You don't jump up and down like a good troll ...
... but I bet you jump up and down like a crappy one.
A federal appeals court rebuked a Pennsylvania district attorney who threatened to file felony child pornography charges against teens who were photographed semi-nude unless they attended an "education program." In a unanimous decision issued Wednesday by the appeals court in Philadelphia, a three-judge panel said the threat …
By that reasoning it is possible that you could argue a substantial proportion of society should not be allowed out.
I do take your point, and I'm not suggesting everyone buy a Jedi Hood and Robe but consider this:
Let's put it in really crude terms... On the one extreme, if you go out on a Saturday night in edible liquorice lace underwear only, even if you looked like Paris Hilton you'd cop some unwarranted unsavoury attention.
On the other of utter end of blandness, if you're 'grey' enough that you blend into the background you're probably less likely to court trouble.
One should also look into the real reason for dressing up in the first place - to look nice to somebody. Be it yourself or somebody else, it is in it's very nature a statement to someone, an advertisement (hey, seriously, if you're single you know what I mean), a declaration, a message, a broadcast in effect. One may well say, well, it's a message to me, or only this restricted set of individuals.
Well I got news for you, how well have you excluded anyone/everyone else from this 'broadcast'?
Now the above is not rocket science.
So consider this, if one individual is aware of these facts, and dresses somewhat more provocatively than the norm, and knowingly places him/herself in a location where there is reasonable reason to believe less than virtuous people might frequent, and something happens...
I would say it is somewhat analogous to getting into a car driven by someone who's had 'some' drink. It may be ok, but if something happens, sure, it's the driver's fault, if he isn't killed or maimed, God willing he'd at least get done for driving under the influence...
But you put yourself in that position knowingly.
Think about it.
Paris, of course...
Women can't splash their boobs around and sport a "sexy" look that hookers would have been hesitant to use 20 years ago, and pretend they expect men to be indifferent. This is not the way men are wired, and it creates awkwardness as men try not to look, but do, but try not to be seen, etc. Requesting (rightly) no gender discrimination while creating gender discrimination is wrong. Harmonious inter-gender (human actually) relationship requires that men behave in a non-aggressive, courteous manner and women likewise. Some anatomical displays assault men's senses. Not in the disagreeable way of course as they are titillating, but to demand a neutral demeanour while going out of one’s way to break that neutrality is unreasonable. I appreciate and like looking at a nice curve (or two) as any other man, but these days, it is ridiculous.
Anyways, this kid is a victim obviously (of her own, normal-for-her-age, short sightedness) and suing her was just plain wrong. She already got punished more than she deserves since her pic is probably all over the net, and yes, I agree with that guy above: good parenting these days includes teaching your kids about spam after they get their first email box, about the dangers of social websites, about the dangers of intimate film/photography, about the dangers of writing anything on a computer, especially on the net. Ask Paris!
Oh why oh why did the Puritans and Quakers etc have to land in my beautiful land. Should have sent them to Australia like the convicts. Got to love in America you can see Steven Seagul break some dudes arm on prime time (its ok as long as its a "bad" guy) but how dare they show bare women's breasts. America where you get in trouble more for you love than who you hate.
I have to wonder where did this DA (Skumanick) get his law degree?????
Was he a graduate of the "Nifong School of Justice"???????
In case the name (Nifong) does not ring a bell:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3285862&page=1
Pennsylvania, home to the lunatic fringe. (Do you remember, those recent complaints about a school district about spying on kids (in their homes)!!???)
Mfg and distributing child pornography?
Of course technically he was correct. What do you think her BF is going to do with this? Have it blown up as a wall poster?
But then again that is an *implication* not a *fact*. So that's a thought crime.
It might say more about the person making the decision than the character of the person pictured or the person they sent it to.
I've seen a fair amount of porn. I've also seen a fair amount of fervor whipped up by political appointees wishing to make a name for themselves over items which have circulated for generations of school kids. I know the difference.
Thumbs up for the common sense shown by the judges. Could it be *possible* that this hysterical BS is starting to subside? There are *real* child pornographers out there who do serious harm to fairly small numbers of children. Flushing the constitution down the pan to catch them seems a pretty poor payoff.
It seems the sexual development of teenagers is being interfered with by adults now. Back in the day it was "show me yours I'll show you mine", doctors and nurses etc... now it's sexting...
Can't they just be allowed to discover their sexuality without being forced into 'purity' programs and Christian organisation backed fear of sex?