As teen flirtation and sexual experimentation enter the digital age, dog-bites-man stories about adolescent exhibitionists being charged as kiddie pornographers may soon seem no more newsworthy than reports of cops breaking up a kegger But one group of Pennsylvania parents is pretty sure their daughters aren't sex offenders—and with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, they're suing to force a zealous county district attorney to back off. In what's becoming a familiar pattern, Tunkhannock School District officials confiscated a student's cell phone late last year, and discovered an array of photographs of local girls in various states of undress—photos that male students had apparently been trading and collecting more avidly than Pokémon cards. Duly horrified, Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick decided he had to protect these young women... by threatening to prosecute them for "sexual abuse of children."
|
This is going to lead to a more concise definition of pornography as opposed to 'risque' photography.
Is it right to label a thirteen year old a kiddie pornographer based on a photograph in which no sex act is involved?
Would you care more if your own child was involved?
Is it right to label a thirteen year old a kiddie pornographer based on a photograph in which no sex act is involved?
Would you care more if your own child was involved?
No comments:
Post a Comment