• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The bullies win again[W710; 739]

LaMidRighter said:
I dunno, to me internet speech is still speech. The things done to this particular girl are not protected, any judge that would differentiate internet publication from say, running an ad with the girl's breasts and personal information is a moron. So far we have child porn, harassment, defamation, and seemingly extortion, I don't know how an extra law puts any more weight on existing ones but am willing to hear what more we can do.
Click to expand...

There have been some state laws passed since Megan Meier died, but at the time, the existing harrassment laws, etc., all contemplated real-life face to face behavior. The other problem is, we have no overarching federal law and that can create tremendous jurisdiction issues.

Lori Drew was prosecuted under a computer fraud law, and the theory was that she had been deceptive in creating a false profile for a 16 year old boy to use in luring Meghan. That behavior violated the MySpace TOS, but on appeal, the defense succeeded in arguing that fraud was not proven because Drew never obtained any property of value from the girl.
 
Pinkie said:
There have been some state laws passed since Megan Meier died, but at the time, the existing harrassment laws, etc., all contemplated real-life face to face behavior. The other problem is, we have no overarching federal law and that can create tremendous jurisdiction issues.

Lori Drew was prosecuted under a computer fraud law, and the theory was that she had been deceptive in creating a false profile for a 16 year old boy to use in luring Meghan. That behavior violated the MySpace TOS, but on appeal, the defense succeeded in arguing that fraud was not proven because Drew never obtained any property of value from the girl.
Click to expand...
Hmm. Okay, I admit that is tricky. Fraud isn't just about monetary gain, though if a law is written too narrowly that does effect the outcome, fraud is in it's most general definition any illicit gain whether that is financial, emotional, etc. and legally should be accounted for so I can agree with revisiting current law to incorporate any frauds committed inducing harm or illicit information gathering/dissimination. I'm not a fan of further empowering the federal government BUT because of the reach of the internet have no problem with federal fraud laws being incorporated and expanded to protect people from computerized harmful activity, however I will say that cyber law is pretty stout and carries heavy federal penalties as is.

IMO we can extend "vis a vis" laws to internet activity being that it is a form of communication/socialization to include bullying, harassment, etc. The problem I have with adding brand new laws is the process itself. I tend to be a fan of incorporation of existing law instead.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Hmm. Okay, I admit that is tricky. Fraud isn't just about monetary gain, though if a law is written too narrowly that does effect the outcome, fraud is in it's most general definition any illicit gain whether that is financial, emotional, etc. and legally should be accounted for so I can agree with revisiting current law to incorporate any frauds committed inducing harm or illicit information gathering/dissimination. I'm not a fan of further empowering the federal government BUT because of the reach of the internet have no problem with federal fraud laws being incorporated and expanded to protect people from computerized harmful activity, however I will say that cyber law is pretty stout and carries heavy federal penalties as is.

IMO we can extend "vis a vis" laws to internet activity being that it is a form of communication/socialization to include bullying, harassment, etc. The problem I have with adding brand new laws is the process itself. I tend to be a fan of incorporation of existing law instead.
Click to expand...

I agree -- existing law is always superior IF it can reach far enough. At this point, we can't do that, though it's hard to believe the adult who bullied the girl in the Op won't be facing child porn charges at the very least -- and the penalties for those are draconian.
 
Pinkie said:
I agree -- existing law is always superior IF it can reach far enough. At this point, we can't do that, though it's hard to believe the adult who bullied the girl in the Op won't be facing child porn charges at the very least -- and the penalties for those are draconian.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, child porn is 5-25 in itself depending on the judge and well deserved. The reason I have a problem with creating new law is that it always seems to get convoluted and miss something, leading to wasted time always rehashing the flawed statute. Somewhere in our history we got certain things right, like harassment, assualt, battery, etc. and if we go back to the things we did well and add on for newer techs I think we find the closest to perfect balance.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Absolutely, child porn is 5-25 in itself depending on the judge and well deserved. The reason I have a problem with creating new law is that it always seems to get convoluted and miss something, leading to wasted time always rehashing the flawed statute. Somewhere in our history we got certain things right, like harassment, assualt, battery, etc. and if we go back to the things we did well and add on for newer techs I think we find the closest to perfect balance.
Click to expand...

