Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Department of Overlapping Sets

Marvel as these teenage girls shamelessly exploit these teenage girls in the kiddie-porn case of the decade.

Posted by IOZ at 1:10 PM | email »
Labels: , , ,

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yes, yes. Political-correctness gone mad. How dare these authoritarian prudes try to literally interpret the letter and spirit of a law.

2:56 PM
IOZ said...

"Political correctness"?

What is that, exactly?

3:17 PM
Anonymous said...

It's like when wogs insist on having hyphenated identities, or summat. Only this time it's about sex.

3:19 PM
kali yuga said...

More absurdity from the nation that gave you George Bush, Compassionate Conservative!!! and Barack Obama, Agent of Change!!!

War crimes and torture we can overlook (must not dwell on the past, you know), but these teenage girls must be stopped before their bare titties destroy Western Civilization!

3:23 PM
idiot said...

spirit of a law


For cereal?

3:24 PM
thepudgiereport said...

In a related story, Israel arrests dead Gazans for committing suicide by living in Gaza.

3:44 PM
Jonathan said...

In order to protect minors from exploitation, in this case by themselves, we must criminalize their exploiters. And so, to prevent their abuse by the superior power of their elders (whence, allegedly, comes the whole panoply of kiddie-porn laws) we must therefore ensure that they are really abused by the superior power of their elders (But not in a sexy way, y'know; merely a life-ruining way.)

3:51 PM
Anonymous said...

"we must therefore ensure that they are really abused by the superior power of their elders"

Yeah, I mean, basically. More like, the parents in Greensburg decided to teach their little tramp kids a lesson, and have them thrown in the clink for a night or two on a trumped-up charge that's sure to be dismissed. It'll learn 'em, plus it makes for a tidy AP article elite North-Easterners can get all smug about on their interweb logs.

Sorry, lawgs.

4:29 PM
Mr.Fundamental said...

if it keeps you coming back, anawn, I'm all for it. . .

4:45 PM
Anonymous said...

say what you will about not allowing cell ph. use and then confiscating the phones, but then why the fuck do the 'educators' then get to browse their photos and everything else on their phone?

4:56 PM
idiot said...

the parents in Greensburg

I don't see mention of the parents anywhere.

5:09 PM
Dunc said...

why the fuck do the 'educators' then get to browse their photos and everything else on their phone?

Because "children", apparently, have no right to any kind of autonomy whatsoever. They're property until they turn 18 (or 21, or whatever, depending on local law and custom).

6:03 PM
Anonymous said...

Centuries of law assume that children are property, lack agency and have no right to privacy with regard to consensual sexual relationships with older, but still minor, children. However, I think we all would agree, would we not, that juvenile court intervention would be appropriate if, for instance, a 14 year old boy was receiving sexually explicit text messages/pictures from a ten year old girl, no? In this particular instance, yes, IOZ, to the extent that you intend with your post to imply your disagreement with this prosecution, I agree.

12:06 AM
Lucas said...

fuck.

I had a whole screenplay planned out that dealt with a case similar to this.

of course I thought of it like 8 years ago and never sat down and actually did the work.

but, it appears that the younger generation has learned not to procrastinate...

'do it now,' sayeth Napoleon Hill. but the kids these days, they turn self-help into innuendo.

1:34 AM
Dunc said...

However, I think we all would agree, would we not, that juvenile court intervention would be appropriate if, for instance, a 14 year old boy was receiving sexually explicit text messages/pictures from a ten year old girl, no?

No. If a 14 year old boy were soliciting sexually explicit material from a 10 year old girl, that might be a different matter. However, your proposal as it stands would allow someone to get someone else treated as a sex offender merely by sending them a text message. That's retarded. You can't be held criminally responsible for things other people send you unless you actively solicit them.

5:59 AM
frijoles junior said...

anon 12:06,

"I think we all would agree, would we not, that juvenile court intervention would be appropriate if, for instance, a 14 year old boy was receiving sexually explicit text messages/pictures from a ten year old girl, no?"

no.

Although parental intervention in certainly called for.

6:04 AM
lurch said...

But where do "real" Conservatives fall in this case?
Is it commendable because all law-and-order activity is good, and in this case "protects our children"?
Or is this a case of the "nanny state" and they should mind their own business?

7:34 AM
Roman Polanski said...

It's just not fair...

10:41 AM
Anonymous said...

frijoles,

That's expecting American parents to actually do some fucking parenting.

1:19 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)