• The forums' spoiler embargo for all content from Pokémon Legends: Z-A's Mega Dimension DLC has been lifted! Feel free to talk about the new content from the expansion across the forums without the need of spoiler tabs!

    Please note that this lifted embargo only applies for the forums, and may still be in effect on other Bulbagarden sites.

All hail Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fig

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2002
Messages
12,778
Reaction score
1,046
http://news.com.com/Police+blotter+...y+photos/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?tag=newsmap

Ok, so the teens were probably acting stupid (wait. Scratch that probably - they WERE acting stupid), but this ruling, especially the part about "The pictures can,t be called private because someone MIGHT have hacked the computer" is seventy billions shades of wrong. The number of very commonplace actions that become breaches of NDA, music or software piracy, and so forth thanks to the whole "might be hacked" line of thought is staggering.

I guess Florida felt annoyed at the lack of spotlight they've gotten lately and figured that doing something mind-bogglingly stupid would get them some media space.
 
Last edited:
This is why many Child Pornography laws are so encompasing they're moronic.
 
As I said - that the act went to court is bad enough. But it's the whole "might be hacked" argument that moves this from "simple stupidity" to "sheer mind-boggling moronic imbecility"

Those judges should be fired on the spot for being completely disconnected with reality.
 
It's ridiculous that 17-year olds can be prosecuted as child molestors for taking pictures of themselves masturbating, taking a shower, or partially nude. But people will often agree to any law that supposedly stops child pornography or child molesting without looking at the fine print. For instance, someone's trying to get a law passed right now to ban any drawing of a nude child, or anything depicting a child partially nude, or drawing or text of a child that might be construed as "lewid" or "erotic". Which would for instance, make a couple of episodes of Dragon Ball child pornography, as well as several children's books, Romeo and Juliet, too many movies to count, any episode of the Simpsons where Bart moons somebody, and Michealangelo's David. These laws keep on getting passed because people will agree to anything if it "protects the children" (even fictional ones, apparently) and the Supreme Court has to keep on slapping them down.
 
Child porn laws that would allow a minor to make pornography of himself would be too easily abused by people coercing minors into depicting themselves.

The argument that the computer might be hacked is a little silly, but it's still possible that the teens might either distribute their pictures later (since they're obviously idiots) or they might sell the computer with the pictures still on them. Either way, they broke a legitimate law (even in odd circumstances), so I don't see any problem with them getting the punishment, though it'll be adjusted for age and circumstances.
 
Zeta said:
This is why many Child Pornography laws are so encompasing they're moronic.
Click to expand...

It's not so much issues with child porn laws as it is the fact that they don't match up with sexual consent laws in most states. If you're old enough to be able to legally consent to sex, then you should be able to legally consent to having your picture taken in the act. I say, change one of the two. Easiest path to take.
 
It's not so much issues with child porn laws as it is the fact that they don't match up with sexual consent laws in most states.
Click to expand...
That's what I found weird about the story. Legally, they can have sex but they can't record it in any way--that's the part that's illegal.
 
Private use is private use.

If two legally consenting persons do something, then they have the right to record it for their private use. Distribution of it is something else.

GM,, "a little silly"? "A little silly"? Do you realize how much that statements makes technically criminal?
 
Evil Figment said:
Private use is private use.

If two legally consenting persons do something, then they have the right to record it for their private use. Distribution of it is something else.

GM,, "a little silly"? "A little silly"? Do you realize how much that statements makes technically criminal?
Click to expand...

Hacking was not the sole reason. You concentrate on that yet fail to realize that someone discovered the photos, which means that they were accessible.
 
Hacking was not the sole reason. You concentrate on that yet fail to realize that someone discovered the photos, which means that they were accessible.
Click to expand...

If you're deterimined enough, anything is accessable unless you destroy it. Just like the only secure computer is unplugged, the only property that's 100% safe is one you blow up to make sure no one gets it.
 
Zeta said:
If you're deterimined enough, anything is accessable unless you destroy it. Just like the only secure computer is unplugged, the only property that's 100% safe is one you blow up to make sure no one gets it.
Click to expand...

I doubt the parents are exactly hardcore computer hackers, so I'm guessing that the photos were pretty accessible.
 
He wrote that the law "was designed to protect children from abuse by others, but it was used in this case to punish a child for her own mistake.

Nothing about his mistake? It's all on her now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom