Big Bear High School Yearbooks Contain "Child Porn"

BIG BEAR LAKE, Calif. — Students at a California high school are being asked to turn in yearbooks after a pornographic photo was discovered inside the memory book.

San Bernardino County investigators were notified Tuesday and Big Bear High School employees and detectives began collecting the yearbooks in the mountain community at Big Bear Lake, 70 miles east of Los Angeles.

The school dance photo shows a 17-year-old boy's hand inside the clothing of a 15-year-old girl and may involve sexual penetration.

Sheriff's spokeswoman Cynthia Bachman says the couple is in the background and went unnoticed by the yearbook adviser.

Bachman says most students have returned yearbooks for editing. Detectives are contacting students who haven't turned in yearbooks with a warning they could face a charge of possessing child porn.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/16/big-bear-high-school-year-book-child-porn_n_878360.html

------

You cannot make this shit up. Welcome to a fascist society.

Underage sexual penetration is child porn by definition.

That's why it's called "underage" instead of "child".

Parsing for the sake of it.

I will interpret as I like.

prosecuting people and labeling them sex offenders because it was accidentally put in a yearbook.

it will spoil all the fun & the prudes won't get it anyway.

dg

lol lol

nothing like hyperbole on du

this, yes.

not as an adult.

Our language really has deteriorated when that word is applied to light teenage petting.

How many of us didn't have a similar experience sometime in high school?

We've really gone overboard in our surveillance of teenage faux sex. Even back in the 50's, most adults wouldn't have been outraged at this scene.


But since the law's gone overboard here too, it's too bad the yearbook editors didn't just "catch" the ambivalent pic and photoshop it to be "acceptable" before having it printed.

I odn't suppose they're giving refunds for the confiscated yearbooks, either. Arghhh!

didnt know, think thru fingers... big deal. that is light petting? do you know what the image is? and what does light petting have to do with displayed in yearbook?

now... i dont see the outrage at the kids were fooling around. the only outrage as a matter of fact, that i see, is people yelling prude, pearl clutcher, oh noes.... without any knowledge what the photo is, and consideration to the kids in the photo that MIGHT NOT want it in the yearbook.

people on du are working so hard labeling people prude, consideration of the kids that got caught in this is nil.

.....They are both MINORS for crying out loud......this is taking it to FAR my Dad had far worse under his side of the bed. Leave the effn school annuals alone... It's high school for cryin out loud.

what if one of the two, or both were appalled that made it into year book for all to see? then is it ok to take out? or should it be there for all the other kids to enjoy and snicker at and fuck those two and what they feel?

P.S. In the US we call them "yearbooks." So perhaps your laws are different, too.

But some states specifically do say that clothing or the absence thereof is not relevant

So this photo gets in the year book. A pic of a boy with his hand inside a girls dress that "may involve sexual penetration". So now this boy will most likely be charged with a sex crime and labeled as a sex offender his entire life. Wouldn't be surprised if they included the girl as well.

I'm sorry, but if you can't tell if there was "sexual penetration" from the picture then it's simply not child porn unless you GREATLY stretch the statute.

Opportunities like that are not to be wasted! It's bad enough that we can't bag 'em if they do their perversions after they're 18, and you suggest we let this go???? What are you, a LIBERAL?

The teenagers involved were probably unaware that someone was taking a picture, they're probably embarassed, and they don't want everyone having a picture of it now. The authorities retracting the yearbooks don't want these kids' lives being miserable because they were horny. I don't know why they don't just cut out the page and give it back, because they might get more of the yearbooks turned in if it didn't involve completely confiscating the rest of it, but I see them as protecting the kids involved from embarassment. I don't think the authorities are trying to make anybody's life miserable.

If there was nudity involved, I think that it would be a different story.

However, there doesn't appear to be nudity so it comes down to what sounds like some kid scoring 3rd base in a very public area. They should be embarrassed about their behavior. It was inappropriate.