Criminal law is very hard to write -- I think you have a terrific idea. It's too late to prosecute Lori Drew, but hopefully, this evil man will do time.
 
Pinkie said:
Criminal law is very hard to write -- I think you have a terrific idea. It's too late to prosecute Lori Drew, but hopefully, this evil man will do time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the guy is scum, the lowest of scum. Unfortunately when we think we've seen the cruelest and lowest of humanity someone comes along and outdoes it, so we can only react, hopefully to stop or hinder the efforts to do so again.
 
Interestingly enough, I was involved in the first federally prosecuted case of an adult internet "grooming" a minor and getting her to send him naked pictures of herself. It was a pretty high profile case and helped to create new law. He pretended to be a 15 year old boy who was cousins with members of her favorite band. He was the perfect pedophile... picked a lonely, depressed girl who had poor self-esteem, no father, and few friends. He groomed her very well and slowly gained her trust until she was so connected with "her best friend" that she would do anything to please him. At the end of the day, he turned out to be a 47 year old man who was doing the same thing to 17 other girls. My client was the only one who went through with the prosecution process.

These guys are scum... but they are very adept at picking kids who they can convince to do what they want. These kinds of kids just want to please and these assholes prey on that.
 
Pinkie said:
An excellent question.

The answer is, in every case we have discussed, the law does not now exist that would permit a prosecution, except that we could charge the 9 year who took a photo of her naked classmate with child pornography.

Stalking, harrassment, terroristic threats, etc. -- these laws do sometimes get used to prosecute cyber-bullying, but they are most useful on the least dangerous types: peer to peer bullying. Law enforcement and criminal justice need another tool in the tool bag to get the adults who target children on the net -- something that criminalizes speech they know is directed at a child and is reasonably foreseeably creating a risk of grave harm to the child.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious....

CHARGE A 9 YEAR OLD??

Its nearly impossible from a common sense standpoint.
 
Caine said:
You can't be serious....

CHARGE A 9 YEAR OLD??

Its nearly impossible from a common sense standpoint.
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible, but no, I don't believe that'd be the right thing to do. OTOH, something sure as hell has to happen, as the child who was photoed naked is suffering horrendously.

All these teenagers who successfully beg one another for naked photos or who succumb to such begging are also child pornographers, and charges have been laid in some cases. We have a real problem here, folks.
 
Caine said:
You can't be serious....

CHARGE A 9 YEAR OLD??

Its nearly impossible from a common sense standpoint.
Click to expand...
How else do people learn that certain behaviors have great consequence? I am not a fan of charging minors with a felony but there should be some punishment for asking minors for naked pictures due to the permanence of it, and sexualizing children is wrong even when done by other kids. There could be a lesser charge for minors in possession of child porn, but that behavior needs to get curbed or else you could end up with adult child abusers.
 
LaMidRighter said:
How else do people learn that certain behaviors have great consequence? I am not a fan of charging minors with a felony but there should be some punishment for asking minors for naked pictures due to the permanence of it, and sexualizing children is wrong even when done by other kids. There could be a lesser charge for minors in possession of child porn, but that behavior needs to get curbed or else you could end up with adult child abusers.
Click to expand...

Thats a parenting problem. Not a law enforcement problem.
 
Caine said:
Thats a parenting problem. Not a law enforcement problem.
Click to expand...
Normally I would agree, but we are speaking of serious criminal charges. As an officer I know you've seen the pattern of behavior in criminals and recidivism first hand, my only point about having some legal consequence is to hopefully curb bad illegal behaviors in these kids so they don't make a habit of them. I'm not saying throw them in federal prison for their childhood but maybe a stint in Juvi for a month or so, hell I'm good with a week.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Normally I would agree, but we are speaking of serious criminal charges. As an officer I know you've seen the pattern of behavior in criminals and recidivism first hand, my only point about having some legal consequence is to hopefully curb bad illegal behaviors in these kids so they don't make a habit of them. I'm not saying throw them in federal prison for their childhood but maybe a stint in Juvi for a month or so, hell I'm good with a week.
Click to expand...
9 years old is way to young to be going to a juvenile detention facility for being curious about naked bodies.


