Ot But.....

[cp fa]

There seems to be a perception that this was similar to the pre-Internet equivalent of a private session of "you show me yours, I'll show you mine". It's more like that's what the girl thought was happening, but the guy didn't tell her that his buddies were hiding in the closet taking pictures and were going to show everyone. Big difference.

[J.O.]

To approach this issue with the same views and attitudes as a game of "you show me yours" from 40 years ago is quite frankly naive and ridiculous. The internet, Twitter, Pinterest et al have changed the climate in ways we are only beginning to appreciate. Look at how long it takes for a viral video to get over 100,000 hits on YouTube - sometimes within a few hours. When we were kids it took weeks for a rumour to get around town. Now everyone can know your private business in 5 minutes. It's not just rapid distribution either. The impact of such rapid spread combined with the brain dead behaviour that comes from mob mentality leads to "crowd bullying" the likes of which didn't exist back in the day, and unlike twenty kids swarming someone in a playground or the mall parking lot, all this happens behind closed bedroom doors and between smart phones.

So, left with this and examples like Reteah Parsons who committed suicide after repeated on line bullying after sharing one naughty picture, our legal system is having to adapt to protect our kids, yes, even protect them from themselves. A few prosecutions such as this one will hopefully get the message out to a majority of kids that the whole thing is wrong. Like underage drinking or doing drugs, there will always be some who do it anyways, but the majority does take such stuff to heart, but only if someone is used as an example.

[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.”

That’d be correct I think inchman, but when a crime is not a crime as Boestar pointed out....it’s just not and your pretending otherwise is well...emotional bs.

“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.”

I’d sure like to see the details of the case, but as long as we’re going to debate semantics, I would agree; the boys were made victims by an over zealous prosecutor and I’m certain they will come to appreciate there was never any sense of justice being served here.

“coerced” – a word taken from a newspaper accounting, but not referenced as a quote....hmmm. What you might see as coercion, others may appreciate as wheeling and dealing. Can you define, or place the term you’re relying upon to form your opinion in context? I thought not....more emotional crap inchman.

“shared pictures” – why would any adult be surprised; what would you expect boys to do with the pictures? If your kid makes an internet mistake, aka ‘Girls Gone Wild’ and sends nude photos of herself out to the world, who’s fault is that? I mean; hasn’t everyone that has ever operated a keyboard / pad given any heed to the almost perpetual repeating message of the media, parents, teachers and others; when you put something on the net it's out there and permanent. Some other kids will see this and learn from the mistakes of these foolish girls, but probably not all. I do understand that it would be your preference to protect people from their being stupid with laws they could never appreciate in the first place. That’s productive...not.

“caused their victims to fear for their safety” – likely a purely inflammatory comment intended to generate alarm and support for the prosecutors misguided assault. Can you quantify, or qualify the ‘fear factor’ claimed here,or are you just relying on your emotional instincts when you shoot?

,

“sent pictures of their genitleary als” – something 14 year old boys might be expected to do. I wonder; were these photos sent because one of your supposed victims requested same during a modern game of ‘show me yours’?

“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.”

Just more guessing and assuming and emotional rhetoric on your part. It’s hard to take that kind of fluff seriously.

“And you think that all of this is ok... boys will be boys. No harm done, kids. Nothing going on here. Really.”

If you could get beyond emotion and actually paid attention, you’d be aware that I never made any such claim. There’s plenty wrong here inchman, but none of the behaviour of these kids as reported comes anywhere near constituting a criminal offense. The need for responsible parenting may have been the better lesson for everyone to take away from this exercise.

“Go back to burning water for electricity”

And thanks again for demonstrating your continuing ability to be a shallow and arrogant ass....!

[DEFCON]

Jo

I agree with most of the material you're using in support of your position above, which I don't agree with btw, so, I'll ask; is the message you hope to pass on to youth, both boys and girls alike, that boys go to jail for stupid behaviour in this regard, while girls remain entitled to a pass because....this is the part of your consideration that I'm not able to grasp?

[cp fa]

J.O., Rehteah Parsons didn't share a naughty picture, she was gang raped when she was 15, and drunk to the point of vomiting. The perpetrators photographed the event and posted the pictures online. Unbelievably, it was after that that she was bullied online to the point that she took her own life.

We'll never know the exact details of this Kamloops sexting case because it involves young offenders and minors, but you can be sure that before charges were laid or plea bargains decided upon, there would have been a lot of evidence gathered from all of the kids devices, and coercion would have been easy enough to prove or disprove.

[DEFCON]

"coercion would have been easy enough to prove or disprove"

A finding that we'll never appreciate for all the reasons you've stated cpfa, which makes the prosecutors use of the word coerced to describe the salesman like abilities of the young perps a little bit much. As I mentioned earlier, without context the term conjures up all kinds of possible scenarios in the readers mind, but because of the privacy interests of the accused, we'll never know if the prosecutors public musings on the case were truthful & accurate representations of the facts, or coined to achieve a not so pure and honest objective.

[J.O.]

You're right Jen. I mixed up her story with another girl (from B.C. I think) whose story was as I described. It happened around the same time as Reteah's suicide.

[J.O.]

JoI agree with most of the material you're using in support of your position above, which I don't agree with btw, so, I'll ask; is the message you hope to pass on to youth, both boys and girls alike, that boys go to jail for stupid behaviour in this regard, while girls remain entitled to a pass because....this is the part of your consideration that I'm not able to grasp?

What the girls did was stupid, but what the boys did was a violation of child pornography laws. Those laws weren't written to be applied only to dirty old men, they apply to anyone who distributes child pornography. They do not include clauses that make it illegal for a child to send self images to others, probably because of the assumption that the child is being coerced by an adult in the first place. The fact that the boys are also minors is probably why the Crown agreed to a plea to the harassment charge which has nothing to do with child pornography. If the boys were represented by competent counsel, I have to assume that they and their parents were convinced that such a plea was a much better option than taking a chance on a hearing in court and a judge / jury who may want to make an even greater example of them.

If this sort of stuff becomes more prevalent, the laws will need further review because as written they aren't reflective of a situation where the protagonists are also minors.

[DEFCON]

“What the girls did was stupid, but what the boys did was a violation of child pornography laws. Those laws weren't written to be applied only to dirty old men, they apply to anyone who distributes child pornography. They do not include clauses that make it illegal for a child to send self images to others, probably because of the assumption that the child is being coerced by an adult in the first place.”

Ok then; here’s the law covering the charges the Crown was seeking to prosecute.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-163.1.html

We know there wasn’t anyone anywhere near the age of consent involved and for the moment, I’d like you to remember that everyone involved only averaged 14 years of age. Based on the law, could you please explain how the girls involved were any less culpable criminally for their role in this sordid affair.

From the ‘facts’ reported I can’t imagine how it’s possible to conclude that the formal application of law is the appropriate tool to resolve this unfortunate situation. From the facts at hand, I only see a large group of sexually super-charged teens exercising very poor lifestyle choices which clearly indicate they are desperately in need of responsible parenting versus discipline at the hand of the Courts.

[chockalicious]

I had a long post typed out but I decided just to scrap it and post what I think.

Defcon I think you are being willfully obtuse or you are an out of touch misogynist,. I hope it is the former.

[Wolfhunter]

Would the girls culpability be different if they supplied cocaine through the mail instead of child pornography by text? Both are illegal products shipped illegally. I would guess that the issue of coercion would be a mitigating factor in either scenario (for either party).

The notion that it would be OK if only they had kept the pictures to themselves is misplaced. It's not OK, it's illegal. Illegal to make, illegal to possess and illegal to transmit or distribute. So, if you made it, possessed it or pressed "send" you are likely part of the problem and subject to possible prosecution. Consider for a moment the demented scenarios that could arise were this not the case.

We will likely never know the whole story. It seems to me that the plea-bargain speaks to the fact that there is more going on here.

[Mitch Cronin]

I think it could be argued (and I'd take the position) that a girl taking a picture of herself - in any configuration she likes - is not necessarily pornography. Unless she intended it that way, I don't even think it's pornography if she sends the picture she took of herself to her friend, over the internet... It certainly can become pornography the moment it's handed to a third party though, and that isn't within the girl's control. She's guilty of nothing (stupidity isn't a crime, thank goodness!).

You guys leaning toward blaming the girls for anything here is just nuts. ...and I have to wonder why?.... but, as you might guess, I do have a theory tickling my noggin.... I know how hormones effect young guys... I remember it well!

In truth, there's an animal side to all of us that get's tickled by such thoughts... and it's true animal, raw, root-of-the-brain, no room for logic or reason... Fortunately, as our frontal lobe's develop (said to be incomplete 'til we're in our early twenties, I believe?) most of us are able to override instinct by understanding consequences... I'll get in big trouble.... She'll be hurt.. etc... Much earlier societies didn't bother trying to avoid those troubles, and people married at 13, 14, or younger even. But in our current, "Western" society, what's kept things in better check - until quite recently massively changed by technology - has been simple availability. Girls wear clothes. They have their own bathrooms in public places. They've had "chaperones", we've fostered a culture where men were compelled to be protective of ladies, and be "gentlemanly" ..... etcetera.....

But things always continue to change... as is our society... now the availability of pornography, and nearly-instant sexual gratification to our frontal-lobe-challenged teens, makes a whole new set of potential for problems we have to deal with.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with how they dealt with things in the original story here.

[Kip Powick]

...............a girl taking a picture of herself........................

...............She's guilty of nothing (stupidity isn't a crime......................

I guess lack of self esteem would fit in the "stupidity " box...??

(One girl sent 50 photos in one month)

As one poster authored....I think there is a lot more to this story than what was really written.

What would I do if I was the father of one of the girls....?.........well ..... when my "princess" was 16 she was one hour late coming home one night ...Scuba 02 had me out in the car searching. She was home when I drove back to the house. She was grounded, other than school, for one month....she is married now, (has a 3 year old), and we still really like each other

[cp fa]

For some reason,

I think it could be argued (and I'd take the position) that a girl taking a picture of herself - in any configuration she likes - is not necessarily pornography. Unless she intended it that way, I don't even think it's pornography if she sends the picture she took of herself to her friend, over the internet... It certainly can become pornography the moment it's handed to a third party though, and that isn't within the girl's control. She's guilty of nothing (stupidity isn't a crime, thank goodness!).

You guys leaning toward blaming the girls for anything here is just nuts. ...and I have to wonder why?.... but, as you might guess, I do have a theory tickling my noggin.... I know how hormones effect young guys... I remember it well!

In truth, there's an animal side to all of us that get's tickled by such thoughts... and it's true animal, raw, root-of-the-brain, no room for logic or reason... Fortunately, as our frontal lobe's develop (said to be incomplete 'til we're in our early twenties, I believe?) most of us are able to override instinct by understanding consequences... I'll get in big trouble.... She'll be hurt.. etc... Much earlier societies didn't bother trying to avoid those troubles, and people married at 13, 14, or younger even. But in our current, "Western" society, what's kept things in better check - until quite recently massively changed by technology - has been simple availability. Girls wear clothes. They have their own bathrooms in public places. They've had "chaperones", we've fostered a culture where men were compelled to be protective of ladies, and be "gentlemanly" ..... etcetera.....

But things always continue to change... as is our society... now the availability of pornography, and nearly-instant sexual gratification to our frontal-lobe-challenged teens, makes a whole new set of potential for problems we have to deal with.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with how they dealt with things in the original story here.

For some reason, the "like" button wouldn't let me like your post, so I'll just say it: Like. A lot. Love even. You get it.

A little perspective here... Suppose back in the day, before the internet, you took some sexy photos of your wife with your Polaroid camera, in the privacy of your own home, for your own personal use. Then someone broke into your house, stole the photos, photocopied them, and distributed them all over the neighborhood for everyone to see. Is that your wife's own fault? Did she get what's coming to her? Because that's what was said about Jennifer Lawrence when her private account was hacked into and her private photos were stolen.

In my opinion, a woman should have the right to document her own body in any fashion she chooses, and share those photos with whomever she chooses, and no one should have the right to access or distribute those photos without her permission. I don't know if what happened to Jennifer Lawrence and the other young women whose accounts were hacked is considered a sex crime, but IMO, it should be.

When we were teenagers, if a guy said to a girl "show me your boobs", sometimes she would, sometimes she wouldn't, sometimes she'd be pressured into it, sometimes she'd do it willingly, but that was the end of it. In this case, the kids were using Snap Chat, an app that will send a photo that will delete itself after a few seconds, so the girls thought they were giving the boys a quick peek, and that was it. In reality, the boys figured out a way to preserve those images and distribute them to their friends, which is what crossed the line into criminal behaviour.

And anyone who thinks that the girls should be held equally responsible here should consider this: there are naked photos of these 13 to 15 girls all over the internet now that can never be taken back. You don't think that's punishment enough?

[J.O.]

While not directly related to this story, this editorial is an eye opener on what women face when considering coming forward to law enforcement in situations such as this or the Jian Ghomeshi debacle. Many of the defence counsel questions she quotes have been asked in this thread. How would you like it if it was your 13 yr old daughter on the witness stand?

http://m.huffpost.com/ca/entry/6059124?utm_hp_ref=tw

[DEFCON]

I guess you’ve hit the bottom of your barrel eh Choc? Misogyny....really? How about a simple sense of fairness?

Modern society has been conditioned to such a degree that it now functions like a herd of sheeple. Holding to a view that runs contrary to the go along to get along ‘gang’ soon earns the contrarian the label of phobic. When someone has to resort to name calling, yelling, or otherwise departs from the realm of civilized behaviour to enforce their opinion, I believe they have reached the end of the line mentally and with it, reasoned debate has been given up in favour of the guiding principles of the dark ages.

Willingly obtuse; perhaps a little? The forum’s been pretty quiet for a little bit now. When I came across the news article presently in ‘debate’, I thought posting the piece might place a little spark back into the forum....and it did. Beyond that consideration, I have only attempted to fashion unbiased arguments that clearly run contrary to the opinions of many, but they are based on the principles of fairness and equality nonetheless, which is otherwise known as defending against unsubstantiated, or unjust accusations.

Wolfhunter makes the observation, “It seems to me that the plea-bargain speaks to the fact that there is more going on here”.

This position would I think be commonly held after one reads the article, myself included. However, experience has shown that making assumptions based on media reports can be a flawed strategy and so, I re-examined the article, removed the rhetoric and re-considered my position. I could stand to be corrected, but I believe a plea deal also includes a pre-arranged sentence, which makes this news report somewhat incomplete and maybe even misleading.

Rather than accept the obviously subjective version of the story provided by the prosecutor as reported through the media, that’s two strikes against factualism, I asked a few questions here that would I thought form the basis of a legitimate examination of the story. Inchman’s crude & moronic instant response set the tone and stage for what has followed.

Imagine for the moment that my ‘guess’ is accurate; the female prosecutor has an axe to grind, a name to make for herself, a judgeship in her future plans, or any number of other motivations that might have driven her to pursue criminal charges against these boys. While the draconian restrictions on public coverage limit the publics Right to know, the secrecy of the proceedings also provides a politically correct cover for the prosecutor and protects her from public scrutiny. Assuming the Judge is capable, the sentence passed down should tell us a lot about the true background facts.

Would anyone disagree with the contention; the pursuit of perceived transgressions on the part of males against females does appear to be a popular theme in our society these days? Is that not the kind of bandwagon someone with aspirations might build to carry their personal ambitions forward?

Did everyone miss the submissions of defence counsel; they are seeking a conditional discharge on the basis their clients are being ‘scapegoated’. If anyone here has any sense of fairness, equality and the like; how can you ignore this part of the news report? I’ll answer; we tend to want to believe the prosecution is always on the side of truth & goodness and unfortunately take this side without stopping to question its legitimacy; it’s the way of the human animal.

Some people are blessed with male offspring, some with females and others with both. No matter the sex, if one is any kind of parent, kids are always going to be a personal challenge. Now, I can fully appreciate the fact that girls are Daddy’s little princesses and as such Daddy is always prepared to go to extraordinary, even unreasonable lengths to protect his princess from evil, but we live in a society that’s supposed to be fashioned on the premise of equal treatment for all. As the case at hand demonstrates, boys, being radically different creatures than girls, need protection too. To blame the boys for all that’s wrong and protect the girls from the reality, or the consequences of their own decisions is never going to serve them or any of the other grand societal objectives sought.

[DEFCON]

cpfa

“A little perspective here... Suppose back in the day, before the internet, you took some sexy photos of your wife with your Polaroid camera, in the privacy of your own home, for your own personal use. Then someone broke into your house, stole the photos, photocopied them, and distributed them all over the neighborhood for everyone to see. Is that your wife's own fault? Did she get what's coming to her? Because that's what was said about Jennifer Lawrence when her private account was hacked into and her private photos were stolen.”

Where’s the perspective? Nobody broke into anything in this case; the girls passed their own pictures on willingly, perhaps even those of others and committed crimes in doing so. Perspective suggests the girls should be charged too...no?

Jennifer Lawrence placed nude photos of herself on the net. From my pov, her doing so was either exceptionally naive, plain old stupid, or an act purposely intended to generate fame just as Miley Cyrus recently demonstrated. BTW, consider the psychologically harmful mentoring value that superstars the like of Miley provide to all her young fans; she’s more guilty of contributing to the delinquency of minors than any of these boys could ever be and yet, instead of being charged, she’s given special societal status, paid ridiculous amounts of money in return for her limited singing skills and her ability to slut around the stage like an alley-cat in heat. Where oh where are young girls getting their slutty motivations from again? And most importantly; where are the parents of these kids?

“When we were teenagers, if a guy said to a girl "show me your boobs", sometimes she would, sometimes she wouldn't, sometimes she'd be pressured into it, sometimes she'd do it willingly, but that was the end of it. In this case, the kids were using Snap Chat, an app that will send a photo that will delete itself after a few seconds, so the girls thought they were giving the boys a quick peek, and that was it. In reality, the boys figured out a way to preserve those images and distribute them to their friends, which is what crossed the line into criminal behaviour.”

There are truisms that can be employed here that don’t fit exactly, but they do make the point; ‘a fool is soon separated from his money’, ‘he who doesn’t learn from history is doomed to repeat it’ and others. If I thought my car was worth $100 and sold it for same only to later learn it was worth $300, who’s the fool at law?

If you read the limited information contained in the news report and measure it against the law, provided above, you can’t help but see the facts for what they are; the criminal behaviour began when the underage girl took the picture of herself. Another offence followed when she forwarded it to the boy and a third by virtue of the fact that she was contributing to the delinquency of the underage boy she sent it to. But this is all crazy talk in my mind because the whole damn lot of offenders are kids in this case and as such just aren’t capable of having mens rea.

“And anyone who thinks that the girls should be held equally responsible here should consider this: there are naked photos of these 13 to 15 girls all over the internet now that can never be taken back. You don't think that's punishment enough?”

I’d have to refer you back to my thoughts on Jennifer Lawrence’s situation and the truisms above cpfa. Having teenage topless pics of yourself on the net may possibly, and that’s a stretch, prove to be a punishment of sorts somewhere down the road for a girl, but based on what’s actually out there, future reprisals are not at all likely. What about the boys; will they suffer because pics of their private parts are on the net; I sincerely doubt it, but the permanency of a criminal conviction where the enduring smear attached is that of a ‘sex-offender’ can have profound & lifelong consequences.

[J.O.]

Having teenage topless pics of yourself on the net may possibly, and that’s a stretch, prove to be a punishment of sorts somewhere down the road for a girl, but based on what’s actually out there, future reprisals are not at all likely. What about the boys; will they suffer because pics of their private parts are on the net; I sincerely doubt it, but the permanency of a criminal conviction where the enduring smear attached is that of a ‘sex-offender’ can have profound & lifelong consequences.

What permanent record? The boys in this case are young offenders who plead guilty to harassment. It all goes away when they turn 18. The law prohibits any attempt to use their youth record against them once it's been expunged. Now if it were adults who were up on charges instead of YO's, they'd deserve that attachment to their names, IMHO.

Two pages ago I said we'd never agree on this and nothing has changed. For me your argument has holes in it big enough to accommodate a 747. You probably feel the same way about my opinion. Fine and dandy, I've said my piece.

[DEFCON]

JO

From the linked article:

"We may never know what happened between Ghomeshi and the complainants, but what we shouldn't do is blame them for not calling the police."

A very good point made by the author. The law has developed over centuries and necessarily allows for a witnesses credibility to be tested by either side, but within the limitations of the law and any other that may be imposed by the Judge at the time.

To illustrate the other side of the witness credibility card I will offer a rendition of a true story.

In this case, a 14 year old female accused her next door neighbour, a married with children cop, of statutory rape. He was arrested, charged and jailed for a considerable period of time in advance of trial because he couldn't meet the extraordinary conditions of bail. The matter took more than two years to come to trial during which time the cop was ostracized by the community at large, his colleagues, friends and finally even lost his wife and kids to innuendo and mistrust. At trial, with his closing remarks, the Judge commented as to the defendants credibility; “your credibility is so thin that a light scratch causes the true you to ooze out” and with that, placed the cop back in jail to await sentencing.

The cop was two years into a ten year sentence when the now 18 year old young woman’s conscience caught up with her and she recanted. Apparently, the cop had a new Camaro he appreciated, which was parked outside, but between his and the neighbours place. The girl was bouncing a ball off her house wall without regard for the fact it would bounce off his car when she missed catching it. The cop pointed out the fact that her carelessness was going to damage his car a couple of times, but she continued to do her thing nonetheless. The Defendant finally let her have it verbally and went to get her mother, who happened to not be home at the time. Anyway, as it turns out, the little princess didn’t like being told off by the neighbour, a ‘pig’ at that, and she decided she’d get even.

On the release hearing of the ex-cop, the Court thanked the young woman for her new found honesty, but did not deliver any other form of censure. As things stood, the life the cop was attempting to make for his wife, self and family was gone and forever replaced with misery all because of the lies of a witness and the willingness of everyone in a position of authority to hang on and believe her every word.

This example provides one of several unfortunate rationales that support what appears as an unreasonably aggressive and unfair examination of female witnesses in chief and cross.

[DEFCON]

"What permanent record?"

The record is permanent; it's only tucked away.

Here's another thing to consider; the boys live in a wider community, a community that remembers, but those memories often come to represent different versions of truth and they can go on to hurt the falsely accused indefinitely.

If you take a position and later choose to fold your tent, that's really fine, but to close by claiming my arguments are so wide open you could drive a 747 through them without offering anything of substance is just a cheap and insulting response at best. If I was to take your response at face value I’d be of the opinion you’ve simply come to appreciate the fact that your initial position is fatally flawed, but ego won’t allow you to backtrack.

[chockalicious]

@Defcon

I guess Misogynist it is. Your blathering about societal woes and your self victimization to be the one "holding a view that goes against the mainstream" is a foolish argument. Maybe your views are the ones that go against the mainstream because the "mainstream" recognizes that one group acted like a bunch of turds here and one group did something stupid.

You keep trying to make some equivocation or find some inconsistency in the story when it really boils down to a bunch of boys acting in a criminal way and taking advantage of dumb actions by some younger girls.

Your posting of the supposedly unfounded rape story to try and add to the discussion does you no favors.

I won't change your mind so I guess I am done on this discussion.

[DEFCON]

Well that's good on you Chock. Maybe you and your colleagues of the joy club feel better about yourselves when you all click the like button collectively on each others posts, but that doesn't qualify you as a debater in any way; it just confirms you as a member of the sheeple gang. Please feel free to carry on as you see fit.

[UpperDeck]

An interesting debate on a subject that is very difficult to discuss without emotion.

Defcon posted a link to the relevant section of the Criminal Code. How many posters on this thread took the time to read the section?

The legislation was drafted to capture within the net those who seek to exploit children for their own enjoyment or for profit. It was not drafted to apply to children taking "selfies" or other children to whom those "selfies" were sent.

There is a definition of "child pornography". It specifically references the depiction of "sexual organs" and the "nether regions".

The term "sexual organ" does not include a female breast. There is other federal legislation which specifically references "sexual organs" and "breasts" as distinct from each other.

The news report which was referenced at the beginning of this thread indicates that the girls involved were shown "semi-clothed and topless". I do not know this to be true but according to that news report, the only persons who created and sent pictures of their genitals were the boys!!

Again, I do not know this to be true but it is possible that the boys were charged under this section not because they shared pictures of girls topless but rather, because they distributed pictures of their own "sexual organs".

And that may also have constituted the basis for guilty pleas to the offence of "harassment".

I would not attempt to rationalize or justify foolish behavior but I will suggest that prosecution of young offenders under provisions of the Criminal Code may (emphasis "may") be an awfully large flyswatter to use for the identification of inappropriate behavior and the control and modification of same.

[Maverick]

At my peril I'm going to wade in. As Mitch alluded to, teenage boys aren't the smartest things out there, especially early post puberty.

First off I have a 14 year old daughter and I remember what I was thinking as a 14 year old boy looking at a 14 year old girl. 'Nuf said.

This case screams hormonal stupidity at epic levels but it certainly isn't anything that hasn't gone on in different ways in the past is it?

As was also stated, there is probably a lot more to this story than what we are getting or probably should get.

Personally I like this discussion and I'm happy that we're having it. If nothing else I will have "The Talk" again with both of my kids about respecting their bodies.