Do they deserve to be punished criminally? No, hopefully their parents have addressed the situation. The school should also discipline them. However, maybe next time they decide to fool around in a public place, they'll have something to remind them that it's not such a good idea.

I'm not familiar with CA, but 17/15 is not an offense in many states.

Neither clothing nor penetration are determinative factors for what is child porn in many states.

Depictions of clothed fondling of intimate areas will often qualify as "lewd and lascivious", which is often the catch phrase.

even though CA has a "Romeo & Juliet" law that can be used as a defense.

dg

seeing that is how they have done it up to this point.

they recognize that they do not have laws that deal with kids, with this issue and they need to get laws in place, so they will not have to deal with the issue with adult law.

i dont see the problem.

i do see a lot of people yell about the kids going to prison, and being on sex offender list.... though that has not happened.

if the clothing is on? Imagination?

Doesn't sound like child porn to me, sounds like overactive imaginations and hysteria. Wow, a teenage boy put his hand inside a teenage girl's clothing....what a shocker.

Stupid people.

And see what happens.

I think they should recall the year books but I don't think they should be threatening people.

...and by extension to demonstrate that they are making a good faith attempt to round up the books.

Barring a look at the picture, hard to be sure.

Weirdest story ever.

A lot of people think child porn is about nudity - it's not. There are legal photographs of nude children (the bathtub pics that every parent has, or the toddlers at the beach) and illegal ones.

Many states specify that what is being driven at are "lewd and lascivious" depictions, and some states clearly say things like "whether clothed or unclothed".

The school most likely got sound legal advice on this one.

linked...just in case.. but funny as hell

?pic

Don't ever be that guy.

she was...

that would make this 17 year old a pedophile. 2 years is not that big off a difference. Also they cheapen the term "child porn" by making a big deal about things like this. To me child porn involves adults taking naked pictures or movies of minors.

1. Parents picture/movie of naked child at bathtub or beach.

2. Posed photograph/movie of male child wearing fetish clothing and fondling crotch.


By your definition, 1 is child porn and 2 is not.

The law tends to actually get this right most of the time re: 1 and 2 above.

(edit to add: in most states, 1 is not child porn and 2 is child porn - state of undress is not relevant to what constitutes a depiction of lewd behavior)

Although, really, I don't know what the business is like now, but years ago there were only a few companies that specialized in high school yearbooks.

Having worked on two of them back in the day, we not only had to make sure the layout and a bunch of other stuff conformed to the publication rules, but there were folks whose job it was at the publishing companies to catch things like this.

This and an "obscene gesture in the yearbook" story which made the rounds about two or three years ago suggest that yearbook publishers don't exercise the kind of editorial scrutiny they used to apply to this kind of thing.

If there is an image of an underage couple and some clothed genital fondling going on, then you'd really have to contort around some established objective standards to carve this out, but leave other stuff in, the definition.

I have some risque pics from high school prom, she was 15 at the time. How the fuck is that "child porn"??? :wtf:

That in itself I don't find such a big deal - we write bad laws all the time and the courts, and sometimes the legislature itself, has to fix them.

No, what's curious is the bizarre rigidity of people insisting that because ONE interpretation of ONE current law may be stretched to include this case, that therefore this is a representative case of child porn and deserves to be treated like one. Where's their connection to reality? A teenager feeling up another teenager isn't child porn, period. And any law that suggests that it is, is clearly incorrect. Of course, such laws may exist. Most of our laws around sex are pretty stupid.

There's no way to prove, or even conclude to within a reasonable doubt, penetration. There's no reason, given the situation, to be concerned with penetration, or even think it one's business. And in reality, the participants attitudes were likely to be hilarity and cynicism, and not sexuality at all. The number of kids that would get off on screwing with authority and making jokes has got to outnumber by a couple orders of magnitude the number of them that could have serious sex while in a group picture.

Aside from that, the yearbook will be, if it isn't already, a collector's item. There's no point in screwing with this for some bizarre child porn charge, except for a crazy person.

I would be willing to consider it child porn if someone can show me a real audience of significant numbers of people - thousands, tens of thousands, not dozens - that would seek out this yearbook and this picture in order to masturbate to it. Otherwise, no, it ain't porn, of any kind.

Just administrators who have nothing better to do and like having their names in the newspaper.

of "The Shocker" :)

:rofl:

That's just *SO* shocking.

:eyes:

dg

to snicker and pass around?

i am so surprised the perspective so many adults are drawing from this OP. to assume the teens that were caught in the picture are ok with it.

knowing teens, my guess at the least, there is one that is not thrilled the picture will be there forever.

I'm sure the photo barely shows anything and 99% of people wouldn't have even noticed it if it wasn't national news.

Now the photo will be out there on the interwebs for everyone to see forever, just like the last time something like this happened.

dont know the picture. dont know how the kids feel. and a big difference doing in front trying to get away with it and picture in years book forever.

I can say yeah, it was embarrassing at the time, but as the years have gone by, it's not that big a deal.

It's a hard way to learn that if you don't want to be photographed doing something, damn sure don't do it in public.

dg

without having a clue exactly wht the picture is, you know where to put it in place, and how to deal with situation.

or are you one of those that wraps your little darlings up in bubble-wrap until they're 18?

dg

though

doesnt apply to your weiner though

that he somehow sexually assaulted a 17 year old in violation of federal law.

Guess who was right on that one? Hint: Not you.

And I still don't think he should have resigned over that tempest in a teapot. Guess you've found a new shiny *OUTRAGE* to get all puffed up about...how come it always revolves around teenage girls & sex for you? Who is the pervert? Hint: Not me.

dg

and it was pretty clear quickly that it didnt amount to anything. so.... it seems you do not remember correctly.

i am defending the boy as much as i am defending the girl. i dont know tht he would want the picture up anymore than the girl, both or just one.

the rest of your comment is simply juvenile and petty

I wanted to see how unremarkable the photo was. And I'm sure it was.

...that that would make you guilty of possessing child porn. The fact that it is so obtusely absurd means nothing to the court system.

I'm waiting to see the yearbook instructor and editors brought up on charges for aiding the creation of child porn, though. And I'd prefer every one of them to have to register as a sex offender. Child Porn? That's a 25-year registration minimum under SORNA, although not everyone is compliant with SORNA yet. After all, they DID possess child porn. Circumstances mean nothing, we have to 'protect our children' from all these 'predators'. Those 'sick people' can't be cured and they 'always reoffend', haven't you heard?

cries for right of privacy.

we yell weiners right of privacy and he willingly put on net. these two kids did not ask for a picture to be in print, but we all want to see it anyway

cause after all

not really child porn

so ... free for all

"The school dance photo shows a 17-year-old boy's hand inside the clothing of a 15-year-old girl and may involve sexual penetration." 'Cause I'm sure that's never ever happened before. :eyes:

picture? that maybe they dont want their picture in the yearbook. that maybe they may be embarrassed to have had that snapped adn forever in there for the other students to snicker.

are yawl so sexually sophisticated, that thinking beyond the oh so cool sexual freedom part, you consider no one else or any other issue this may create?

this is weird.

And yet a few of the same posters downplaying this decry it as a travesty of the greatest dimensions when it happens at an airport security checkpoint. :shrug:

But we're obviously prudes who believe there is a time and a place for everything... :P

they could face a charge of possessing child porn."

Absurd.

The picture is either illegal porn or not porn depending on what would be visible if we could see through the clothes. This reminds me of the cat both alive and dead within the box at the same time.

'cause I wouldn't be turning my yearbook back in. There wasn't anything mentioned about eventually issuing corrected yearbooks.

That's way over the top. The students aren't the ones who let the photo slide during the editing process.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.