Donate Now
We've Moved! Check out our new boards.
  New Poll  
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Scarleteen Boards: 2000 - 2014 (Archive) » SCARLETEEN CENTRAL » Sexual Ethics and Politics » "Ricky's Life".

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: "Ricky's Life".
mizchastain
Activist
Member # 32224

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mizchastain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't know if this has ever been posted here before, but I ran across it a while back and it upset me: http://www.rickyslife.com/ This unfortunate young man was placed on the sex offender's register for life, because, when he was sixteen, he engaged in consensual relations with a thirteen-year-old girl (who, by the way, he had thought at the time was his own age). It's effectively ruined his life, and the family put up the website to try and get support to get it changed. Even the girlfriend's parents thought it was wrong to arrest him over it. So far they have managed to get him off probation, but he's still on the register. I fully approve of the intention of protecting children, but in this case, what they're doing kind of defeats the purpose, since the girl insisted it was consensual and what's happening to Ricky hardly comes under the heading of "protecting" anyone.

While I don't want to use his plight to draw attention to my own problems, I have to say it's things like this which are probably a significant part of the reason for my own paranoia (see my previous posts). I have never intentionally done or viewed anything illegal and don't want to do so, but I still sometimes get panicky at the thought of accidentally running across something illegal and having people think I meant to.

Posts: 475 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cesario
Activist
Member # 47095

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cesario     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mizchastain:
I fully approve of the intention of protecting children, but in this case, what they're doing kind of defeats the purpose, since the girl insisted it was consensual and what's happening to Ricky hardly comes under the heading of "protecting" anyone.

There's a point you seem to have missed. It doesn't matter what the girl thinks. The whole point of having an age of consent is to ignore what the girl thinks. If what the girl thought mattered, we wouldn't have an age of consent at all, and we'd just use ordinary rape and sexual assault laws in these cases.

While I certainly agree that the reality is that no one is being protected here, I'm not really convinced anyone ever is protected by these laws, and some days I question whether that was ever the genuine intention. Surely the moral guardians of the late 19th century (when the current age of consent laws were put in place in the US) could have used a saner system to deal with the real abuses they were responding to. (Like making rape still be illegal if the woman stopped fighting for some reason other than complete exhaustion.) But then those saner systems would have done nothing to further their moral guardian agenda.

But that's another thread.

And while it should go without saying, I'll explicitly point out that I'm against rape in all its forms, including exploiting the ignorance and diminished reasoning capacity of others.

quote:
Originally posted by mizchastain:
While I don't want to use his plight to draw attention to my own problems, I have to say it's things like this which are probably a significant part of the reason for my own paranoia (see my previous posts). I have never intentionally done or viewed anything illegal and don't want to do so, but I still sometimes get panicky at the thought of accidentally running across something illegal and having people think I meant to.

Speaking as a confirmed thought-criminal myself, I'd say that sort of paranoia is healthy and useful for the individual, and dangerous and unhealthy for society as a whole. When things like "posession" of illegal information (child porn fitting that category) can net you jail sentences longer than raping a child would, no one wants to tell the police they found it, so the police can't use the photos as a springboard for an investigation to maybe find the person who's abusing the child.

(This assumes, for the sake of argument, that the image in question is a case of actual abuse rather than a completely consensual encounter perfectly alright in every regard save the ages of the participants.)

Posts: 64 | From: United States | Registered: May 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
May Day
Activist
Member # 39174

Icon 1 posted      Profile for May Day     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
"The whole point of having an age of consent is to ignore what the girl thinks. If what the girl thought mattered, we wouldn't have an age of consent at all, and we'd just use ordinary rape and sexual assault laws in these cases."

I get what you're saying there Cesario, but i think you're overlooking something. Age of consent laws aren't about ignoring children, they're about recognising power dynamics and information. Check this out: http://shutupsitdown.co.uk/2009/11/16/the-adult-privilege-checklist/
Children only have access to education, health care, support, etc BECAUSE adults allow them that access. In terms of understanding sexual situations, children are at greater risk of manipulation and abuse because any understanding they have of consent and bodily autonomy is through what adults teach them.

A completely consenting sexual relationship between a child and an adult cannot exist because a child cannot fully understand the situation. Considering how many young people over 16 (like Ricky was) who come here to ST because they don't understand their relationship and sexual situations is kinda demonstrative of how uninformed children are left to be regarding sex AND how unlikely it is that the 13 yr old girl Ricky had a relationship with was fully informed and therefore capable of fully consenting.

Posts: 172 | From: Australia | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mizchastain
Activist
Member # 32224

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mizchastain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Given that she admitted to telling him she was sixteen, I don't think it's really his fault. Both of them could have made better decisions, yes, but he doesn't deserve this kind of treatment.
Posts: 475 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Age of consent laws and policies are so, so tricky. Cesario makes some good points in that historically, they were created to primarily protect children from being prostituted by their parents, believe it or not. The economics of the time with many populations were such that that was a very common occurrence.

At the time, the age of consent was lower than we see it anywhere now, before the teen years. The definition of "child" was also incredibly different: it did not mean everyone under 18 like it so often does now. (I'm personally also very much not okay with calling an adolescent a child: wasn't coo with it when I was one, wasn't cool with it when I was teaching actual children, am still not okay with it as an older adult.) As well, we didn't have situations then like we do now where someone is, say 15 and not given any rights as an adult, but can be criminally tried and charged as an adult.

I think anyone who has been here for a while knows I have very mixed feelings about the AOC, specifically when concessions in AOC policies are not made to allow a substantial window of ages for which a person under the AOC can lawfully give consent. In plenty of places, for instance, so long as a partner is within X number of years, it is lawful. I also have real issues with the policies as they are, and how they don't tend to take the myriad of conditions and variances into account, but treat people of X age as all the same, something the law doesn't really do for any other group.

By all means, I, too, am completely down with doing what we can to adequately protect anyone in need of protection, and agree that because we are an ageist culture, but also because development matters, that children and young people are a vulnerable population in a wide array of respects.

At the same time, AOC laws, on top of winding up truly doing people harm, like in this situation, have also been shown to offer little to no protection, anyway. I've read a handful of studies in the past that have found that AOC laws rarely deter older adults from exploiting young people. And of course, an AOC law only ultimately punishes after-the-fact: it doesn't keep anything bad from happening to anyone, especially when it's not a deterrent.

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me • Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mizchastain
Activist
Member # 32224

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mizchastain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Are there any ways to campaign to get the laws adjusted to take those situations into account?

If you'll excuse my going off-topic, you make a good point with the not-calling-teens-"children" thing. I'm only twenty and I've found myself thinking of my sister and her thirteen-and-fourteen-year-old friends as children and then telling myself off for it, because I would have hated to be thought of as a child when I was thirteen.

Posts: 475 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think that's off-topic at all. It's actually a big part of this issue.

Personally, I'm a fan, of using developmental terms for people. In other words, a framework based on physical, psychological and intellectual development like:
- Infancy (birth to age 2)
- Early Childhood (2-7)
- Middle Childhood (7-11)
- Adolescence (11-22)

We can get more specific with that and break down those groups further, but from a developmental standpoint as far as doctors, teachers and other people who work with human development are concerned, pre-teens, teens and young adults are very much not children.

Per what can be done to work on the AOC, for sure, there are groups who campaign and lobby for that. I'm not sure what those groups are in the UK, but I could certainly ask around my networks there if you like. [Smile]

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me • Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mizchastain
Activist
Member # 32224

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mizchastain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Some things about the age of consent puzzle me. Like, why is it legal in the UK to have sex and in fact get married when you're sixteen, but you're not allowed to view pornographic pictures until you're eighteen? Logically, if they're going to be allowed at different ages, I'd think one should be allowed to view porn first so one gets a rough idea of what's going on before one tries it (okay, I know porn is usually a hideously unrealistic depiction of sex, but consider it a vague hint).
Posts: 475 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Unless the UK laws around pornography are very different than in the states, that law is not likely about who is allowed to view porn, exactly, per age. Rather, it's more likely about at what age a PROVIDER of porn is allowed to sell or provide access to people of a given age.

In other words, it's likely not a set of laws about YA/teen sex or sexuality, but about commerce and license on the part of porn makers and distributors.

I don't have time today to look up the structure of the UK laws around this myself, though, so I can't say for certain.

(Of course, it's a whole different conversation about what, if there is anything, viewing pornography before any kind of sex may or may not do, especially considering how it's fantasy material, not reality. In some ways, you're suggesting that, for instance, before I try sailing in real life, I should read Moby Dick. I might enjoy doing that, as it's a great piece of work, but I'm not sure it'd tell me more about sailing than say, a manual meant to teach me about sailing would. [Smile] )

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me • Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mizchastain
Activist
Member # 32224

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mizchastain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
When you put it that way it makes sense. It just seemed kind of counterintuitive to me. Then again I've never actually seen a porn movie so I don't know exactly how inaccurate or accurate they usually are. (Sex scenes I've seen in novels are often laughably inaccurate, and obviously so even to me, so I don't know why I thought the filmed stuff would be any better. Then again, I think it's a different kind of inaccurate ...)

[ 06-23-2010, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: mizchastain ]

Posts: 475 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cesario
Activist
Member # 47095

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cesario     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by May Day:
"The whole point of having an age of consent is to ignore what the girl thinks. If what the girl thought mattered, we wouldn't have an age of consent at all, and we'd just use ordinary rape and sexual assault laws in these cases."

I get what you're saying there Cesario, but i think you're overlooking something. Age of consent laws aren't about ignoring children, they're about recognising power dynamics and information.

It seems to me that the power dynamics are being used as justification for ignoring children. It isn't that they aren't being ignored, just that you (and others) agree that they ought to be ignored for these reasons.

quote:
Originally posted by May Day:

Check this out: http://shutupsitdown.co.uk/2009/11/16/the-adult-privilege-checklist/
Children only have access to education, health care, support, etc BECAUSE adults allow them that access.

While I hadn't seen that particular list before, I was aware and cognizant of the points it brings up. It's actually a pretty good list.

I like the format. I particularly like the acknowledgment at the top about "as written from the perspective of the adult, some of these would not apply", since that has been a rather consistent gripe of mine with the other privilege checklists.

quote:
Originally posted by May Day:

In terms of understanding sexual situations, children are at greater risk of manipulation and abuse because any understanding they have of consent and bodily autonomy is through what adults teach them.

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning on this one. Do adults have an advantage because they can get their information from nonadults? Do children no longer discuss subjects that interest them among their peers?

Now, it is the case that children are at greater risk than many adults due to legal matters. The inability to exercise bodily domain by getting a legal abortion without the approval of a caregiver, for example. The general economic dependency and disempowerment they suffer as a result of labor laws barring them entry into the workforce and property laws denying them ownership rights certainly makes one vulnerable to all kinds of manipulation.

Now, they can be prevented from accessing information more easily than adults can due to those issues of economic dependency, and the fact that adults are legally allowed to use violence to enforce whatever arbitrary will they chose on a child, but that isn't the same as the problem being that they get their information from adults.

If the access to information were the problem, we could use a simple test to check whether they know what we as a society feel they should know, instead of an arbitrary age line, after which there is no guarantee they know anything more than they did the day before.

quote:
Originally posted by May Day:

A completely consenting sexual relationship between a child and an adult cannot exist because a child cannot fully understand the situation. Considering how many young people over 16 (like Ricky was) who come here to ST because they don't understand their relationship and sexual situations is kinda demonstrative of how uninformed children are left to be regarding sex AND how unlikely it is that the 13 yr old girl Ricky had a relationship with was fully informed and therefore capable of fully consenting.

Point 8 from your link:
"I cannot speak in public to a group of people without putting people my age on trial."

This seems to be what you are doing with the use of the anecdotes here as proof that no one under a certain age could possibly understand sex or consent.

Posts: 64 | From: United States | Registered: May 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Cesrio: per this section...

quote:
In terms of understanding sexual situations, children are at greater risk of manipulation and abuse because any understanding they have of consent and bodily autonomy is through what adults teach them.
I'd put that a little differently, in that children don't have knowledge of the sexual motives of adults, having not yet been adults, and having a different kind of sexuality in their developmental stages than most adults. I'd agree that as well, it is adults who primarily teach -- or withhold information about -- children about consent and their bodies, however. Adults also have an upper hand because we live in an adultist world where adults are the most empowered crafters and distributors of the information.

But again, per the OP, we're not talking about children here regardless, we're talking about adolescents.

[ 06-23-2010, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Heather ]

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me • Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cesario
Activist
Member # 47095

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cesario     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Heather:
Age of consent laws and policies are so, so tricky. Cesario makes some good points in that historically, they were created to primarily protect children from being prostituted by their parents, believe it or not. The economics of the time with many populations were such that that was a very common occurrence.

Some time ago, I ran across this reading list, which I found incredibly informative:
http://womhist.alexanderstreet.com/aoc/doclist.htm

It's a list of primary sources, arguments being made at the time the lines were being moved to their current positions.

When I first came across the site, the documents were all directly available through hyperlink, so I read the entire lesson. If anyone can find the documents mentioned, I highly recommend them.

I only wish I'd saved them when I had the chance.

quote:
Originally posted by Heather:


I think anyone who has been here for a while knows I have very mixed feelings about the AOC, specifically when concessions in AOC policies are not made to allow a substantial window of ages for which a person under the AOC can lawfully give consent. In plenty of places, for instance, so long as a partner is within X number of years, it is lawful. I also have real issues with the policies as they are, and how they don't tend to take the myriad of conditions and variances into account, but treat people of X age as all the same, something the law doesn't really do for any other group.

I'm curious why you see close-in exemptions as meeting that goal. They still treat people of X age as all the same even in places with close-in exemptions.

One could say that such places are more "lenient" than they might be, but they get that at the cost of consistency. A person is either able to consent or not. If that person is not able to consent, why is it better for them to be exploited by someone close in age?

quote:
Originally posted by Heather:


At the same time, AOC laws, on top of winding up truly doing people harm, like in this situation, have also been shown to offer little to no protection, anyway. I've read a handful of studies in the past that have found that AOC laws rarely deter older adults from exploiting young people. And of course, an AOC law only ultimately punishes after-the-fact: it doesn't keep anything bad from happening to anyone, especially when it's not a deterrent.

It's also worth noting that we have laws against raping adults. In theory, any actual abuse ought to be covered under the same laws that protect adults from sexual abuse. Thus the only cases that are made illegal by having an age of consent are those wherein every other aspect of the situation besides the ages are completely legal.

Like Ricky's case. If she had actually been his age as she originally claimed, and nothing else whatsoever about the situation had changed, from his behavior to her maturity level, this would not have been treated as a crime.

Posts: 64 | From: United States | Registered: May 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm running off for the day in a little bit, but on the whole, I'm in perfect agreement with this:

quote:
It's also worth noting that we have laws against raping adults. In theory, any actual abuse ought to be covered under the same laws that protect adults from sexual abuse. Thus the only cases that are made illegal by having an age of consent are those wherein every other aspect of the situation besides the ages are completely legal.
Our rape laws, however, need a lot of work for people of ALL ages. IMO, if those laws were refined well, they would provide better protections from all kinds of rape and sexual exploitation for people of all ages. And for younger people, certainly better than AOC laws do.

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me • Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cesario
Activist
Member # 47095

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cesario     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Heather:
Cesrio: per this section...

quote:
In terms of understanding sexual situations, children are at greater risk of manipulation and abuse because any understanding they have of consent and bodily autonomy is through what adults teach them.
I'd put that a little differently, in that children don't have knowledge of the sexual motives of adults, having not yet been adults, and having a different kind of sexuality in their developmental stages than most adults.

It should be noted that adults aren't exactly experts at divining the sexual motives of other adults. It certainly isn't anything intrinsic. The differences between men and women in terms of sexual anatomy, goals, motivations and the like aren't exactly trivial.

quote:
Originally posted by Heather:

I'd agree that as well, it is adults who primarily teach -- or withhold information about -- children about consent and their bodies, however. Adults also have an upper hand because we live in an adultist world where adults are the most empowered crafters and distributors of the information.

That I can certainly agree with.

quote:
Originally posted by Heather:

But again, per the OP, we're not talking about children here regardless, we're talking about adolescents.

Indeed. I'll amend my language.
Posts: 64 | From: United States | Registered: May 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heather
Executive Director & Founder
Member # 3

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Heather     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It should be noted that adults aren't exactly experts at divining the sexual motives of other adults. It certainly isn't anything intrinsic. The differences between men and women in terms of sexual anatomy, goals, motivations and the like aren't exactly trivial.
Well, that's a pretty huge can of worms there since a) there are more sexes and genders than just men and women, b) sexual diversity is a lot less binary, more fluid and more wide than people working outside the field tend to recognize. John Grey-style theories of "mens" and "womens" sexuality or wiring tend to be highly flawed for a lot of reasons, especially since they don't even consider everyone who is not heterosexual, cis gender and XX or XY.

But in one sense, yes, motivations vary widely amongst all adults. However sexual development in life stages, particularly from pre-infancy through adolescence, while still with its variances, does tend to have pretty distinct stages, just like much anatomical development, even though they aren't exactly the same for all people at every age. And the sexuality of, say, infants and grade schoolers does generally tend to be pretty radically different than that of most adults from the view of most folks working in both sexuality and human development.

As someone who has also worked in the field for a long time now talking with and listening to many people of all ages talk about sex -- including, albeit informally, when I was a classroom teacher in ECE and elementary -- I can attest to some of those big differences. It's when we get to pre-teens and adolescents that it all starts to get pretty murky because their sexuality is in the process of becoming adult, just like the rest of their selves and lives.

(Sorry to use "they" for y'all when you're right here, btw. Always tough to talk to another older adult on the boards about you like this without doing that.)

But I do want to make sure we stay on track with the thread here. To go back to the OP, she's talking specifically about laws like the AOC and the way they make her feel worried about getting in serious trouble when she hasn't chosen to engage in anything sexual at all.

--------------------
Heather Corinna, Executive Director & Founder, Scarleteen
About Me • Get our book!
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. - Margaret Mead

Posts: 68290 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cesario
Activist
Member # 47095

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cesario     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Heather:
quote:
It should be noted that adults aren't exactly experts at divining the sexual motives of other adults. It certainly isn't anything intrinsic. The differences between men and women in terms of sexual anatomy, goals, motivations and the like aren't exactly trivial.
Well, that's a pretty huge can of worms there since a) there are more sexes and genders than just men and women, b) sexual diversity is a lot less binary, more fluid and more wide than people working outside the field tend to recognize. John Grey-style theories of "mens" and "womens" sexuality or wiring tend to be highly flawed for a lot of reasons, especially since they don't even consider everyone who is not heterosexual, cis gender and XX or XY.

But in one sense, yes, motivations vary widely amongst all adults. However sexual development in life stages, particularly from pre-infancy through adolescence, while still with its variances, does tend to have pretty distinct stages, just like much anatomical development, even though they aren't exactly the same for all people at every age. And the sexuality of, say, infants and grade schoolers does generally tend to be pretty radically different than that of most adults from the view of most folks working in both sexuality and human development.

As someone who has also worked in the field for a long time now talking with and listening to many people of all ages talk about sex -- including, albeit informally, when I was a classroom teacher in ECE and elementary -- I can attest to some of those big differences. It's when we get to pre-teens and adolescents that it all starts to get pretty murky because their sexuality is in the process of becoming adult, just like the rest of their selves and lives.

(Sorry to use "they" for y'all when you're right here, btw. Always tough to talk to another older adult on the boards about you like this without doing that.)

I intended that as a shorthand example, since discussing all the variations in currently tolerated sexual interaction would cover several books. Suffice it to say, we aren't simple creatures, and we don't have clear knowledge of what motivates all the other adults when we are adults.

And I'll stop there before I start to ramble.

quote:
Originally posted by Heather:

But I do want to make sure we stay on track with the thread here. To go back to the OP, she's talking specifically about laws like the AOC and the way they make her feel worried about getting in serious trouble when she hasn't chosen to engage in anything sexual at all.

I don't think that's an unreasonable worry.

The age of consent is a crime of strict liability. As in Ricky's case, you don't need to have meant to do anything illegal for you to be prosecuted and have your life effectively destroyed.

"Related" offenses like child pornography (one of the items the OP brought up as a particular fear) are among the easiest to bump into. And the crime is possession. Manufacture, distribution, these are separate issues, but mere possession is enough to do to you far worse than was done to Ricky.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6399471.stm

200 years. That's the sentence for one man with no prior criminal record, and no evidence of any other wrongdoing. For just having pictures, he's got a sentence longer than he would've gotten for raping a child.

And this was a minimum sentence. The judge going as easy on the man as was possible.

This is an issue that the constitution's protections against cruel and unusal punishment apparently don't apply considering the Supreme Court's reaction to a 200 year sentence for possessing pictures.

Not even the worst of the United States. With luck it will be appropriately overturned, but we've currently got legislation that will send you to jail for possessing a drawing.

Get to Australia, and you can be jailed for plain text.

Here's an article written by a journalist who has some of the very same fears. An article that was withdrawn shortly after publication for reasons I'll leave to your imagination.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.censorship/msg/af563c6d2efdd2c4

Posts: 64 | From: United States | Registered: May 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mizchastain
Activist
Member # 32224

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mizchastain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
To go back to the OP, she's talking specifically about laws like the AOC and the way they make her feel worried about getting in serious trouble when she hasn't chosen to engage in anything sexual at all.
Yeah, that has been a big problem for me. I've never even seen any photographic stuff, but I'm involved in writing and art groups online which sometimes put up written or drawn fictional material along those lines. Under UK law, the written stuff is okay but the drawings aren't (that law only came into force a couple of months ago, though, and the people posting the pics are presumably not in the UK). I avoid anything iffy as best I can, but it pops up occasionally while I'm searching for other stuff and I've had sleepless nights over it even though I know it's highly unlikely anyone would think I meant to look at them. Things like this showing up in the news make me panic, though, because it's clearly irrational to make such a fuss and yet people are still getting arrested over it. I don't by any means WANT to see it, I just want to be able to feel confident that if I do run across it I can go "ew", click Back, and think no more of it.

I also can't help but think it seems like a waste of time and effort on the part of law enforcement. Aren't there more important crimes to be preventing, like actions which fall under the heading of abuse by the spirit of the law rather than its letter? I can't help but feel the Ricky case was just a way for law enforcement to "look busy", as it were.

Though I must point out that as for "leaving the reasons the article was taken down to our imaginations", you don't need to, because it says at the top that it was taken down because it was inaccurate.

[ 06-25-2010, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: mizchastain ]

Posts: 475 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cesario
Activist
Member # 47095

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cesario     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If you go to the original source, there are 22 pages of comments most of which seem to indicate that isn't at all the reason it was taken down:
http://letters.salon.com/letters/corrections/2006/08/25/nathan/view/?show=all

The gist is that the article mentioned a particular New York Times journalist who'd done some investigation, and that journalist felt threatened as a result of the article suggesting he might not be as legally in the clear as the thought. As a result, the Times pressured Salon to take down the article.

It should be noted that Salon's "correction" only indicates there may be a defense, not that there is one. Also of note, an afirmative defence means that the burdon of proof is shifted, you get prosecuted, then you have to prove you didn't do anything wrong.

The comments clarify the legal situation further, explaining that the particular defense being cited only applies to accidentally encountered images (that is, you can't go looking for them, say to investigate law enforcement claims about what they're like), you can possess no more than three images this way (more images than that are in your average porn banner making this effectively a one-strike and you're out situation), and you must both destroy the images immediately and report to law enforcement.

The retraction is simply factually wrong, and they are called on it repeatedly in the comments, and in off site discussion.

Posts: 64 | From: United States | Registered: May 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mizchastain
Activist
Member # 32224

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mizchastain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That isn't really helping. I feel worse now. I'd like to know if there's anything one can actually do about this, rather than hearing stories about people being arrested for clicking the wrong button.

I'm also scared on behalf of my friends in the same writing groups - some of them read and reviewed the same things before any of us became aware there may ever be a problem. I know they're not my responsibility, but I don't want my friends to be hurt.

Posts: 475 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cesario
Activist
Member # 47095

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cesario     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by mizchastain:
That isn't really helping. I feel worse now. I'd like to know if there's anything one can actually do about this, rather than hearing stories about people being arrested for clicking the wrong button.

I'm also scared on behalf of my friends in the same writing groups - some of them read and reviewed the same things before any of us became aware there may ever be a problem. I know they're not my responsibility, but I don't want my friends to be hurt.

There are a number of anticensorship organizations that are fighting this sort of thing. I think the one most relevant to you and your friends (based off what I'm reading here) would be the comic book legal defense fund:
http://cbldf.org/

edit:
Here's the about page for the organization:
http://www.cbldf.com/Learn_More_s/3.htm

edit 2:
Also, I feel I should add. I'm sorry you ended up feeling worse after my last post, but the Salon retraction was recklessly irresponsible, and I worried for anyone who might take the plain text of their retraction at face value and act based on that.

[ 06-26-2010, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Cesario ]

Posts: 64 | From: United States | Registered: May 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mizchastain
Activist
Member # 32224

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mizchastain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
We're not really talking comic books in my case; I had problems with written fiction posted not-for-profit on the internet. Most of it's not a problem, but some of it occasionally features icky bits with characters under 18, and sometimes the writers forget to label it as such so it's hard to avoid entirely. I think written fiction is not regulated in my country as long as it's not encouraging imitation in real life, but I'm also upset because I encouraged a friend of mine in New Zealand to see some of it and she read it and wrote a review on her blog, before either of us realised it wasn't legal there. (I think so in New Zealand, anyway.) I didn't know it could be a problem at the time, but I still feel like dirt and worry that I could have potentially got a friend in trouble. She hasn't been in trouble for it so far, but I worry.

[ 06-26-2010, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: mizchastain ]

Posts: 475 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jill2000Plus
Activist
Member # 41657

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jill2000Plus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The child porn witchhunt is scaring the living daylights out of me too, I would never intentionally view any live action pornography featuring legal minors, but I have no idea what I'll run across while looking for fully consensual porn featuring only adults on the web, plus, I like manga and anime and I'm terrified of getting in trouble because, as you say, I clicked the wrong button by accident, and I see absolutely no justification for making it illegal to see a drawing, I don't give a hoot what it's of, if it's a drawing, it's free speech. As the laws stand, I'm extremely terrified of reporting any illegal content I accidentally come across to the authorities because I am afraid it will be assumed that I was intentionally seeking it out.

[ 06-26-2010, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Jill2000Plus ]

--------------------
Always knock before entering my room when I am in there alone, as I may be doing all sorts of wonderfully thrilling things that I'd rather you didn't see.

Posts: 840 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mizchastain
Activist
Member # 32224

Icon 1 posted      Profile for mizchastain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm upset now because, as I said, I told a friend it was okay to view written fictional material about such stuff for a fiction reviewing group (can't give any more info without the risk of compromising our anonymity, but it crops up occasionally in the other stuff we view) and then found out that under her country's laws I don't think it is. I know it's fairly unlikely she'd get in trouble over it, but I feel sick and horrible for having given my friend bad advice.
Posts: 475 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jill2000Plus
Activist
Member # 41657

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jill2000Plus     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Just to clarify what I said earlier, I still DO report any live action pornography featuring legal minors I become aware of the existence of (if I know the address of the website so I can report it), I just feel really scared each time I do report anything like that in case it's assumed I was looking for it, I'm aware it wouldn't be logical to accuse me of looking for it when I'm reporting it, but you know what, there's a distinct lack of clear logical thinking with regards to this subject.

--------------------
Always knock before entering my room when I am in there alone, as I may be doing all sorts of wonderfully thrilling things that I'd rather you didn't see.

Posts: 840 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
naplement
Activist
Member # 46362

Icon 1 posted      Profile for naplement     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
but why can't you report it anonimously? I'm no expert, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_%26_Anonymous_Internet_Surfing
Posts: 124 | From: hungary | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cesario
Activist
Member # 47095

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Cesario     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by naplement:
but why can't you report it anonimously? I'm no expert, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_%26_Anonymous_Internet_Surfing

As a wise man once said, adequate computer security is indistinguishable from paranoia.
Posts: 64 | From: United States | Registered: May 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

  New Poll   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Get the Whole Story! Go Home to SCARLETEEN: Sex Ed for the Real World | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998

Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3