Well, yes, consider the source! By all means consider the source! Rachel Alexander does not state so, but she is employed by the Maricopa County Attorney – the same prosecutor who is under fire for his gross mishandling of the case and his aggressive attack on the Bandy family in the media. Why hasn’t Ms. Alexander stated her relationship with the parties and her own clear conflict of interest? Is she paid to blog?

Consider the source? Intellectual conservative? Give me a break.

What’s kinda interesting too is his family and their hired guns at http://justice4matt.com/ have stopped issuing anymore statements. That site hasn’t been updated in a couple of weeks. Where is their response to the Arizona County attorney’s report?

The kid looks creepy, like the type who is secretly involved with weird stuff. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least if he gets caught with it again soon. Wouldn’t want him babysitting my kids.

1. I’m not 16. I’m 23. I meant to say that in my mind set as a 16 year old 1 remember…(rest of my earlier post).

2. On my first two postings I didn’t notice the FOX news posting that described the crime.

That said, the responses to my post were generally troubling to me.
Both Sedonaman and Mountain Man posted long rants. While both examined my motives (which was silly cause neither understood my motivations), neither addressed my question. This annoys me for two reasons. 1. It pretends that I’m trying to overturn Child Pornography laws, which I’m not. And the second, because it pretends that I’m about social change when I’m simply trying to determine whether someone needs to be jailed (real kiddy porn) or just embarassed severely (having nude pics of oneself or classmates).
I’m fascinated on what both of you think about those trying to undermine our way of life…now back to the point at hand.

I want to hit on a few things from the resulting posts and why they”re off base, or irrelevant. And all of these are based off of my original misunderstanding that the kid in question was looking at pics of kids his age.

Nevadamom wrote a beautiful post about age limits. Mostly, I agree.
But the point still remains, how do we deal with kids who aren’t bright enough to understand why the laws are in place? Do we label them as sexual offenders for showing their body? Only if we are fools.
I’m not going to argue age limits, as that’s not relevant to the debate, and doesn’t work in anyone’s favors.

As for Mountain, thank you for proving my point. While I doubt there are any 7 year olds posting nude pictures of themselves, let us (for the sake of my ORIGINAL argument) pretend that there are. Do we label that 7 year old a sexual offender? Again, only if we’re really foolish. Teach the kid that what they have done is wrong. Don’t brand them as a pervert and screw up their life.

And finally to Patrick.

No, I didn’t notice the FOX link. I saw the three after it, but missed the FOX link. If the two original posters had said “Hey, stupid, he was looking at pictures of rape victims” instead of questioning my motives and whining about progressives wanting to undermine society, none of this would’ve been neccessary. Instead, they patted each other on the back for pointing out how foolish I was and seeking out the flaws in my perspective, though neither understood it.

That said. If the given legal age of a state is 15 years old…it justifies a 75 year old having sex with a 15 year old. Or a 30 year old. Or a 16 year old. Any way you look at it…it’s good.

I get your point, but it’s excessively flawed. Again I’m not going to get into the age demographics, but there is no societal good found by registering a 16 year old as a sex offender for looking at another 16 or 15 year old nude. It might warrent a heavy seesion with mom or dad and the belt, but it doesn’t warrent screwing up the kids life and making society watch him for eternity just to prove a point. It’s called mitigating circumstances. Under your earlier circumstances, do we put a 15 year old who has sex with a 14 year old in jail for 30 years? Do we register him as a sexual offender for the rest of his (or her) life? That’s not moral, that’s not preudent, and it’s certainly not intelligent.

Well said.

Did you bother at all to read the links provided? The rebuttal to the defense article written by Rachel for Fox News (the very first link in the post) was very thorough in describing all the details of case. All of the information you have requested is available there. Don’t go off half-cocked without reading past the first line of the article. To further save you the trouble of actually reading the material provided, some of the images found were of children as young as 10 years old, and the DA’s office let the kid off with NO jail time, with no mandatory counseling of any kind, despite the fact that he could have been sentenced to as much as 90 years in prison. That’s pretty generous if you ask me.

Now to address your defense of this crime:

I’m not going to speculate on what may or may not occupy the gigabytes on your hard drives, or lecture you on your maturity level because for one thing, it isn’t relevant to arguing your justification for kiddy porn advocacy, and for another, it would be very egotistical of me at the tender age of 20. But let me ask, why is the age of the perpetrator a factor for you? Using your logic, you could justify any kind of illegal pornography, and statutory rape for that matter. If a 12 year old is looking at pornographic images of a 9 year old on the internet, does it somehow make it okay because he is close in age to the victim? You’re saying that it’s okay to look at nude images of underage children just so long as the person looking at the images is a minor as well? How about statutory rape? Let’s say the age of consent in a given state is 15. Is it okay for a 17 year old to have sex consensual sex with an underage 15 year old because he is closer in age to the victim than, say, a 30 year old? If an 18 year old “adult” has sex with an underage 15 year old, is he to be considered less an “adult” than a 25, or 35, or 45 year old person? If so, then by what justification can we convict the 25, or 35, or 45 year old of the same crime if they are all equally “adults”, legally speaking? What is the cut-off age when you actually become responsible for breaking the law? When laws are broken in the course of what you may consider adolescent hijinks, are they somehow less applicable because of the person’s age? And again, to what extent? Another example: Should a 15 year old kid caught with some pot and paraphernalia be let off the hook because he was just “doing what kids do”? And again, what’s the cut-off age? Should we extend that same treatment to people until they reach 18? 21? Setting all that aside and assuming that we are operating under this idea of age-based selective morality/legality, let me ask you another question. Is, say, peeping in the girls locker room, or a girl flashing her breasts to classmates the same as seeking and downloading pornographic images of underage children and then distributing them for others to download as well? Or, in a similar vein, would it be okay for the said peeping toms to photograph their subjects and distribute the material on the internet? And if it is okay, then by what grounds do we prosecute any person of any age who subsequently downloads and views the images? If an 18 year old “adult” were to download said images, should that be illegal? What about a 20 year old? Getting back to the original argument, what is the cut-off age? Do we just arbitrarily decide every case individually with no universality of law? Your justification is based on a legal/moral relativism, which can easily be used (and frequently is used) to justify nearly any action you can think of. Your objections to this case are absurd.

I am sad that someone your age is already trying to justify your position (in this case justifying a pornography habit) based upon a technicality, such as the age of those involved, etc. …..You’re probably right in one sense: looking at pornography is often just a “lark” for teenage boys; however, it no longer is a “lark” when the pornography viewing becomes an addiction and takes over the thought patterns of an otherwise promising young man……….Pornography addiction is a real problem today. Even within the churches it is estimated in some quarters that 1/3 of the men are struggling with a pornography problem. ….Some would say, “So what?”, it doesn’t affect anyone else, it is basically a victimless crime (if you ignore the children, etc. in the pictures who are obviously being exploited); however, the reality of the matter is that it robs the family and friends of the pornography addict of his primary love and attention. Just like a drug addict, he may mean to put his family first; however, the reality is that the pornography viewing has replaced family just as obtaining drugs come first for the drug addict.

I personally am aware of many whose families have been affected adversely by a member who has developed a pornography viewing habit. The addict is probably not even aware of what a loathsome creature he has become. Often the pornography addict loses his normal ambitions, living only for his secret viewing times.

Pornography appeals to our basest nature…..There is nothing redeeming, beautiful or lovely about it. To try and pretend like it is harmless or protected under a “free speech” right (therefore, making it right) are empty arguments with no base in reality. Pornography is dangerous, it destroys…..We should spend our time and energy warning others we love about its dangers, not pretending that just because something is “natural” (the so-called natural man is not a very pretty creature when all moral restraints are taken away….see Lord of the Flies) ergo, it is all right.

I know that it is now against the nature of our culture to label certain things “good”, and others “evil” . We push the philosophy that states that man (or woman or child) has a “right to choose” ; he/she is under no authority other than his/her own volition. This denial of a moral authority (the Bible) has certainly set men free, but with no guidelines on how to use that freedom. Freedom unfettered results in anarchy or chaos…and, as history has taught us, gives rise to tyrants whose authority is not moral, only brutal and frightening.

Anyway, it just bothered me, young sir, that you have already bought into the secular mindset at such an early age. I hope you will think and examine this issue some more……and I pray that you will see the truth and the “truth will set you free” from all falsity……God bless…..Steve Edward

Who does it help? It helps all of us learn, embrace, and maintain a moral framework. The alternative is situational ethics, where people make up the rules as they go along.

There are things that are always wrong, a lot more things than you might think. There are fewer shades of gray than you might think. It is always wrong to post nude pics of yourself.

But if it’s ok for a 15 year old, why not 14? Or 12? Or 7? Wolven, provide me with the iron-clad reasoning that says it’s ok for a 15 year old to post nude pics, but not a 7 year old.

Again, I want DETAILS. There was a case not terribly long ago where a girl put nude pics of herself on a myspace site and was forced to register as a sexual offender for distributing child pornography. Who does that help? Really?

There is a little difference in having change for change’s sake than in refusing to change for the sake of tradition. If teenagers are looking at each other nude, throwing them in jail is idiotic.

I want more information. I sure don’t buy this “zombie” nonsense, but it’s a kid lying about porn to his parents. And remembering what it was like to be a horny teenager and what my friends were like, we made up some really bad or far fetched stuff when we were caught with contraband. I want to know if this is a teenager looking at other teenagers naked, or if this is a guy spreading pictures of 6 year olds being raped. There’s a pretty big difference between the two.

Cause if it’s the former, it’s not in anyone’s interest to throw the kid in jail and have him register as a sexual offender.

And for the record…that law about not leaving your keys in your car is a really stupid law.

Well said. “Progressives” seem bent on tearing down everything our culture has been built upon, demanding that those things justify themselves. But you’re right, it is those demanding change that must justify their ideas. There is a reason that society is constructed the way it is – - it works.

Perhaps Wolven is viewing this through a libertarian lens, that is, private conduct is not the government’s business. Legislating morality and all that. But society has its interest in private behavior, because privacy is not a blanket justification for doing whatever you want. Besides, all laws legislate someone’s view of morality, anyway.

When my son was 18 and dating a 17 year old, I told him that he needed to watch his step. There is a moral dimenson to this and a legal one. His legal understanding must have a foundation in morality, or it is subject to the whims of pop culture.

Any law can be changed, but morality cannot. If it were suddenly legal to have relations with a child (of whatever age), it would still be immoral.

It is abundantly clear that laws cannot restrain lawless people. Only morality can. Morality provides the frame of reference to respond to laws, and to function in society generally. That’s why it is so important to preserve.