimized. Don't ruin their lives.

Cyia said:

Juvie records are expunged when they reach adulthood.

Click to expand...

Yes and no. My understanding is that even juvenile records still exist and can be accessed in some contexts. For example, I've heard that having a juvenile record can be an impediment to joining the armed forces.

Anyway, even if the records are expunged, that doesn't fix the fact that these kids might lose track of their schooling if they have to go juvie. Good luck keeping your grades up and getting into a good college, then.

DancingMaenid said:

But making poor sexual choices, in itself, isn't a crime. Sexually assaulting or victimizing others is. Teenagers do a lot of things that could negatively impact their lives, but that aren't illegal.

The idea that people should be put through the criminal justice system in order to "save" them really bothers me. I don't think kids and teens should be posting sexually explicit pictures and videos of themselves online, but that's something that should be handled with good parenting or counseling, not being convicted of a crime and put in jail.

Since when should people be arrested and convicted of things that they do only to themselves? That sets a scary precedent. Let's arrest anyone who abuses legal substances such as alcohol or cigarettes, for example, even if they don't commit a DUI or any other crimes.

Even without the registry, being convicted of child pornography can follow these kids around for the rest of their lives. It will put their lives on hold. Being put through the system won't "teach them a lesson." Being put through the system is the worst-case-scenario that teaching them a lesson is supposed to prevent. Ground them. Take away their internet until they're more responsible. Have them talk to a therapist to make sure they haven't been victimized. Don't ruin their lives.

Click to expand...

If they hadn't posted the video, then I'd say let them live with whatever consequences come from the acts without involving the police, but they did post it and that means they did commit a crime.

Posting underaged sexual videos online can ruin their lives, but a record that will be sealed upon adulthood won't.

Cyia said:

If they hadn't posted the video, then I'd say let them live with whatever consequences come from the acts without involving the police, but they did post it and that means they did commit a crime.

Posting underaged sexual videos online can ruin their lives, but a record that will be sealed upon adulthood won't.

Click to expand...

That's the thing: I don't think it should be a crime. I think child pornography laws need to be changed so that they're more specific and target the actual criminals.

And like I said, I'm not convinced that a "sealed" record is truly sealed. I know someone who was told that he would not have been allowed to join the army if he'd had a juvenile record, for example (as he didn't have a record, he was okay). A juvenile record may also affect financial aid and college admissions.

If they are convicted, that will mean that boys who post photos and videos of themselves raping girls at parties can be charged with child pornography as well.

DancingMaenid said:

That's the thing: I don't think it should be a crime. I think child pornography laws need to be changed so that they're more specific and target the actual criminals.

Click to expand...

Child pornography laws are, or at least should be, designed to prevent adults from abusing children or taking advantage of teenagers who may not be not mature enough to make decisions of their own.

Charging teenagers who make a sex video with the crime of child pornography is a perversion of the law and is absurd.

Not to mention the widely acccepted idea that a 16-year-old is a child. I sure as hell wasn't. I did some stupid things, but hell, I've done stupid things all my life.

Shadow Dragon said:

This is one major problem with the current child pornography laws. A teen should not be arrested for making a video of themself. The whole point of child porn laws is to protect kids, not throw them in jail.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between making a video and sharing a video. In this case, both would be a problem, but the uploading is certainly a larger one.

I'm torn though, as anything that helps to kill off public sex offender registries is likely a good thing, heh.

Cyia said:

Juvie records are expunged when they reach adulthood.

Click to expand...

I seriously doubt anyone who was on the SO registry as a juvenile is removed from that registry when they turn 18 or 21. Almost certain it doesn't happen.

Celia Cyanide said:

If they are convicted, that will mean that boys who post photos and videos of themselves raping girls at parties can be charged with child pornography as well.

Click to expand...

That's different. We wouldn't want to damage those boys' chance of a normal future.

Cyia said:

I disagree that they shouldn't be arrested, but I don't think they should be forced to register as sex offenders or child pornographers.

Click to expand...

Why should they be arrested?

They may think the only people who will see or judge them for that tape are a smallish group of people they know, but sex tapes make the rounds quickly and they can impact future employment or even school enrollment.

Click to expand...

And I would judge more harshly the employers and admissions administrators who choose to exclude them on the basis of a sex video than I would the kids.

There should be consequences. Community service or fines or even juvie time, but the registry is ridiculous when the material being passed around involves no 3rd party.

Click to expand...

Wait, so as if impacting future employment and school enrollment weren't enough, there should be more consequences???

Why???

atombaby said:

Doing this privately is one thing, but then by uploading it for all the world to see (probably intending on only having their friends watch, but of course there's no such thing as privacy on the interwebz) is most certainly wrong.

Click to expand...

Wrong? As in, morally "wrong"?

Umm no. I am wracking my brain, and what they did was technically illegal, but I cannot arrive at any remotely reasonable line of logical reasoning that suggests what they did was "wrong".

Stupid? Sure. Illegal? Sure.

But they did absolutely nothing "wrong".

Except, perhaps, in the eyes of religious extremists and puritans.

Cyia said:

If they hadn't posted the video, then I'd say let them live with whatever consequences come from the acts without involving the police, but they did post it and that means they did commit a crime.

Click to expand...

Yes. They committed a crime. A stupid crime which should not exist.

I thought such laws existed to protect children. Not incarcerate and incriminate them.

This reminds me - tangentially - of the French law, that criminalized being an underweight model.

There is a problem: Child porn is exploitative when it uses real children because children cannot give consent as an adult can.

The solution is slapdash: Child porn is illegal!

The result leads to unfortunate side effects: Children are being thrown in jail for what is essentially being stupid and nothing else.

The obvious solution is to add more nuance to the law and our application of it...OR DESTROY THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT.

cmhbob said:

I seriously doubt anyone who was on the SO registry as a juvenile is removed from that registry when they turn 18 or 21. Almost certain it doesn't happen.

Click to expand...

Does.

Also doesn't.

Registries, besides being useless and often harmful, are generally state-based and all over the map w/re rules. SORNA was meant to standardize, but standardized a minimum, which did nothing much for the all over the mapness of the dopey things.

Cyia said:

Juvie records are expunged when they reach adulthood.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that instead of being in highschool getting an education or with their family, they'll instead be in juvie with thieves and gang members. You think that might have a long term negative consequence?

kuwisdelu said:

Why should they be arrested?

And I would judge more harshly the employers and admissions administrators who choose to exclude them on the basis of a sex video than I would the kids.

Wait, so as if impacting future employment and school enrollment weren't enough, there should be more consequences???

Why???

Wrong? As in, morally "wrong"?

Umm no. I am wracking my brain, and what they did was technically illegal, but I cannot arrive at any remotely reasonable line of logical reasoning that suggests what they did was "wrong".

Stupid? Sure. Illegal? Sure.

But they did absolutely nothing "wrong".

Except, perhaps, in the eyes of religious extremists and puritans.

Yes. They committed a crime. A stupid crime which should not exist.

I thought such laws existed to protect children. Not incarcerate and incriminate them.

Click to expand...

They put child porn on the Internet. I can get with that's wrong.

I don't care if they're the children in it.

The point of ages of consent and child porn laws are partially that we, as a society, have agreed that people under a certain age don't reliably understand consequence.

Putting certain things online also perpetuates interest in them.

We're not criminalizing teens sleeping with teens of similar ages, but there's a difference between them doing that and them taping it and putting it on the Internet.

Celia Cyanide said:

If they are convicted, that will mean that boys who post photos and videos of themselves raping girls at parties can be charged with child pornography as well.

Click to expand...

Well, they can already be arrested for that. There also need to be laws against revenge porn, since underage people are far from the only ones who are at risk of having sexually-explicit photos of them put online without their consent.

I don't think it's so unreasonable to charge someone with distributing child pornography when they're distributing photos/videos of someone who isn't them, or someone who didn't consent. The reason why child porn is illegal is because people under the age of consent are not considered capable of consenting to making porn or having it distributed.

But if someone is distributing pictures/videos of themselves, it doesn't make a lot of sense to punish them for victimizing...themselves.

Since this particular case involves multiple teens, I guess you could say that each teen victimized the others. But I don't think this is the type of situation that child porn laws are designed to address.

cornflake said:

Putting certain things online also perpetuates interest in them.

Click to expand...

I disagree that that's the chief purpose of child pornography laws, though. There is a lot of perfectly legal stuff that could be said to perpetuate a sexual interest in kids/teens. There's also a lot of legal porn of adults that some people feel perpetuates rape culture or encourages rape/abuse.

I think the chief purpose of child porn laws is (or at least should be) protecting and vindicating children/teens who are sexually exploited. In addition to the abuse they usually suffer in the making of the porn, having photos/videos distributed without your consent can be a major violation. It makes sense to punish people who contribute to the exploitation of victims in that way.

But if someone videotapes themselves and then distributes the footage, that's a different situation.

I didn't say it was the primary purpose.

If you believe the primary purpose should be to protect those who can't consent, and it seems you're on board with the idea that people under the age of consent can't consent then...

cornflake said:

They put child porn on the Internet. I can get with that's wrong.

I don't care if they're the children in it.

Click to expand...

I thought the purpose of such laws was the prevent adults from exploiting and thereby hurting children.

Are they... exploiting themselves??

If not, then I don't understand what's wrong.

We're not criminalizing teens sleeping with teens of similar ages, but there's a difference between them doing that and them taping it and putting it on the Internet.

Click to expand...

I can't agree with that.

Why? Why is there a difference?

cornflake said:

If you believe the primary purpose should be to protect those who can't consent, and it seems you're on board with the idea that people under the age of consent can't consent then...

Click to expand...

But by that logic, we might as well arrest them for having sex with others their same age.

Or hell, even for masturbating!