Prosecutor Promises to Charge Sexting Teens with Manufacturing Child Porn

All hail insane, sociopathic adherence to the law:

Quote:

---

Youngsters who are under 18 fail to realize that they have created and manufactured child pornography, Kinzer warned a group of parents during an informational session at Lenox Memorial Middle and High School this past week.

"When you send that text message, you have disseminated child pornography" and when it is shared and shown to others, they are in possession of child pornography, he pointed out.

"We do not have any exceptions in our law for kids who are really in love, for girls who wanted to do it and for guys who promised they wouldn’t share it, or for two kids who are dating," Kinzer said. "A nude photo of [a minor’s] exposed genitalia is child pornography."

The prosecutor explained that he has spread the word at schools throughout Berkshire County.

"I’m done telling what the law is," Kinzer said. "When they start sharing photos like this, we are going to start charging people with the

manufacturing, dissemination and possession of child pornography, and they’re going to go to court.
"They’re going to face [prosecution], probably not jail time unless they’ve got bad records. But that’s OK. They’ll just be put on probation and they’ll get to register as a sex offender, and that’s a great box to check off on any job application," he continued. "You’re going to lose jobs and relationships, and you’ll spend the rest of your life as a registered sex offender."

---

Because heaven forbid we exercise discretion in enforcement, or in making the laws, instead of treating the law like a sledgehammer to take out a fly on a child's face.

CR

Good to know he thinks I'm a pedo who deserves hell.

This isn't adherence to the law, this is corruption of law. Child pornography laws are in place to protect children from abuse, not to enforce conservative sexual standards.

The US seems to be a place where the letter of the law is more important than the spirit. Watching the programme "the house I live in" it seemed that the cops and courts enjoyed imprisoning and confiscating stuff.

Rediculous it's perfectly harmless, what Idaho says, not really understanding the spirit of the law. When I hear things like this I get a little suspicious of what they are really afraid of and I don't rule out it's their own desire

So this is a modern secular society?

This prosecutor seems a few short of a six pack. If a minor has sex with a minor of a similar age bracket they normally don't get in trouble with the law. If an adult has sex with a minor they do.

Now with sexting it's electronic flashing not intercourse. So if two minors are heavy petting via texting I don't see the problem in this.

This kind of prosecutor is in the same category of lawyers as overly vague patents being granted. Obnoxious and demeaning to their profession. Good lawyers are a boon to both profession and society. Bad lawyers are neither.

In UK law, a 15 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl would be guilty of statutory rape. However if there were no additional factors such as coercion or specific vulnerability, the police, prosecution and courts are very unlikely to get involved. Probably the most extreme result would be a social services visit.

Don't know the exact laws here, they aren't enforced anyway when it comes to these things. I wonder what the high-court is going to make out of a minor being charged of child-pornography because of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

In UK law, a 15 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl would be guilty of statutory rape. However if there were no additional factors such as coercion or specific vulnerability, the police, prosecution and courts are very unlikely to get involved. Probably the most extreme result would be a social services visit.

---

The law here very clearly states that it's only child abuse when there is a large difference in age. A 17-year old and a 14-year old is no problem, but a 20-year is stretching it a bit... There's no hard limit in those cases though, so it's ultimately up to the courts to decide.

What we want to punish is abuse. No abuse, no punishment. Could someone please tell the morality crusade that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Rediculous it's perfectly harmless, what Idaho says, not really understanding the spirit of the law. When I hear things like this I get a little suspicious of what they are really afraid of and I don't rule out it's their own desire

---

He gets the spirit, but he's all about abusing the letter of the law to enforce his jackboot morality. Agreed that you can't rule out that it's himself he's afraid of.

Many states in the USA hold public elections for their state prosecutors. Massachusetts as well, which is where this story is from.

Which to me sounds like an incredibly dumb idea, and I suspect that the article is a good example why.

$5 says Kinzler is a kiddie-fiddler. :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

In UK law, a 15 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girl would be guilty of statutory rape. However if there were no additional factors such as coercion or specific vulnerability, the police, prosecution and courts are very unlikely to get involved. Probably the most extreme result would be a social services visit.

---

why is the boy the one that is guilty?
that's kinda sexist :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Many states in the USA hold public elections for their state prosecutors. Massachusetts as well, which is where this story is from.

Which to me sounds like an incredibly dumb idea, and I suspect that the article is a good example why.

---

Not just prosecutors, some judges too. And it is rather insane.

do yourself a favor. pull out your phone. set it on a hard object. bash it with an equally hard object. throw it away.

you'll never have to worry about passing pornography through a phone, and the rest of your life will be richer also.

In Australia, the age of consent it 16. So banging at age 16 is legal, but sending a nudie is illegal? It would seem that the banging is a lot more ... penetrative than dick pics and twat shots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

$5 says Kinzler is a kiddie-fiddler. :yes:

---

It shouldnt be on whether or not he likes them young, that part is obvious. It should be on when this news go live. I give it four months.

Haven't read the piece yet, but my gut call would be that this is the means by which this prosecutor hopes to get the law revised -- illustrating by absurdity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Haven't read the piece yet, but my gut call would be that this is the means by which this prosecutor hopes to get the law revised -- illustrating by absurdity.

---

You appear to be giving the man entirely too much credit. Read a few different reporters' takes on it, none suggested that this was a Modest Proposal.

As the head of the DA's computer crime unit, which includes several state troopers, Kinzer cited "kids, young adults, even adults who think it is a good idea to take nude or semi-nude photos of themselves on their cellphones and send them to other people via text message." [...]

"When you send that text message, you have disseminated child pornography" and when it is shared and shown to others, they are in possession of child pornography, he pointed out.

"We do not have any exceptions in our law for kids who are really in love, for girls who wanted to do it and for guys who promised they wouldn't share it, or for two kids who are dating," Kinzer said. "A nude photo of [a minor's] exposed genitalia is child pornography."

The prosecutor explained that he has spread the word at schools throughout Berkshire County.

"I'm done telling what the law is," Kinzer said. "When they start sharing photos like this, we are going to start charging people with the manufacturing, dissemination and possession of child pornography, and they're going to go to court.

"They're going to face [prosecution], probably not jail time unless they've got bad records. But that's OK. They'll just be put on probation and they'll get to register as a sex offender, and that's a great box to check off on any job application," he continued. "You're going to lose jobs and relationships, and you'll spend the rest of your life as a registered sex offender."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

You appear to be giving the man entirely too much credit. Read a few different reporters' takes on it, none suggested that this was a Modest Proposal....

---

Pity. Applying such things with the unthinking juggernaught of a "zero tolerance" school district policy is likely to do more harm than good. I do realize that deterrence is part of the law's purpose, but this seems extreme. Even the statutory rape laws in most states now have a sliding scale for ages to allow for less draconian application. Sad. Stopping the exploitation of children is a good thing, but it becomes harder to define this as exploitation.

Since we all seem to agree Kinzler is...well, wrong...and since consensus is boring...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Many states in the USA hold public elections for their state prosecutors. Massachusetts as well, which is where this story is from.

Which to me sounds like an incredibly dumb idea, and I suspect that the article is a good example why.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Not just prosecutors, some judges too. And it is rather insane.

---

What do y'all think about this? I've known about the American concept of electing your own district attorney/judge/sanitation commissioner* for some time and it's always puzzled me. Come to think of it, this might be worth a thread in itself.

*google that last one

Just out of curiousity, what charge do you guys think it would be if, hypothetically, when I was 17 years old, I called my 18 year old girlfriend on the land line and rubbed my penis against the reciever while hypothetically daring her to guess what the noise was. Was she recieving child pornography?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Just out of curiousity, what charge do you guys think it would be if, hypothetically, when I was 17 years old, I called my 18 year old girlfriend on the land line and rubbed my penis against the reciever while hypothetically daring her to guess what the noise was. Was she recieving child pornography?

---

I think you teabagged your sister and entire family indirectly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whacker

I think you teabagged your sister and entire family indirectly.

---

Um, no. I had the AT&T Teen Line for only 15.99 extra per month. I only tea bagged myself. And Kevin.