I think it is a little more grey than you are describing it. The article notes that there was a "points" system among students, for who could collect the "best" nudes. I think that is pretty wrong. I also feel like peer pressure needs to be considered. Do you really think there are no kids at that school who felt pressured into sharing nudes? (I do think that describing it as a "nude-sharing ring" is ridiculous, it makes it sound like they were all doing something nefarious.)

> Isn't it clear that this is not child porn, and that the law is wrong, when teenagers are sexting?

The fact that it was taken by the "subject" , send to another minor makes no difference. Some porn has been produced and may very well end up on a child porn site.

The problem is the absurd harsh penalty risked by these minors if they get caught. Like becoming a registered sex offender and stuff like that. That's where the problem is.

But you can't deny that this is underage porn content. Sexting doesn't mean anything new. There should be however some leniency because of the intent and that's not always the case. The justice system has to catch up. no question.

You need to also consider that it looked like a well organized system if more than a 100 people were participating. Is it still just sexting when content is traded among students ?

> Some porn has been produced and may very well end up on a child porn site.

What? No. Child porn isn't illegal because its consumption hurts electrons, it's because its production hurts children. If nobody has been hurt while making this "child porn", and it was taken voluntarily (by someone who may even be able of legally consenting to sex, no less!) I don't see what the problem is.

This actually makes for a pretty interesting case study -- you can read more here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/virtual-child-pornograph...

Not saying I necessarily agree with the reasoning, but the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 includes "picture or computer-generated image or picture" which "is, or, appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" in its definition of child pornography.

The reasoning was that even simulated child pornography fosters the market for, and encourages the consumption of, the kind that hurts children. Consumers won't necessarily know or care about the provenance of any particular piece of material, so all are banned regardless of the means of production.

These provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002, on the reasoning that the ban was too broad -- "Without a significantly stronger, more direct connection, the Government may not prohibit speech on the ground that it may encourage pedophiles to engage in illegal conduct."

So, Congress responded by more specifically criminalizing the advertisement, sale, or promotion of material that "reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that it is of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

So these images are still illegal on the simple fact that they are explicit; but even if one tried to ban only the non-voluntary or non-first-party images, it'd be illegal to pass them off otherwise.

This topic is so radioactive that I'm reluctant even to write about it, but it really is interesting constitutionally.

That is very interesting indeed, thank you. I disagree with the reasoning, but I can understand it. It comes down to whether you think that child pornography that didn't include actual children is a "gateway drug" to the harmful kind, or whether you think it'll be a substitute, preventing people from harming children for their satisfaction. I don't think the average person can become a pedophile just by watching child porn, so I'm in the latter camp.

Too bad this topic is too controversial to touch. Too bad there are such topics, really.

there are probably some 18-year-old high schoolers involved. i.e. adults.

i remember in high school when you turned 18 they met with you and explained all your additional rights and privileges, like calling yourself out of class and leaving campus without a pass/during lunch. they also were not allowed to tell your parents about any disciplinary action, like in college/university. my memory might be a little fuzzy here but that's the general gist of it.

if an student > 18 was involved here it's going to be a very different kind of situation than the minors.

I had the opposite experience (at Richardson ISD in Texas). I spent my entire senior year being 18, and aside from a few nice teachers who let me sign my own syllabi, they just completely ignored the fact that I was an adult. They made me have my mom sign things and excuse me from class (although to be fair, in this state adults enrolled in K-12 classes are still required by law to attend). I had to get a parent signature in order to get a non-zero grade on a research paper. I even had my choir director tell me that I "don't get a bunch of rights" when I had the gall to ask if I could consent to my own medical care for trips.

I also heard a couple of stories of adult students who didn't live with their parents being tricked into signing "affidavits of residency" that actually took away their rights and gave them a guardian until their graduation. If this is true, then I have no clue how it could possibly be legal. I've found nothing online about that kind of thing.

And all of this while we have a law on the books requiring adult students to exercise parental rights for themselves: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.26.htm#...

It depends a bit on the ages and intent of the teenagers. A 17 year old who has no sexual interest in other 17 year olds but who does have sexual interest in 13 year olds is possibly worrying, especially if they've managed to gather nude photographs of 13 year olds.

(Not saying anything like that happened here though).

But even ignoring the child sexual abuse images aspect: It's a pretty unhealthy culture where children assign point values to naked photographs of other children. That's not normal exploration of childhood sexuality.

In cultures that have much more open sexuality we see reduced sexual activity in children (eg, less sexually transmitted infection; fewer unplanned pregnancies).

The UK / US seem to have a problem with this and just telling children to stop doing it doesn't seem to be working.

(Fully agree that prosecuting a child for taking an image of themself is a bad idea)

Although laws seem to only consider age, this makes little sense given the wide variety in puberty. Some 19-year-olds look 15, and some 13-year-olds not only look 17 but they have probably matured over their peers to the point of being physically closer to the average 17-year-old than the average 13-year-old. It is certainly possible for a 17-year-old and 13-year-old to seem physically similar and be attracted normally to one another. Society shouldn't be able to auto-condemn a relationship at one point in time, and magically become OK with it 5 years later (when the two people may not even look that different).

It gets even worse when absolute age is considered. It's insane that two 17-year-olds can meet and date and want to have sex, yet people come with pitchforks to prosecute the first one unfortunate enough to turn 18!?

I actually think Greece got this pretty right, the age of consent is 15 and if the people involved are within 3 years of age from each other, it's legal. The one dark spot here is that the age of consent for homosexual relationships between men is 18 for both participants, but here's hoping that will go away soon too.

I had half written a post about how the laws in Australia are similar to what you outlined for Greece. I certainly agree that they make a lot more sense than no (legal) consent being considered possible for adolescents.

But in the end I dropped it because it struck me that while the legal ramifications of this situation may be considered stupid, the far overriding worry to me is how unhealthy this situation is: for those involved, for their community, and their culture.

The focus should be on the far more difficult problem of changing that. While legislation may be a part of that, I doubt if that alone is the solution. How do we fix this?

> It's a pretty unhealthy culture where children assign point values to naked photographs of other children.

I agree, and I think the problem stems exactly from the culture that vilifies sex. If you treat sex as something natural and normal, I think teenagers will be much less likely to treat it as something to "collect".

Maybe the children are being persecuted by their parents for making bad decisions, but they're not being prosecuted, which is what you likely meant.

Fixed, thanks.