PDA

View Full Version : Dumb kids 'sexting' is equivalent to child pornography?



Wounded Ronin
12th April 09, 11:38 AM
Recently, I've been really disturbed that some prosecutors are attempting to land young people on sex-offender lists for being involved on some level with some dumb kids' nudie photos being circulated on the internet and/or cell phones.

If you put something like that on a young person's "permanent record" you will likely ruin their life. How is society being served by a prosecutor using public funds to ruin someone's life like this? If we clutter sex offender lists with people who hit the forward button on their messaging software the sex offender lists would then be clogged with useless information. If we're seeing things like this happening then our society's pre-occupation with "kiddie porn" has officially reached witch-hunt levels. I think that the first time I started to think this was when I saw that "To Catch A Predator" TV show, but these prosecutions I'm reading about in the news really confirm my suspicion.

Again, how is this anything but a colossal waste of time and energy and money in order to needlessly ruin people's lives?

First article:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/07/sexting.busts/index.html?iref=newssearch



(CNN) -- When Vanessa Hudgens' naked photos hit the Internet, the "High School Musical" star quickly apologized. But sending nude or seminude pictures, a phenomenon known as sexting, is a fast-growing trend among teens.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen & Unplanned Pregnancy, a private nonprofit group whose mission is to protect children, and CosmoGirl.com, surveyed nearly 1,300 teens about sex and technology. The result: 1 in 5 teens say they've sexted even though the majority know it could be a crime.

Phillip Alpert found out the hard way. He had just turned 18 when he sent a naked photo of his 16-year-old girlfriend, a photo she had taken and sent him, to dozens of her friends and family after an argument. The high school sweethearts had been dating for almost 2 years. "It was a stupid thing I did because I was upset and tired and it was the middle of the night and I was an immature kid," says Alpert.

Orlando, Florida, police didn't see it that way. Alpert was arrested and charged with sending child pornography, a felony to which he pleaded no contest but was later convicted. He was sentenced to five years probation and required by Florida law to register as a sex offender.

"You will find me on the registered sex offender list next to people who have raped children, molested kids, things like that, because I sent child pornography," says Alpert in disbelief, explaining, "You think child pornography, you think 6-year-old, 3-year-old little kids who can't think for themselves, who are taken advantage of. That really wasn't the case."

Alpert's attorney Larry Walters agrees and he's fighting to get Alpert removed from Florida's sex offender registry. The law lags behind the technology, he says. "Sexting is treated as child pornography in almost every state and it catches teens completely offguard because this is a fairly natural and normal thing for them to do. It is surprising to us as parents, but for teens it's part of their culture."

In many states, like Florida, if a person is convicted of a crime against children, it automatically triggers registration to the sex offender registry. Thirty-eight states include juvenile sex offenders in their sex offender registries. Alaska, Florida and Maine will register juveniles only if they are tried as adults. Indiana registers juveniles age 14 and older. South Dakota registers juveniles age 15 and older. Most states allow public access to sex offender registries via the Internet and anyone with a computer can locate registered sex offenders in their neighborhoods.

A number of states have elected not to provide Internet access to registries; Florida is not one of them. There is no hiding for Alpert, whose neighbors, he says, all know. "I am a sex offender. If you type my name into the search engine online, you will find me."

As sexting incidents pop up around the country, prosecutors are trying to come to terms with how these cases should be handled. George Skumanick Jr., a district attorney from Wyoming County, Pennsylvania, took a novel approach when 20 students from Tunkhannock High School were caught allegedly sexting.

He gave them a choice: probation and re-education classes or be charged with sexual abuse of a minor. "An adult would go to prison for this," says Skumanick, adding, "If you take the photo, you've committed a crime. If you send the photo, you've committed a different crime, but essentially the same crime."

Critics, however, say child pornography laws on the possession or dissemination of graphic images were never meant to apply to teen sexting and that these teenagers usually have no criminal intent when they send pictures to each other.

Fifteen-year-old Marissa Miller of northeastern Pennsylvania was 12 when she and a friend snapped themselves wearing training bras. "I wasn't trying to be sexual," she says, "I was having fun with my friends at a sleepover, taking pictures, dancing to music." The picture recently surfaced on a student's cell phone and Marissa's mom, MaryJo Miller, was contacted by Skumanick. "He told me that he had a full nude photo of my daughter," says MaryJo Miller, who calls the picture innocent.

Rather than force her daughter to take the classes, which would have required she write a report explaining why what she did was wrong, Miller and two other families *-- with the help of the ACLU -- are suing the district attorney to stop him from filing charges. "We believe she was the victim and that she did nothing wrong," says Miller. "How can I ask her to compromise her values and write this essay, when she didn't do anything?"

Although the district attorney maintains the program is voluntary, the letter he sent to parents notes, "Charges will be filed against those who do not participate." Seventeen of the 20 students caught in the sexting incidents have completed the 14 hours of classes.

Skumanick won't comment on the Miller case, but says, "You can't call committing a crime fun or a prank. If you do that, you can rob a bank because you think it's fun." In the majority of sexting cases, it's usually girls sending pictures to boys, who then send them to their friends. Though teens may think it's funny and a way to flirt or even seek revenge after a breakup, there can be dangerous consequences.

Last year, Jessica Logan, a Cincinnati, Ohio, teen, hanged herself after her nude photo, meant for her boyfriend, was sent to teenagers at several high schools. For months after, her father says, she was the subject of ridicule and taunts. "Everyone knew about that photo," Bert Logan says. "She could not live it down." On July 3, his wife found her. "She had been getting dressed to go out. The curling iron was still warm. It was so unexpected," Logan says. "I heard my wife scream, I ran up to Jessie's room, but it was too late."

No charges had been filed against Jessica's 19-year-old boyfriend, who disseminated the photo, nor had the school taken any action, Logan says. He says he and his wife want to warn parents and students of the dangers of sexting. The Logans are fighting to raise awareness nationally and to advocate for laws that address sexting and cyber-bullying.

As for Alpert, life is not easy as a registered sex offender, a label he will carry until the age of 43. He's been kicked out of college, he cannot travel out of the county without making prior arrangements with his probation officer, he has lost many friends and is having trouble finding a job because of his status as a convicted felon. He says he feels terrible about sending the photo of his ex-girlfriend, especially since they were once so close.

At the same time, Alpert says, "I'm being punished for the rest of my life for something that took two minutes or less to do." Says attorney Walters, "Some judges have the good sense and reasonableness to treat this as a social problem and others are more zealous in their efforts to put everybody away and I think it's time as a society that we step back a little bit and avoid this temptation to lock up our children."



Here's an ACLU article:

http://www.aclupa.org/pressroom/aclusueswyomingcountydafor.htm



SCRANTON, PA - The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit today against the Wyoming County district attorney for threatening three high school girls with child pornography charges over digital photos in which they appear topless or in their underwear. The district attorney has demanded that in order to avoid the charges, the girls be placed on probation, participate in a five-week re-education program and be subject to random drug testing. The photos were among several discovered by Tunkhannock School District officials on students' cell phones.

"Kids should be taught that sharing digitized images of themselves in embarrassing or compromised positions can have bad consequences, but prosecutors should not be using heavy artillery like child-pornography charges to teach them that lesson," said Witold Walczak, Legal Director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "These are just kids being irresponsible and careless; they are not criminals and they certainly haven't committed child pornography."
"Sexting," the practice of sending nude or semi-nude photos of oneself via cell phones or posting them on the Internet, has become increasingly widespread among teenagers. A recent survey found that approximately 20% of all teenagers have sent or posted nude or semi-nude pictures of themselves. (Sex and Tech: Results from a Survey of Teens and Young Adults, National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, December 2008).

