Page All:
Page 1
This is just another example of a good law applied to the wrong situation. This was only an issue because the authority doesn't think that teens should be doing this. It seems that government is really trying to force a set of values onto citizens. The government shouldn't dictate the values of the nation, the nation should dictate the values of the government. To punish someone for their own private relationship, based solely on their age, is wrong. The photos were for their eyes only, not for distribution. http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news
This is just another example of a good law applied to the wrong situation. This was only an issue because the authority doesn't think that teens should be doing this. It seems that government is really trying to force a set of values onto citizens. The government shouldn't dictate the values of the nation, the nation should dictate the values of the government. To punish someone for their own private relationship, based solely on their age, is wrong. The photos were for their eyes only, not for distribution. http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6157857.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-20&subj=news
Quote
"On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else. Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos. Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography. Under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they document it. Amber's attorney claimed that the right to privacy protected by the Florida Constitution shielded the teen from prosecution, an argument that a trial judge rejected. Amber pleaded no contest to the charges and was placed on probation, though she reserved her right to appeal her constitutional claim."