DEFCON Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/28/kamloops-sexting-case-criminal-harassment_n_6064916.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&ir=Canada+British+Columbia A couple of questions necessarily arise; why are the boys being punished for being boys??? Shouldnt the 32, yes, thats thirty-two rather demonstrably brainless girls that are taking and passing out naked photos of themselves be the ones to be censured, if anyone? I mean, if the boys were tech savvy enough to use their phones to their advantage, why arent the girls at least knowledgeable enough in the technical sense, if nothing else, to protect themselves? IMO; there's no crime here, just stupidity being protected artificially. The Crown Prosecutor ought to be taken to task over this one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Technology means it's a new world for everyone, not just for those who would agree to send their pictures, but also to those who would use that technology to exploit others as these boys obviously did. Were the girls foolish? Yes of course, but the boys were much worse. They were manipulative and exploitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/10/28/kamloops-sexting-case-criminal-harassment_n_6064916.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&ir=Canada+British+ColumbiaA couple of questions necessarily arise; why are the boys being punished for being boys??? Shouldnt the 32, yes, thats thirty-two rather demonstrably brainless girls that are taking and passing out naked photos of themselves be the ones to be censured, if anyone? I mean, if the boys were tech savvy enough to use their phones to their advantage, why arent the girls at least knowledgeable enough in the technical sense, if nothing else, to protect themselves?IMO; there's no crime here, just stupidity being protected artificially. The Crown Prosecutor ought to be taken to task over this one!That has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 That has to be one of the stupidest posts I have ever read on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 "They were manipulative and exploitive." As boys & girls both are. For example; Hugh Heffner is held up as a modern day folk hero of sorts and he made his fortune exploiting women. Hookers can make a ton of dough by taking advantage of the weakness of the male animal and many a movie star has earned her fame and fortune through the sexual exploitation of self. From my pov, technology has little to do with this story; I think one’s attitude towards self is the real talking point. IOW's if these girls thought, or believed their ego and felt they would gain an societal advantage of some sort by sending out topless pics of themselves to boys; was an actual ‘crime’ really committed, or are these boys at the beginning of a life that may very well be destroyed because an over zealous prosecutor with an axe to grind had to make a ‘case’ out of a non-criminal event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Well, ok then old-wise-one...why is the post 'stupid'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 I was going to jump in and explain why your post was not only stupid, but offensive, but I think it would just be a waste of my time. If you don't understand it by this time in your life, there's probably no point in me explaining it to you.Suffice it to say that this kind of victim-blaming logic is what some people use to justify sex crimes against women, and it's not acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 If you think that an adult woman being paid by Hugh Hefner to pose in her birthday suit is the same as 15 year old boys bullying (that's right, I said bullying) girls as young as 13 into sending them naked pictures of themselves, then Jen is right. There's no point in arguing with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Or just maybe, someone's entitled to a different view of the world than the one you hold to cpfa? For instance, I find it offensive that boys are being singled out for abuse at the hand of a criminal justice system that's purpose is apparently evolving to protect naïve, maybe even stupid people from their own egos. Now, because you’ve let me know that you don’t care for my view, I hope you’ll appreciate my response in kind; I don’t think that emotional rhetoric, or feelings are solid enough evidence to form the basis of debate , or a conviction for a crime at law. Are you aware of the staggering level of blatant sexual promiscuity that’s being filmed and offered commercially each & every day? Females of every shape, size and age group seeking personal fame, or fortune can be seen practicing their crafts on the net? The porn industry largely serves men and as much as you may not like it, there is no shortage of women that are prepared to offer themselves up for the purpose and quite often are more than eager to do so for free? Are the women all victims and the men all criminals? When I was that a teenager, 99% of the girls wouldn't show you anything regardless of any promises made, but those that did were indeed very popular with the boys and hardly the victim of wrongdoing. So what's happened in the meantime then cpfa? Where are the parents; how did these girls come to miss the chapter on maintaining self-respect and why or how do their poor choices make them victims? In my opinion, there's just no way you can call the girls in the present example victims of anything other than their own lack of self respect. Respect for self is not something that can be legislated into being! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 JO How for example can you qualify a girl's sending 50 pics over a one month period as being a response to her being 'bullied'? From my pov, I'd suggest your conclusion may be hasty; I see misguided competition amongst teens seeking popularity to be the more likely causal factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Even if the 13 to 15 year old girls had "willingly" sent naked pictures of themselves, forwarding those pictures would still constitute distributing child pornography. The fact that they were coerced constitutes making child pornography.Those boys were lucky to get the plea deal that they got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Clearly we will never agree. I hope your daughters never go through anything like Reteah Parsons and her family did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Or just maybe, someone's entitled to a different view of the world than the one you hold to cpfa?For instance, I find it offensive that boys are being singled out for abuse at the hand of a criminal justice system that's purpose is apparently evolving to protect naïve, maybe even stupid people from their own egos. Now, because you’ve let me know that you don’t care for my view, I hope you’ll appreciate my response in kind; I don’t think that emotional rhetoric, or feelings are solid enough evidence to form the basis of debate , or a conviction for a crime at law.Are you aware of the staggering level of blatant sexual promiscuity that’s being filmed and offered commercially each & every day? Females of every shape, size and age group seeking personal fame, or fortune can be seen practicing their crafts on the net? The porn industry largely serves men and as much as you may not like it, there is no shortage of women that are prepared to offer themselves up for the purpose and quite often are more than eager to do so for free? Are the women all victims and the men all criminals?When I was that a teenager, 99% of the girls wouldn't show you anything regardless of any promises made, but those that did were indeed very popular with the boys and hardly the victim of wrongdoing. So what's happened in the meantime then cpfa? Where are the parents; how did these girls come to miss the chapter on maintaining self-respect and why or how do their poor choices make them victims?In my opinion, there's just no way you can call the girls in the present example victims of anything other than their own lack of self respect. Respect for self is not something that can be legislated into being!No, you can't legislate self respect. That's why there are laws in place to protect children who may not have developed healthy self respect from being exploited and victimized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 "Even if the 13 to 15 year old girls had "willingly" sent naked pictures of themselves, forwarding those pictures would still constitute distributing child pornography. The fact that they were coerced constitutes making child pornography. Those boys were lucky to get the plea deal that they got." Being the so-called perps are the same age as the girls; why should they be held to a higher standard, criminal at that, while the girls get by with a pass? If we're going to apply the law equally; being the girls sent their pictures over the net to the boys, they too would be guilty of 'distributing child pornography', would they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 You're still blaming the victims. If it's any consolation to you, the ages of the boys who committed the crimes were taken into account by the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 One cannot make themselves a victim. to be a victim of a crime then a crime has to be committed. The plea bargain was the only way the crown would have gotten a conviction at all. The distribution was initiated by the GIRLS though there MAY have been coercion on the part of the boys. both parties are equally guilty of the same crime. The girls had a choice. to continue the line of behaviour indicates that she had no issue 50 times in sending the photos. Again one cannot victimize themselves.I see this as a case of some young kids reaching the curious age and getting caught where other are getting away with it every day. Believe me, you would be dumbfounded if you knew what todays kids really get up to when out of their parents range.I have to side with Defcon here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 So, by your reasoning, if a child is molested, it's a crime the first time, but if they don't report it, it's their own fault after that. Isn't it possible that the girl who sent the 50 pictures did it because they threatened her in some way if she didn't continue?The boys didn't have to accept the plea bargain. If there was no crime committed, they could have just gone to trial, but they chose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Thats COMPLETELY Different. She was commiting the act of her own free will. Not being forcefully assaulted.We may never know the circumstances of the plea bargain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Someone posted a video on Facebook today that showed hidden camera video of a very pretty woman wearing jeans and a t-shirt walking through Manhattan. The video captured people saying Hello to her and they were pushing this as Harassment. Yes there were some cat calls and such shown as well and I agree that can be construed as harassment. I am willing to bet you side with the people that think simply saying hello is harassment.Some things are just not a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Thats COMPLETELY Different. She was commiting the act of her own free will. Not being forcefully assaulted.We may never know the circumstances of the plea bargainYou need to read up on sex crimes against children. There doesn't have to be a "forceful assault" for a crime to have occurred. That's what age of consent is for. And if someone, especially a child, is doing something under threat, that's not free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Someone posted a video on Facebook today that showed hidden camera video of a very pretty woman wearing jeans and a t-shirt walking through Manhattan. The video captured people saying Hello to her and they were pushing this as Harassment. Yes there were some cat calls and such shown as well and I agree that can be construed as harassment. I am willing to bet you side with the people that think simply saying hello is harassment.Some things are just not a crime.So now we're going off on a tangent to discredit me? Lovely.Thanks J.O. And Inchman for speaking out. Where are the rest of you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 How could you possibly construe Boestar's post above as 'discrediting' to you cpfa? As far as support for your position goes; there's a lot of people nowadays that don't enjoy engaging in verbal combat and will say as little as possible to avoid becoming the recipient of a verbal tongue lashing / takedown at the hand of those that lean to the extreme left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Right. Because only people on the extreme left think that sending nude pictures of 13 year old girls should be a crime. Good to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Had the recipients of these photos kept them to themselves for their own personal enjoyment, and destroyed them when they were no longer interested in them, I could buy into the argument that it was just teenagers being curious. Putting them out there for everyone to see and trading them like hockey cards makes it a crime, to me. I don't think it should be treated the same was as adults trading child pornography online due to the ages of the children involved, but it shouldn't be water under the bridge either.I think the boys got what they deserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 DEFCON A crime is a crime. Whether it is murder, theft or distribution of child pornography. It doesn't matter if you're 14 or 45. The only let you get in Canada is that, if you are underage, you get tried under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. I'm not sure if the victims see any justice in that. coercedshared picturescaused their victims to fear for their safetysent pictures of their genitals. One of 32 victims (that came forward) sent 50 pictures. Was she possibly being blackmailed into doing that? Who knows, but I'm guessing that more than a few were. And you think that all of this is ok... boys will be boys. No harm done, kids. Nothing going on here. Really. Go back to burning water for electricity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.