Sexting - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2015 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Sexting

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: Sexting

Postby Curtis Pride » Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:50 am

TheRock wrote:
Point taken. But here's the thing. If this becomes ok, some schmuck will start a website offering big $$ to young girls who submit pictures they take of themselves. Even bigger $$ for pictures they take themselves getting busy. As long as they just send it to "friends" that's ok right?

Now I can sympathize with kids being young and stupid. They're just doing this for fun, they're not trying to break any laws, etc etc. If a girl snaps a picture of her ta-tas on her cell phone, what's the big deal? If she sends it to her boyfriend, what's the problem? He sends it to some friends, all in good fun right? Whole school has it, still ok? Now kids from other schools get it and it's online, how we looking? At some point, is it a crime for someone to have this naked picture of a minor? Or are we throwing that law out entirely? Kiddie porn is ok if they do it to themselves? What's so different of a friend helps take the pictures? Seriously, do we draw a line anywhere? Well, you can bet if one of those kids cell phones got stolen they're going to play the child porn card to keep their pics from being distributed.

I don't see how we change the current laws at all. Sexually oriented pictures of a minor = child porn = jail time. And I hear that's one crime even criminals aren't keen on. Possession of said materials has to remain a crime with a pretty high price tag.

The argument that "government needs to step in and clearly overreach here because there could be a slippery slope" is an overused one. It's the same logic that says gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because "well, if we say that's OK then the next thing you know polygamy will be legal, or bestiality or necrophilia or whatever." Which seems like an equally absurd argument.

No, if an adult had naked pictures on their phone or their computer of children, it's a crime. If a child has naked pictures of another child on their phone or computer it may be a crime, depending on intent. If a child has naked pictures that of one of their friends that the friend sent to them, it's clearly, absolutely not a crime.

Cops tend to ignore "intent" when trying to steamroll people because they are worried about that faulty logical leap of "slippery slope". No, it isn't a slippery slope. It's a pretty clear line.

By the way, everyone who realizes this is foolish and likes to keep track of other abuses of power should check out Radley Balko's (of Reason.com) blog http://www.theagitator.com/. I don't know if he posted about this story, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Curtis Pride
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1363
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 19 May 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Sexting

Postby Art Vandelay » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:03 pm

Curtis Pride wrote:It's the same logic that says gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because "well, if we say that's OK then the next thing you know polygamy will be legal, or bestiality or necrophilia or whatever." Which seems like an equally absurd argument.

ha...what does it say about me that I think only one of those three things sould be illegal?
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Sexting

Postby knapplc » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:04 pm

jlm53089 wrote:You pay for porn? or people still pay for porn I should say?

People do still pay for it. And no, I don't. ;-)
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: Sexting

Postby Curtis Pride » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:06 pm

Art Vandelay wrote:
Curtis Pride wrote:It's the same logic that says gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because "well, if we say that's OK then the next thing you know polygamy will be legal, or bestiality or necrophilia or whatever." Which seems like an equally absurd argument.

ha...what does it say about me that I think only one of those three things sould be illegal?

That you are a libertarian; and are against animal abuse.
Curtis Pride
Major League Manager
Major League Manager

User avatar

Posts: 1363
(Past Year: 5)
Joined: 19 May 2007
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Sexting

Postby RugbyD » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:11 pm

Curtis Pride wrote:By the way, everyone who realizes this is foolish and likes to keep track of other abuses of power should check out Radley Balko's (of Reason.com) blog http://www.theagitator.com/. I don't know if he posted about this story, but it wouldn't surprise me.

woohoo! another devotee! B-)
TennCare rocks!!!!
RugbyD
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 5591
Joined: 7 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: punting small dogs and being surly

Re: Sexting

Postby knapplc » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:17 pm

RugbyD wrote:
Curtis Pride wrote:By the way, everyone who realizes this is foolish and likes to keep track of other abuses of power should check out Radley Balko's (of Reason.com) blog http://www.theagitator.com/. I don't know if he posted about this story, but it wouldn't surprise me.

woohoo! another devotee! B-)

There goes the neighborhood. :-b
Keep wreves in General Talk in 2011!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle Eye
Posts: 7871
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's "ell see." ELL SEE!!!

Re: Sexting

Postby Matthias » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:23 pm

As people's, "where do you draw the line" kvetching illustrates, it would be very difficult to draft legislation that would address only the child pornography which society really wants to prevent (children being exploited and damaged by adults who should know better). Cases like these really have to fall under the onus of sound prosecutor discretion: even with facts presented that fall under the black letter of the law, a prosecutor should still stay their hand if they believe it to be unjust.

And honestly, kids getting convicted of child porn for sending pictures of their privates to their boyfriend makes good press, but I've heard equally horrible cases of prosecutorial discretion. Someone I had the misfortune to work with for a brief amount of time served as an assistant DA in California. She had a case where some woman got into a heated argument with a cabbie and then asked to be dropped off. The cabbie drove for another block or two while he cussed her out. The woman I worked with prosecuted him, and got him convicted, for kidnapping as he had taken her some measure of distance beyond where she wished against her volition. And the twisted thing is that this ADA was actually proud of this case. Fine the cabbie, sure. Put him on probation and yank his cabbie license if he creates a pattern of behavior, sounds right. But to prosecute him for a major felony over an argument with a problematic fare? Stinks to high heaven.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Sexting

Postby Dan Lambskin » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:34 pm

Art Vandelay wrote:
Curtis Pride wrote:It's the same logic that says gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because "well, if we say that's OK then the next thing you know polygamy will be legal, or bestiality or necrophilia or whatever." Which seems like an equally absurd argument.

ha...what does it say about me that I think only one of those three things sould be illegal?


i dont have any issues with polygamy in general, but if i've learned anything from watching Big Love it's that dirty old men brainwash young girls into making sexy time

beastality...meh, it's gross and i'm all for animal rights, but do the sheep* really mind? i'm no expert on male sheep genetalia, but i cant see them being much smaller than the average guy...if anything the ewe's may be getting a break
*i'm sure other animals get beastialiated too so this would have to be looked at on a case to case basis.

necrophelia seems like a victimless crime to me
Image
Dan Lambskin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeLucky Ladders ChampionPick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 10225
Joined: 20 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Sexting

Postby Matthias » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:43 pm

Dan Lambskin wrote:necrophelia seems like a victimless crime to me

The victims are:
1) The corpse. Everyone should be entitled to a modicrum of respect once they're deceased.
2) The corpse's family. If it was ever revealed or discovered that someone was desecrating the corpse of someone you love, it would inflict immense emotional anguish.
3) Society as a whole. Again, society teaches to pay a proper respect for the dead. Actions taken to violate that precept damage society's authority and society's attempt to culture a value into it.

Now, if you living on an island of 2 people and the other guy dies after saying he didn't care what happened after he died, then I guess I would say if that's your thing, then I don't see the harm. But under any realistic scenario or situation, I see some clear victims with necrophilia.
0-3 to 4-3. Worst choke in the history of baseball. Enough said.
Matthias
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 4860
Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: Sexting

Postby TheRock » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:47 pm

Curtis Pride wrote:No, if an adult had naked pictures on their phone or their computer of children, it's a crime. If a child has naked pictures of another child on their phone or computer it may be a crime, depending on intent. If a child has naked pictures that of one of their friends that the friend sent to them, it's clearly, absolutely not a crime.


There's no way you would ever write that into law that would make any kind of sense. Here's the BIG problem I have with that. I have a teenage son. Lets say he's a playa. He has some of the aforementioned girlie pics on his cellphone. I borrow it one afternoon because my battery died. I get in an accident and a cop picks up my phone to see who to call. Bam. I'm busted in a big way. You're saying my son has the right to possess something that if I'm caught even looking at it lands me in jail?

Curtis Pride wrote:Cops tend to ignore "intent" when trying to steamroll people because they are worried about that faulty logical leap of "slippery slope". No, it isn't a slippery slope. It's a pretty clear line.


Same situation. Let's say Snakes is a perv. Don't mind playing along do you Snakes? Snakes keeps his kiddie porn on a second cellphone he calls his "son's". So if he ever gets busted, he has an out.

You greatly underestimate people's ability and desire to exploit every legal loophole they can. And when we're dealing with child pron, we need to not give anyone any outs.
Image
TheRock
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 3055
(Past Year: 6)
Joined: 16 Apr 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: America's Heartland

PreviousNext

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2015 MLB season starts in 5:01 hours
(and 96 days)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact