Children’s Child Porn Ring Smashed

loli-with-mobile-phone

A group of children who engaged in the practice of “sexting”, texting naked and semi-naked pictures of themselves to one another, have been arrested for manufacturing, disseminating and possessing child pornography.

The girls so charged are aged 14 or 15, and are accused of making the porn, whilst the boys, aged 16-17, are accused of possession.

Their child pornography sex ring was uncovered after teachers confiscated a mobile phone from a boy, and whilst rifling through its contents, as might be expected of them, found it to contain nude pictures of a classmate. The wise teachers quickly called in police to crack the case.

Police Captain George Seranko, who helped thwart the wicked pornographers and bring them to justice, eloquently described the photographic consequences of their obscene antics as: “a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude.”

The captain was clear that the villains must be made an example of:

“It’s very dangerous, once it’s on a cell phone, that cell phone can be put on the Internet where everyone in the world can get access to that juvenile picture. You don’t realize what you are doing until it’s already done.”

The school district was blasé about the child pornography ring uncovered in one of its schools: it found “no evidence of inappropriate activity on school grounds … other than the violation of the electronic devices policy.”

A lawyer with experience with such cases weighs in, saying the laws are not meant to target wicked juvenile pornographers, but “sexual abuse” by “dirty old men in raincoats.”

“It’s clearly overkill … The letter of the law seems to have been violated, but this is not the type of defendant that the legislature envisioned.”

Pennsylvania does not have a mandatory minimum sentence for such offences, so it is his opinion that they may escape jail.

However, if convicted they would become registered lolicon sex offenders for at least 10 years, meaning they would be subjected to such restrictions as not being able to visit or live in proximity to schools (difficult in the case of school children), having to report their convictions to employers, and apparently in some states they would even have to surrender their passwords to the authorities.

There have been a number of other similar cases involving minors creating criminal depictions of themselves, and the law has been successful in ensuring that a number of these juvenile child pornographers have been brought to justice for their crimes.

That said, there are some doubts over whether the privacy violating phone contents searches will fare well in courts.

Disturbingly, we also hear that as many as 20% of teenagers may be wicked child pornographers, as a National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy survey revealed 22% of girls and 18% of boys admitted sharing nude images of themselves.

Truly, even the schools themselves are not safe from this blight.

Via Slashdot.

Will no one think of the imaginary children too?

Leave a Comment

121 Comments

  • the teacher looked at the pictures thus he is guilty…

    the police looked at the pictures they are guilty…

    this is an invasion of privacy…

    everyday the people die a little more…

    you want to enforce the law…

    then nuke the planet…

    only way to be sure

  • The most hilarious thing about this is that it isn’t child pornography at all.

    Firstly because the photos were merely nude pictures, involving no sexual material whatsoever. Secondly because the people involved are not children, they are young adults who are sexually mature.

    Why must the world be so full of gibbering fools?

  • Wait a min…is there are proof that this “child porn ring” distributes the pictures over the internet?

    From what I see, they are only distributing it within a circle of friends, right?

    And these are just kids who doesn’t know what they are doing…

    • Um, they know what they are doing. They are sharing naked pictures of themselves. This us ridiculous; the only reason they have these laws is to protect children from sexual predators. Obviously when sharing these pictures among mutual friends in the same age group that involves no predator whatsoever. And isn’t it kinda sexist to charge the boys with one crime and the girls with another? Give me a fucking break. Kids that age are going to be attracted to one another; would you rather they illegally look at playboy? And how in the hell are these purple content with prosecuting children?! Please excuse the rant.

  • Artefact, there is a error in your report, right here:

    “The wise teachers quickly called in police to crack the case AFTER they saved all the photos”.

    Now we just need to wait the MOFO’s to upload it.
    C’mon!!!

    • Yeah I think they need to make a bloody distinction in the law between a child and an adolescent as they are NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING.

      not an adult =/= a child. It can mean that certainly but they are incorrectly lumping a whole different decade full of ages which are neither children, nor adults.

      Hell if I was the kids I’d argue the fucking semantics of the thing. If nothing else maybe they could get the shit to make legal distinction between a fucking child and an adolescent.

      “We charge you for creating child pornography. How do you plead.”

      “Not guilty. I am 15 years old and therefore no longer a child. Either charge me with ‘adolescent pornography’ or leave me alone with this idiocy.”

  • KajunBowser says:

    Yep, “Change we Can Believe in” indeed. Heard about it over a week ago, and I thought it was stupid to charge them with self-lolification and possession of the pics, and the guys are under 18!! Just file this in the “stupid actions of youth” folder and move on. Things don’t look so well for my country for the next 4 years and this is proof.

  • Here’s some logic for everyone:

    The case under consideration….
    An underage girl sends an underage boy nude pictures of herself, and he has them stored on his cell phone. They are child pornographers and will be prosecuted as such.

    But what about….
    An underage girl gets nude in front of an underage boy, and he in turn gets nude and engages in consensual sexual intercourse with her. What does the law do then? Nothing!

    Why does the law prosecute the fantasy but allow the reality?

    • Actually it is illegal for two minors to have sex with each other, and they can be arrested. I remember a case in which(I believe) a 16 or 17 year old boy had oral sex with his girlfriend who was around the same age, and they were both charged with statutory rape or something to that effect. I think they let her go, but he’s now a registered sex offender. Kinda stupid, isn’t it?

  • The really sad thing about this whole issue is that those in charge are very aware of the nature of these laws, but they couldn’t care less. In fact, the sole purpose for laws like this is to satisfy their misguided moralistic ideas. It’s not about protecting teh children, saving our youth or whatever. It’s fascism. Plain and simple.

  • Yes, let us arrest all the children the moment they get naked anywhere (even at home). The act of being naked is very dangerous, you can be seen by a lolicon anywhere and your pictures posted on the internetz. You don’t realize what you are doing until it’s already done.

    Arrest all the children!

  • umm isnt going threw teh phoens contents a bit ill;egal ti self becasue invasuion of privacy so wouldnytt all evidence found on teh phoen be null and void due to beign found and aquired illegaly??

      • Zelgadis4tw says:

        Basically he said something similar to what I said a little while ago, that it’s probably illegal for the teacher to have gone through the phone’s pictures because when that person did that, he acted as a representative of the State. Acting as such, the evidence found should be subject to the same problems that plague the police due to the pesky little scribble on a piece of paper called the Fourth Amendment.

  • lol so wait. the teacher that looked through the pictures. wouldnt that make HIM a sex offender for looking at child porn???

    lol or i guess its ok sence he is only taking it opon himself to catch these “crimnals”.

  • Juvie’s lookin at other nekkid juvies, so what.
    The fact that juvie’s lookin at other nekkid juvie’s is illegal? They’re just cracking down on the wrong pervs. I’d view that as purely typical prepubescent sexual curiosity.
    Once they’re over the legal adult age though, really it’s a whole different gaem.

    • Why does the person being a legal adult make a difference? I really don’t get that. It says one of the kids with the picture was 17. Lets say they turn 18 tomorrow. So it’s ok for them to look at the pictures one day but not ok the next? Why should it matter if the person looking at them is 17 or 18 or 20 or 30 or 40 or whatever? They put those pictures out there on their own, they weren’t forced or raped, with the intention of being viewed sexually.

      This is why I am so against child pornography laws. Their based on the belief that children are not sexual and don’t do stuff like that and aim to protect children, and yet cases like these absolutely shatter the above conception and the laws them selfs, as someone above me said, end up ruining the lives of these kids, the very thing they were supposedly suppose to prevent. Not to mention that when I saw child porn for the first time when I was 8 or 9 I thought it was the most awesome thing in the world and wanted to become a child pron star. Then I found out it was illegal. CP laws ruined my dream career.

  • Like you are 18 i guess:
    I bet you could get arrested just from having underage pics (example 13y old pic) of yourself masturbating and have it stored on your pc,then somebody reports you that you have em and they find out.Without sending it to anyone and you get arrest for it.Or maybe you don’t get arrested for such a particual case who knows the law is pretty messed up there.

    Also the article i read here is also pretty messed up,a case of law going wrong.
    Wish they would rethink about the law as it’s going wrong in many ways.
    They are still all children under 18,the boys probably couldn’t prevent recieving those pics from the girls.

    Also this:
    A lawyer with experience with such cases weighs in, saying the laws are not meant to target wicked juvenile pornographers, but “sexual abuse” by “dirty old men in raincoats.”
    Don’t forget women you feminist,otherwise he is right.

  • Spoony Bard says:

    Hah, so minors can now be labeled sex offenders for possessing naked pictures of themselves? That’s as retarded as saying that you can go to jail for seeing yourself naked in the shower.

  • Well they ARE child pornographers.

    I don’t wish to go over the morality of it: right or wrong, as citizens we all play this game of Law. We’re protected by it, so we’re in the game. So, we must keep every violations our own secret. It’s simple, really.

  • I notice these threads get way more comments then normally when it’s related to child pornography.

    The whole case is just stupid. If they want to distribute naked pics of themselves go for it. They will understand the consequences later on when they finally develop a brain. I think the teacher isn’t completely wrong but he could have handled the situation way better. I would have just consulted the parents. Girls have it so damn easy lol. They could be just selling body shot for cash. Sounds like a nice inside school business if you don’t mind be labeled a slut or worse

    • Zelgadis4tw says:

      Not really sure if it’s so much caek that draws the comments, or the politics/legal that does it, but…I don’t see what the harm is in letting these stupid kids do stupid things on their own. IMO though probably not relevant, the pictures should not be admissible in court because the teacher in this case acted as a representative of the State when he examined the phone and found the pics of them.

  • I call this bullshit, i can take photos of my naked body (i won’t do it anyway, nobody is interested on photos of me…) and send’em to whoever i want, its my body, my cellphone and i’m paying for the service.

    So then, if i take naked photos of my 9 month old baby and send it to my wife then i’m child pornographer too?

    I think law is losing its place…

  • So it’s a group of kids being naughty. Also, given the oldest involved was under 18, I think this falls into a who cares category.

    I’m in Portland and we got bigger fish to fry as our gay mayor admitted to have improper relations with an intern just days after he turned 18. They were romantically interested when the lad was 17 but didn’t do the deed until 18.

    • uhh. how is that a wrong thing? they can call it what they want prior to him being 18, but if they weren’t doing the dance of the trouser snake, who cares. it’s still legal. is it the thought of the act of sex with a minor or the fact that they are gay that’s upsetting the media apple cart? i’d call the latter based on the fact you mentioned it, otherwise in everyone elses mind it’s just another dirty politician groping the copygirl.

  • The fact they confused lolicon with actual Child Porn just shows how blatantly and blindingly stupid people can be about distinctions between subjects of similar nature.

    But yeah…. the teacher was in the wrong. It’s the student’s property, and thus an invasion of their privacy.

    I wonder if the teachers kept any of the pictures they found? XD

  • I read this yesterday. Just shows that laws can be pretty retarded in certain contexts. This is set up to prevent children from being taken advantage of and prevent ruining their lives – yet it strikes back to those whom the law is trying to protect, doing what it’s supposed to prevent?

    Besides, why is a teacher going through private photos? An act that is more immoral than what those kids were doing.

  • If a cop walks into a house without a warrant and finds a kilogram of coke he can’t use it in court as evidence and one can not be prosecuted. The teacher had no right to search the cellphone and thus everything found on it can’t be used as evidence.
    I’m no lawyer but that’s how I see it.

    • True, he wouldn’t be able to make an arrest right there, however it WOULD be probable cause for him to get a warrant radioed in and THEN make the bust. If it’s in plain view, then yes, it can be held against you.

    • Students actually lose most of their constitutional rights at school. The laws still apply to law enforcement, but a school administrator can search you and your belongings whenever they want to for whatever reason they want to.

      Also, you can’t plead the fifth. If an administrator asks you to reveal something incriminating about yourself and you refuse, you can receive further punishment.

      • Igiari!

        They don’t “lose” their rights, they are only under a different government. The constitution states no other law or government can take away rights given by the constitution. You can ALWAYS plead the fifth, however that can be used against you as you cant defend yourself if they suspect you with some other evidence.

        A school administrator has the right to search you for suspicion of something dangerous, or law breaking not for any reason they want to. And they can do it by force, you don’t “have” to show it to them, if you don’t want to. Of course that can be worst if you are caught.

        The whole plead the fifth in school doesn’t work is bull said by the faculty. In most cases not talking will lead to worst that’s the only thing they can mean.

      • yeah, but were the photo’s taken during school hours? sharing them yes maybe, but not taking the photo’s during hours. two different things completely. thats like talking about the drugs one had on the weekend during school hours and actually taking drugs during school hours.

    • As I recall, unwarranted search and seizure only applies to law enforcement officials. If a private citizen finds something illegal (though they may find it through illegal acts themselves) it is still admissible.

      Also lol @ finding out about this on a site I read for Japanese news (living in PA).

    • Take that! Dirty child pornographers get their just dues!
      Jeez, reminds me of the case where the 17 year old guy and the 15 year old girl were legitimately dating and the guy got charged with loli.

    • The teacher isn’t a law officer, so it doesn’t matter if the search was “legal” since there are no laws restricting that kind of thing. The evidence can be used as long as the police didn’t obtain it illegally themselves.

        • Wait… so you’re saying that they can’t have pictures of underaged naked girls (AKA Classmates) but if they have sex, it’s perfectly fine to see her naked.

          Ok… 1)THEY’RE UNDER 18!!! So they’re still allowed to look at little girl’s Deliaires (if that’s how it’s spelled) because they are still young enough to to have sex (and see her naked) even without a phone. And it’s legal to for them to look at it because (really) they could go find a girl and see it… and not against the law.

          And… 2) So… You are PROMOTING sex now… Because (seriously listen) a guy with a picture of a girl would do what with it? Come on guys, think with your lower minds… But, now that they don’t have a picture, they might just go for the real thing. Heck, maybe even rape. It’s happened before.

          So… Really, I don’t stand for it… But I am not going to argue forever about… So, think what you want to think, I’m going to have to go out to find a girl now… Ciao.

        • Actually it’s not as messed up as you might think at first glance. The images are considered child pornography; if they were found on a grown-ups computer or cellphone, nobody would think twice about convicting him. How then, when the ‘children’ can lose control of their pictures (after all, how many guys haven’t wanted to share pics of naked girls online?) should it be right to prosecute one group (the grown men) and not the makers of said images, even if they are self-taken?

      • Anonymous says:

        Funny to read the comments in the sauce.

        “Think of the children! Pedos do that all the time. And think of themselves as well.”

        “..all children are hiding their naked bodies under their clothes, and therefore can only be regarded as mobile child pornography factories. Obviously, only banning children entirely will stop this perverted scourge …”

        “(Is that a clitoris or acne?)”