At issue in this case are two photos depicting three teenage girls. One shows Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly from the waist up wearing white bras. The other depicts Nancy Doe (a pseudonym used to protect the girl's real identity) standing outside a shower with a bath towel wrapped around her body beneath her breasts. Neither of the two photos depicts sexual activity or reveals anything below the waist.

The district attorney has asserted that the girls were accomplices to the production of child pornography because they allowed themselves to be photographed. The district attorney has not, however, threatened to charge the individuals who distributed the photos.

"Child pornography is a terrible crime that involves the abuse and exploitation of children, neither of which exists here," said Walczak. "In many states these charges would land these kids on Megan's Law databases, with their pictures on Internet registries for ten years or more, and prevent them from getting many types of jobs. That's a heck of a lesson for a kid who probably doesn't even realize she is doing something wrong."

The photos came to light in October 2008, when school district officials confiscated several students' cell phones, examined them and discovered that they contained photographs of scantily clad, semi-nude and nude teenage girls, many of whom were enrolled in the district. The school turned the photos over to the district attorney, George Skumanick, Jr., who began a criminal investigation into the matter.

In February 2009, Skumanick sent a letter to the parents of approximately twenty Tunkhannock students, including the ACLU's clients, threatening the students with criminal felony charges if they did not agree to be placed on probation and participate in a counseling program he devised. A course outline indicates that the program will help the girls "[g]ain an understanding of how [their] actions were wrong," "gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today's society," and "[i]dentify non-traditional societal and job roles."

The letter apparently was sent only to those who were discovered with the photos on their cell phones and the girls shown in the photos - not the students responsible for distributing the photos. The district attorney told a group of parents and students in February that he has the authority to prosecute girls photographed in underwear, like the ACLU's clients, or even in a bikini on the beach, because the photos are "provocative."

The ACLU charges in its lawsuit that Skumanick is misusing his authority by threatening to bring baseless child-pornography charges in order to coerce parents into sending their children to the re-education program and putting them on probation. The lawsuit claims this is a form of unconstitutional retaliation against the parents and children who assert their right not to be bullied into participation. The ACLU is asking the federal court to issue an order prohibiting the district attorney from filing criminal charges against the girls.

The plaintiffs are represented by Walczak, Sara Rose and Valerie Burch, staff attorneys with the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and Seth Kreimer, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law.

A hearing in the case has been scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 26, before Judge James Munley in US District Court in Scranton, PA.

Cullion
12th April 09, 12:17 PM
u kno the age of consent in the UK is 16, rite?

HappyOldGuy
12th April 09, 12:30 PM
That's true in some US states also, but does that mean you can have nekkid pics of 16 year olds?

Anyhow, my opinion involves revenge porn fantasies and prosecuting attorneys.

But that just means it's Sunday.

Phrost
12th April 09, 01:24 PM
According to the letter of the law it's child porn, and there's no good way of dealing with it.

The problem isn't the sexting, teenagers are biologically hard-wired to fuck each other. The problem is that we're too goddamn uptight about sex as a culture that people can't have rationa, productivel discussions about the subject without their emotional and religious nonsense getting in the way of achieving a productive solution.

Ultimately though people are going to have to come to grips with the fact that we're living in a Rule 34 culture and if you're too stupid to keep from creating porn, you'd better be shameless enough to live with the consequences.

Cullion
12th April 09, 01:35 PM
That's true in some US states also, but does that mean you can have nekkid pics of 16 year olds?

Yes you can. I still remember a British tabloid called 'The Sun' running a campaign on Lindsey Dawn McKenzie when she was 15, whose theme was basically her posing provocatively in bikini with taglines like 'only 35 more days until we can show you her tits!'

And on her 16th birthday, they did!

And all was well in Merry Englande.

They wouldn't do something like that now.

Sun Wukong
12th April 09, 01:54 PM
According to the letter of the law it's child porn, and there's no good way of dealing with it.

The problem isn't the sexting, teenagers are biologically hard-wired to fuck each other. The problem is that we're too goddamn uptight about sex as a culture that people can't have rationa, productivel discussions about the subject without their emotional and religious nonsense getting in the way of achieving a productive solution.

Ultimately though people are going to have to come to grips with the fact that we're living in a Rule 34 culture and if you're too stupid to keep from creating porn, you'd better be shameless enough to live with the consequences.

well, chalk that up the moderate list of things i agree with phrost about.

americans are retarded about sex.

WarPhalange
12th April 09, 02:46 PM
people can't have rationa, productivel

How the hell did that L travel that far?

Yeah, this is very stupid. A case in which the spirit of the law > the law. These laws were written to that kids aren't taken advantage of, either because they physically can't do anything about, or are still not developed enough mentally to understand what they are doing. This makes obvious sense. If you try to trick a 9-year-old to touch your pen0r by saying you have candy in your underwear, then you are a bad person.

Do the same to a 17-year-old, and it's reasonable to assume she knew what the hell she was doing. Unless you seriously want to consider a 17-year-old's mind to be equal to that of a 9-year-old (True for some people, though... Not even the handicapped ones...). But the fact is that a 17-year-old still does not have the rights of a "real" adult, and hence can be coerced into t3h sex0rs by promise of those rights (buy cigarettes for them, or hell, anything that you need to be 18+ to do), so it makes sense that you would restrict adults from having sex with them. But is it as bad? No. Not by a long shot.

Like Phrost said, teenagers are horny, so they want to have sex and that is what they are looking for, not promises of candy. I hate to make this analogy, but I'd kind of compare it to assault vs. over-use of force in self-defense. Yeah, in both cases you beat the shit out of a guy, but in the latter case he knew what he was in for, for the most part.

So I'm glad that they at least didn't give him jail time. But sex offender status? That's bogus. Probation is fine. If they catch him doing it again, then they have a legitimate reason to think he's a perv. But come on, it's obvious that this was a stupid mistake that was intended to humilate, not something perverted to satisfy him sexually or feed his ego or something.

Phrost
12th April 09, 02:52 PM
I went back and added the "productive" back in before I posted it.

Kiko
12th April 09, 03:33 PM
So create some new designation for stupid attention whores or jilted boyfriends. Either way, if it's not on their 'permanent record', it's out there on the internet somewhere and you bet prospective employers will be able to see it and react. Look what happened to that stupid chick who lost a prospective job at Cisco because she posted something about hating the work on twitter.

I don't care what hormones hardwire kids (or adults) to do, being stupid and or irresponsible has consequences now as it always has. Now they can do such things at the touch of a button. No excuse for ignorance of the law.

jubei33
12th April 09, 04:25 PM
I don't care what hormones hardwire kids (or adults) to do, being stupid and or irresponsible has consequences now as it always has. Now they can do such things at the touch of a button. No excuse for ignorance of the law.

I agree, but putting the kid on the paedo-list isn't the course of action I would take. I would've picked something else to prosecute with. Definitely, he should be punished, I just don't think the sentence fits. Kienhaar'd have a better opinion on it though.

Cullion
12th April 09, 04:55 PM
I don't think somebody under the age of consent forwarding pictures of their under-age girlfriend is somebody likely to be a danger to children. The point of such registers was to keep track of pock-marked 43 year old predators fapping to pictures of Hermione from the Harry Potter movies, not to allow sexually frustrated adult authoritarians to punish horny teens for flunking out of Big Brother's anti-sex league.

Kiko
12th April 09, 04:59 PM
Wasn't there a case about a young lady who sent pictures of herself and was charged in a similar way? Either they have to change the law or someone needs to make more clear to these dumb kids that the laws are there to protect THEM and they're being more than stupid.

Cullion
12th April 09, 05:02 PM
Whilst you may or may not want to keep this illegal for the protection of the kids in question, putting the kids on the paedo register as if they were actual, y'know, paedophiles is absurd.

Kiko
12th April 09, 05:08 PM
It is absurd, I agree. But by the same token, what they're doing is not as natural as that defense lawyer claims. Just because they have the technology to act on their intense teen drama, doesn't absolve them.

Clearly a new situation, a new offense needs a new classification and some appropriate penalty.

HappyOldGuy
12th April 09, 05:12 PM
I agree the kid did something wrong, but his life is over. He can't get a real job, go to college, get a girlfriend, etc ever. He is eventually going to wind up swallowing a bullet because of this. That seems a little fucking over the top for something that he should have been sent to bed without supper over.

Cullion
12th April 09, 05:13 PM
Well, if you wanted it to be illegal as a deterrent to the kids putting themselves in danger, you could probably have something like the British offence of 'sending obscene material through the post' although that would probably come into conflict with the 1st ammendment in the US. Personally I don't feel this is necessary.

I would punish grown adults for soliciting or distributing pictures obtained from these kids and treat them as paedophiles. There would be some leeway where the age difference was very small, e.g. 19 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend. But Mr. pockmarked43yearoldinbathrobe is going to jail.

Kiko
12th April 09, 06:32 PM
So... where do you draw the line? It's not so bad if an 18 yr old sends pics of a 16. what about 20 sending pics of 15? And so on... You see where it goes.

How does it affect the person in the pictures? They've been sent. Splattered wherever. The whole thing is about knowing who to trust and that seems to be something these kids don't understand for whatever reason.

Hell, I know MOST of you are well meaning despite all the flames, but I still think it's stupid to post pics of any kids on the intarwebs.

Cullion
12th April 09, 06:50 PM
So... where do you draw the line? It's not so bad if an 18 yr old sends pics of a 16. what about 20 sending pics of 15? And so on... You see where it goes.

It's a tough one. I'd view it partly in terms of life stages. If they were both still at highschool together I'd view it differently than a somebody who'd left highschool interacting with a highschooler. In those terms, I personally find the age gap of 20 and 15 to be too extreme to let the 20 year old off with a warning and a slap on the wrist if they're soliciting or distributing sexual images of the 15 year old, whereas the 18 year old and the 16 year old could be forgivable.

But you can't totally codify all justice in advance, and this is why we're supposed to have judges and juries deciding individual cases on their merits as well as books of law. If it could all be mathematically worked out in advance, then we'd save a lot of money just letting software decide.

There has to be a reasonable way of seperating predatory people who are clearly way too old to be dating the teen in question and need to be watched as potential threats to other children, and teenage older boyfriends/girlfriends who've just done something a bit stupid.

Aphid Jones
12th April 09, 11:15 PM
So... where do you draw the line? It's not so bad if an 18 yr old sends pics of a 16. what about 20 sending pics of 15? And so on... You see where it goes.

In Washington State we actually do have that line specifically drawn. It has no doubt helped to keep many children safe and many children and young adults out of jail. It's a consent law, and laws like consent laws should be applied to situations like this too.

Is it wrong? Of course. Photos stay on the internet forever. But there's no way people should be put on sex offender lists for this.

Robot Jesus
13th April 09, 12:29 AM
Did you guys even read the Bro code?

Article 113
A Bro abides by the accepted age difference formula when pursuing a younger chick

x≤y/2+7

x= chicks age
y= male age

Cullion
13th April 09, 05:27 AM
I almost brought up that law of the man code. It's quite solid.

Robot Jesus
13th April 09, 05:55 AM
then there is always amend ment VII

mrblackmagic
13th April 09, 12:43 PM
I'm trying to figure when "don't leave evidence" dropped off the list of unspoken childhood rules along with "don't snitch."

EuropIan
13th April 09, 12:46 PM
I'm trying to figure when "don't leave evidence" dropped off the list of unspoken childhood rules along with "don't snitch."
For some kids, consequences are always unforseen.

ICY
13th April 09, 02:30 PM
According to the letter of the law it's child porn, and there's no good way of dealing with it.


How about...no teenager taking a pic of a teenager is considered a child pornographer?


I don't care what hormones hardwire kids (or adults) to do, being stupid and or irresponsible has consequences now as it always has. Now they can do such things at the touch of a button. No excuse for ignorance of the law.

This has got to be the dumbest thing you've ever posted.


But by the same token, what they're doing is not as natural as that defense lawyer claims. Just because they have the technology to act on their intense teen drama, doesn't absolve them.

Who bleeds because of this? Who dies? Whose property is destroyed?


Did you guys even read the Bro code?

Article 113
A Bro abides by the accepted age difference formula when pursuing a younger chick

x≤y/2+7

x= chicks age
y= male age

My formula is x≤y/2+9 guess I'm not a bro.

I know a teenager who has a video of him fucking his girlfriend in the ass (which I haven't seen, nor did I want to). I told him he better get rid of it before he's 18, but I really do wonder what the legality would be here in Canada.

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
13th April 09, 03:24 PM
My formula is x≤y/2+9 guess I'm not a bro.

16/2 = 8 + 9 = 17
that's why your formula sucks

Robot Jesus
13th April 09, 03:52 PM
I dident write it.

and there is always ammendment VII

ICY
13th April 09, 04:52 PM
Oh, shit...I meant 5, not 9.

Tom Kagan
13th April 09, 05:23 PM
... Alpert says, "I'm being punished for the rest of my life for something that took two minutes or less to do." ...


Can we keep him on the list for saying something incredibly stupid?

Zendetta
13th April 09, 05:31 PM
This is so twisted and stupid that it actually sounds like a Swiftian Troll-A-Rama - "let's protect the children... by labelling them as sex offenders!"

Basically, you cannot understand America without understanding, or at least pondering, the way socialization twists the natural instincts of Thanatos and Eros into something at best ridiculous, and at worst deeply sick.

Cullion
13th April 09, 06:38 PM
16/2 = 8 + 9 = 17
that's why your formula sucks


It only applies to over 18s and it can be relaxed somewhat in your mid 20's as far as 'am I a paedophile' is concerned.

It holds pretty well until your over 40 for 'Am I just deluding myself because she's physically hot but we're actually incompatible because we'll have too little in common' is concerned.

Don't second guess your elders. You haven't done anything that we haven't.

Sirc
13th April 09, 06:41 PM
The real crime is that they aren't uploading them up on the internet.

Cullion
13th April 09, 06:48 PM
I see what you did there.

Robot Jesus
13th April 09, 07:06 PM
which internet have you been watching?

Aphid Jones
13th April 09, 08:34 PM
socialization twists the natural instincts of Thanatos and Eros
Oh, come on, please, not Freud.

Ajamil
13th April 09, 10:26 PM
How about...no teenager taking a pic of a teenager is considered a child pornographer?
So when the 19-yr-old is spreading around the 13-yr-old pictures for profit...

Why is it so hard to factor in intent? Certainly there can be different lvls of child porn, from malicious "sexting" to physical abuse and rape. I suppose somewhere in the middle would be the archivist who never actually gets near real kids. Why not lvls of punishment, with the sex offender list only for those who can be shown to have adequate risk factor of actually harming children?


x≤y/2+9
x≤y/2+7
x=girl y=bro

Less than or equal to? Uhm, don't you mean greater than? I hope it's bro code for a 20 yr old dude to get with a chick 19(17) or older.

HappyOldGuy
13th April 09, 10:34 PM
Less than or equal to? Uhm, don't you mean greater than? I hope it's bro code for a 20 yr old dude to get with a chick 19(17) or older.

It's supposed to be = or ~=.

Dagon Akujin
14th April 09, 12:31 AM
This is fucking stupid and is due to America's NEED to have a boogie-man in the closet. We WANT there to be a big bad-guy we can catch and punish. We want there to be someone out there to blame our problems and failures on. "If only these people could understand!"

But the fact is, everybody is somebody's boogie-man, doing "bad things" who make the world a bad place just because "they don't get it." And laws like this won't stop anybody from doing anything. They'll just turn half the 13 year olds into felons. But that's how some people want it. They want there little Jesus kids to feel good about themselves since they'd never be cool enough to sneak a beer at 15, find a porno at 16, or get a girl to send them naked pictures at 17. "Oh! That's the devil in them other kids! Praise Jesus! Not my kids!"

Fuck our culture.



he has the authority to prosecute girls photographed in underwear, like the ACLU's clients, or even in a bikini on the beach, because the photos are "provocative."

What?!?!?

Oh shit! We're all going to jail! Quit your fapping! Kiddie pr0n below!!!














http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_5DdDn-tc0fA/R_RggGwry_I/AAAAAAAAAGk/mBXgjyclFE8/s400/beach+sunglasses.JPG


The world is coming to a fucking end and the sky is now falling.

http://memeparty.com/i/60b92fc4c527e4d756e9374d5c8e73b6.jpg

Yiktin Voxbane
14th April 09, 01:56 AM
Wasn't there a case about a young lady who sent pictures of herself and was charged in a similar way? Either they have to change the law or someone needs to make more clear to these dumb kids that the laws are there to protect THEM and they're being more than stupid.


This thread ? (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46285)

Kiko
14th April 09, 03:33 PM
I knew I wasn't making it up...

Thanks, Twytch!

I'm gonna upload some brandy, cause I know we're both old enough.

Robot Jesus
14th April 09, 03:54 PM
what if enterprising 13 year olds start a porn website?

Cullion
14th April 09, 04:10 PM
then their parents go to jail.

Robot Jesus
14th April 09, 05:11 PM
and if there a rag tag band of plucky emancipated minors doing there best to stay out of the foster home system and work their way through college as they already have high school equivalant?

Robot Jesus
14th April 09, 05:13 PM
I think i just wrote an HBO series.

Cullion
14th April 09, 06:46 PM
u kno it's still not ok to peek at those sites just because you think it might pay for them to go to college, rite?

Robot Jesus
14th April 09, 07:01 PM
I'm just trying to think of a situation whitch would be difficult to deal with justly.

obviously the clients go to jail.

Cullion
14th April 09, 07:11 PM
sure you were.

socratic
14th April 09, 11:05 PM
This should be a charge of harassment, not not paedophilia!

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
14th April 09, 11:28 PM
Oh, shit...I meant 5, not 9.

18/2 = 9 + 5 = 14

aaawww yeeaaaah

MEGA JESUS-SAMA
14th April 09, 11:29 PM
Don't second guess your elders. You haven't done anything that we haven't.

is mescaline any good?

Dagon Akujin
14th April 09, 11:41 PM
I'm just trying to think of a situation whitch would be difficult to deal with justly.

obviously the clients go to jail.
Isn't that practically entrapment?



"Hey there crackheads. We are taking you all off to jail for some hard time. Your dealer over there, however, just needs a little therapy to realize that what he's doing is bad and wrong. Enjoy prison, crackheads."

ICY
15th April 09, 10:42 AM
18/2 = 9 + 5 = 14

aaawww yeeaaaah

Or 26/2=13+5=18

Kein Haar
15th April 09, 06:33 PM
Dagon's mom sexted me.

Dagon Akujin
15th April 09, 06:54 PM
Dagon's mom sexted me.


HAWT!!






http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2349478560_6f239dc878.jpg

Harpy
15th April 09, 06:58 PM
28/2 = 14

14 + 5 = 19

Wow, that works for me.