I really don't get this extreme position people take on these sex issues that they tend to IGNORE or EXCUSE when it comes to juvenile armed robbery gang thugs from the ghetto.
 
Caine said:
9 years old is way to young to be going to a juvenile detention facility for being curious about naked bodies.


I really don't get this extreme position people take on these sex issues that they tend to IGNORE or EXCUSE when it comes to juvenile armed robbery gang thugs from the ghetto.
Click to expand...
It's voyeurism at the least and child porn at the worst. I realize extreme minors don't have the same capacities as adults BUT these are serious behaviors and some consequences need to be applied.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I've tried to avoid this thread because I knew if I read it, what I'd find. And a brief scan proved me correct: a complete lack of education and knowledge regarding suicide by some members of this message board.

So, here's a little quiz for you all... and consider that I did my graduate school final paper on suicide (similar to a dissertation, but not one), so I am eminently qualified to determine whether you are accurate or not:

1) What person is responsible for the suicide?
2) What are the characteristics of a suicidal person?
3) How does that suicidal person feel?
4) For one who completes a suicide, why would that person have not asked for help?

Let's start there and see how you all do.
Click to expand...

I’ll try .. I don’t know how well I’ll do ..


1) ultimately, the person taking his/her own life is responsible for it. Even typing that sounds harsh, but the thought of someone making me do something I don’t want to do seems impossible. But then I’m as pig headed as they get.

In this case we are talking about a young girl from a split home, we don’t know what kind of parents either her mom or dad was. She made a stupid mistake on the internet (flashing her boobs) from what I was able to read that mistake followed her wherever she went. She couldn’t get away from it. You don’t know if she sought out help from other sources or not. All things considered with her young age, all the problems that followed her, help that she needed and didn’t get I could see how over time it could build up to a point where she felt it just wasn’t worth it any more … and that is such a sad thing .

2) usually I would think withdrawn, quiet, difficult to get to know, probably (in this case) did well in school. ( one way to cover your problems) someone that unless you knew for a long time, you would never pick up on their being a problem

3) alone…isolated …. Helpless

4) This really baffles me … and I’m totally guessing , but I would think in their mind they have asked .and can’t understand why people have ignored his/her pleas for help. In reality, they haven’t asked because they have been indirect. In the end when someone completes such a thing, I don’t feel that it’s planned in advance, something triggers the breaking point and they say no more and take their own life.

So how badly did I do ??
 
Pinkie said:
An excellent question.

The answer is, in every case we have discussed, the law does not now exist that would permit a prosecution, except that we could charge the 9 year who took a photo of her naked classmate with child pornography.

Stalking, harrassment, terroristic threats, etc. -- these laws do sometimes get used to prosecute cyber-bullying, but they are most useful on the least dangerous types: peer to peer bullying. Law enforcement and criminal justice need another tool in the tool bag to get the adults who target children on the net -- something that criminalizes speech they know is directed at a child and is reasonably foreseeably creating a risk of grave harm to the child.
Click to expand...


Yeah, as LaMidRighter indicated, those are already all covered. I thought you had me on ignore anyway, since you wanted to ignore anyone that disagreed with you?
 
LaMidRighter said:
How else do people learn that certain behaviors have great consequence? I am not a fan of charging minors with a felony but there should be some punishment for asking minors for naked pictures due to the permanence of it, and sexualizing children is wrong even when done by other kids. There could be a lesser charge for minors in possession of child porn, but that behavior needs to get curbed or else you could end up with adult child abusers.
Click to expand...

This, I have issues with. Yes, you're right, children need consequences. I'm not sure that any legal action is a good way to accomplish that goal without possibly sabotaging young lives. How else to people learn that certain behaviors have great consequence? Parental pressure, peer pressure, school censure, etc, etc. These kinds of things have been around basically forever, and they've worked pretty well for most of us (who are adults), without getting the court system involved. Getting the court system involved can have lifelong ramifications on a child, and it seems like overkill.
 
Aderleth said:
This, I have issues with. Yes, you're right, children need consequences. I'm not sure that any legal action is a good way to accomplish that goal without possibly sabotaging young lives. How else to people learn that certain behaviors have great consequence? Parental pressure, peer pressure, school censure, etc, etc. These kinds of things have been around basically forever, and they've worked pretty well for most of us (who are adults), without getting the court system involved. Getting the court system involved can have lifelong ramifications on a child, and it seems like overkill.
Click to expand...
I admit it looks like overkill, the reason I'm in favor of it isn't to be harsh, but rather if the kids aren't taught what legal consequences are they will cross that line in adulthood and that's where real penalties come into play. The good thing about juvenile records is they become sealed and aren't usually counted against adults, the bad thing is that we have kids who need an introduction to penal law.
 
Pinkie said:
It's both -- once the photos hit the net, they are certain to be collected by real pedophiles.
Click to expand...
Yep. I look at it this way, if I had a daughter and she made this girl's mistake then whoever posted her pics is not only committing a crime, but also taking away my rights to control of my child. They would then be issuing photos of my kid to god knows what kind of person.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Normally I would agree, but we are speaking of serious criminal charges. As an officer I know you've seen the pattern of behavior in criminals and recidivism first hand, my only point about having some legal consequence is to hopefully curb bad illegal behaviors in these kids so they don't make a habit of them. I'm not saying throw them in federal prison for their childhood but maybe a stint in Juvi for a month or so, hell I'm good with a week.
Click to expand...

I am less concerned with curbing the bad behavior of the photographers than I am with protecting the children in the photos.

Try to imagine the anguish of a parent or a child who realizes that the child's naked photo has been collected by pedophiles. How safe would you feel, letting your kid out to play in the front yard once you knew that had happened?
 
Pinkie said:
I am less concerned with curbing the bad behavior of the photographers than I am with protecting the children in the photos.
Click to expand...
I'm more interested in the short term in a child's well being. I also realize that kids who ask for these types of photos are in dangerous territory, they are in danger of becoming child predators themselves as they enter adulthood and I also worry about those they would victimize in the future. It's not a good thing at any angle.

Try to imagine the anguish of a parent or a child who realizes that the child's naked photo has been collected by pedophiles. How safe would you feel, letting your kid out to play in the front yard once you knew that had happened?
Click to expand...
 I would be sick.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yep. I look at it this way, if I had a daughter and she made this girl's mistake then whoever posted her pics is not only committing a crime, but also taking away my rights to control of my child. They would then be issuing photos of my kid to god knows what kind of person.
Click to expand...

Absolutely -- we must have a zero tolerance policy towards child porn.

OTOH, nobody wants to see a "sex offender" label hung on a 9 year old for life.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I admit it looks like overkill, the reason I'm in favor of it isn't to be harsh, but rather if the kids aren't taught what legal consequences are they will cross that line in adulthood and that's where real penalties come into play. The good thing about juvenile records is they become sealed and aren't usually counted against adults, the bad thing is that we have kids who need an introduction to penal law.
Click to expand...

I get that, but you really could make that argument about quite a lot of things. E.g. fistfights on the playground (assault/battery), stealing someone's lunch money (larceny/robbery), etc, etc. There are far less severe ways to approach childhood misbehavior that don't involve the legal system. This situation, is, if anything, less intentionally bad (from the perspective of the kids involved). If a child is stealing from someone, or beating them up, they know what they're doing is harmful (unless they're sociopaths). If they're taking pictures of each other without clothes on, they may genuinely not understand why that might be harmful. From a legal perspective, it's a much less criminal thing than the more overt crimes I mentioned. Given that, it makes more sense to deal with the issue in a non-legal context.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'm more interested in the short term in a child's well being. I also realize that kids who ask for these types of photos are in dangerous territory, they are in danger of becoming child predators themselves as they enter adulthood and I also worry about those they would victimize in the future. It's not a good thing at any angle.
Click to expand...

The "sexting" craze (I hope) usually involves kids in middle and high school, which is bad enough -- but this crap of taking naked photos for purposes of bullying and shaming can happen in the 2nd grade.

My kid supports a "no cell phones on school property" rule, backed up by jammers and security.

I would be sick.
Click to expand...

I would be homicidal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom