[0719] The Dangers Of Sexting
└ posted on Thursday, 17 September 2015, by Novil
- Caption: While the district attorney decided not to press charges against Larisa because of her age and medical history, she has to learn that all actions have consequences.
- School psychologist: I’m very disappointed in you, Larisa.
- School psychologist: Just when I was starting to believe that you had developed some sense of responsibility, I heard your name in the news.
- Larisa: I’m sorry…
- School psychologist: Such acts can destroy not only your own life, but also the lives of many other people!
- School psychologist: Just ask the 47 million SnapPic users who’ve been remanded in custody for the possession of child pornography!
Well done, ms. Psychologist! ^_^
Go through life as you see fit, Larisa, but mind you leave it at least as good as you found it and not worse…
Does the psychologist remind anyone else of Lilith Caillean?
So all the App users are suddenly child porn owners??
Seems like they all were in the USA, couse it might be the only goverment that would do spy on its citizens and do something drastic like that in a few days time…
good job Larisa!! made us all proud!!!
CloudLion wrote:
Before they used Australia as a dumping ground, they used “The land that grew sun-corn”
i.e. Virginia!
O K Its a bit smaller now but think of all the money will save in air fares
@ Xezlec:
Xezlec wrote:
Not ALL, just 90%…
(If you can actually read and do math)
Pretty accurate I must say after spending a week browsing morons commenting and spewing bullshit on the web… Right wing christian Americans are overrepresented by far…
Really bad execution for this comic. If you are a kid with a revenge fantasy, DO NOT ATTEMPT THIS. You will be charged with possession and distribution of child porn, even if the pictures are of yourself. Some states will even charge you as an adult for it.
Rather certain loads of people called this during the first reveal. 🙂
But tbh she would still be the one who had “distributed” the socalled porn. So personally I would say that they shouldn´t be arrested, but given fair warning of what they had recieved and if not removed by themself – then get arrested.
There are just no words. I try to say something but there are just no words…
That escalated in a hurry.
Ahchi wrote:
They also used the Carolinas and Georgia.
Except Larisa doesn’t really care, does she? Other than consequences directly involving her, she’s never shown consideration for others unless pushed into it. A consequence is only a consequence if there’s real remorse.
Fire that psychologist she’s trying to scare a client into behavioural change with a bad story. Given the age of the patient this is enough to be a cause to immediate revoke her licence. I had considered the child porn angle but realised that it isn’t punishable unless the user has:
– Deliberately acquired it.
– Had reason to suspect that the depicted was under age.
Additionally only harmful mass spreaders or those who commit related crimes are prosecuted in practice.
If Larisa’s intended act is anywhere near common among underage lovers, Facebook and Snapchat would technically be the worlds largest distributors of child porn, yet they are not prosecuted.
@ Wizard:
Don’t forget the case of exploitation and I think I once heard a case of possibly being charged with molestation as well. US laws are odd things.
@ Terion:
The distributor isn’t the ap/site/whatever, but rather the one who uploads the material.
Child pornography laws are necessary, but they do seem a bit much at times.
@ 1overX:
Production and distribution of child pornography.
No, it is not legal for a minor to produce pornography of themself, let alone distribute it.
Recently there was a silly case where a minor played both the role of the “victim” and the “perpetrator”.
Berandal wrote:
by law in the us, the very possession of child porn that can be proven in the court of law is enough to get anyone arrested regardless of whether they asked for it or not. even if you delete it, it doesn’t mean the record of it was cleared from the phone company’s logs or your phones memory. more then a few laws surrounding this type of topic are so focused around peoples fear & anger that it starts to become counter productive at times & increases the likely hold of innocents getting charges & placed on a list, increasing the likelihood of repeat offenders, suicide attempts, revenge seeking psychos, ect..your also guilty til proven innocent in the court of law, especially with any charge of this nature.
Interessting definition of “Law”. Next time someome recieves and Anthrax letter we just arrest the person who recieved the letter. Terrorism problem solved. I wonder when child porn will be such a super crime that even the police officers involved in aprehending the criminal will get arrested because they “came in contact” during their investigation. Oh and I typed the word. Now they will arrest me.
@ Dave:
Because of the No Tolerance policies and general idiocy and a desire for an easy win and a ‘vote for me I’m tough on child pornography!’ a distressing number of prosecutors would love the opportunity to prosecute people in a case like this, because the law only cares that you possess it not that someone sent it to you when you didn’t want it. So even though it was a (mostly) tasteful nude that in decades prior would have been dismissed as the foolish mistake and error that it was today would ruin you very easily and require heavy litigation and a LOT of money to save you.
@ 1overX:
The charges would be distributing child porn. Even if its a picture of yourself, you can get in huge trouble for it. @ 1overX:
Unfortunately, “child pornography” is a pretty squishy term. Is someone still a child if they’re an adolescent? Is a bare-butt baby pic from a family album pornography? This shows up the limits of “I know it when I see it.”
Even now knowing that the US legal system is even more trigger happy than I thought, I still don’t think the legal system could muster up the logistics of incarcerating 1/7 of the population. However, it seems likely that the prosecutors would have a gold mine and basically pick whoever they can get their hands on whenever they don’t have a more lucrative case. In other words, it would be a lottery whether or not you get charged if you were to receive one of those pictures.
@ Lucy:
Umm excuse me, we don’t want any of your rubbish here thank you, we only just managed to get rid of Tony Abbott.
The shrink is a schmuck, and I’m not sure if it’s for effect or is meant to be authentic. For one, what sort of school psychiatrist talks like that?
Second, what Larisa did was an accident, and the sort of thing which could happen to anyone in a slightly different context. Had she accidentally sent an innocuous pic to millions, as apparently would have been quite simple, no ‘responsibility’ hogwash. Chance is what made the mistake *this* instead, so the shrink’s heavy-handed judgment speech is misplaced. Trying to ding her for others being arrested is also ridiculous for similar reasons. Larisa not only doesn’t make the laws, but as a minor has no influence on them even as a voter. Not that millions could be arrested for anything, nor could even one person lawfully be arrested for involuntarily receiving child porn. That part is clearly meant to be a gag.
It does depend on the prosecutor.
Technically a nude selfie in and of itself… isn’t pornography. It falls under the same category as naked baby pictures, and national geographic. At least in the US.
Granted, teenagers sexting each other can be considered child porn due to being underage, and the sexual purpose of it (Technically even posing sexy and sending it for the purpose of getting the other user aroused falls under this category.)
Either way, IRL due to the high volume of users; its more likely that the only folks involved would be: Larissa the distributor, Landon the intended target; and the companies involved with allowing this to happen. Investigators may request and look at any communication to and from Larissa and those users, but unless any of them had questionable chat history or already on the Sex Offenders list, they prob. wouldn’t get prosecuted, instead they’d be invited into a class action suit against the company or Larissa.
Larrissa and Landon would be heavily investigated, and if the prosecutor was like the one in PA, both would be charged with child porn (distribution and possession), and similar to the rules on dealing be considered victims to themselves and charged with child molestation and other charges. (Yes Landon as well). But that would only happen in a district where the DA wants to make a point about how teenagers need to keep it in their pants.
@ GreatLimmick:
In most cases, it does.
Trimutius wrote:
Actually it was those 3 million people who burned their cell phones.
Larisa got to play out this fantasy on a far larger scale:
http://www.sandraandwoo.com/2012/11/22/0431-test-of-friendship/
But since it was dispersed across the country she didn’t get to witness the fire. 😉
@ butterbattle:
you are not alone!
I called it back at the first strip of this plotline.
@ SidH:
I think some of them just didn’t check their phone.
@ Xezlec:
You also think that from all those 47 million users, none of them spread and shared the pictures worldwide. That’s very cute.
Jokes aside, there’s so much hysteria about sexual abuse in Western society (US, Canada, UK and to a slightly lesser extent the rest of Western Europe) that people can’t take pictures of their own kids or grand-kids in public without some overzealous cops accosting them as a potential pedophile.
Already there are laws on the books in NYC and other municipalities where adults (not even women, for you men-are-scum feminists) cannot enter a public park unless accompanied by a child in an effort to deter sexual predators. Nevermind that real predators often have kids of their own that they use to lure other kids. Guess the lawmakers never thought of that.
Relatively speaking, sexting isn’t any thing new. There was a case here in Canada a few years ago about a group of teenagers charged with possessing and distributing child pornography for sexting, even though they were in the same age group. The fact that the girl was allegedly raped in the process didn’t help their case, either.
To Catch a Predator hosted by Chris Hansen is more hypocrisy, as the audience is titillated with watching people’s lives get destroyed for soliciting sex from a supposedly willing minor while they wax self-righteously and take perverse pleasure in it. Don’t get me wrong, child sexual exploitation is a serious problem; but these people aren’t the same ones who’re grabbing kids off the streets (the real rapists) and we shouldn’t make entertainment about any of this. In any case, from what I hear the show got cancelled because too many people were catching on to their little trap and they ran out of victims.
If the people who received those pics deleted them from their PCs, laptops, tablets, smartphones, game consoles, etc., they should be in the clear. If they kept them and forwarded them to their friends, colleagues, etc., then they could face charges for possession of child pornography.
On another note, even if 47 million accusations isn’t an exaggeration, I’m pretty sure that there aren’t enough police officers and prosecutors in the whole country to process even a fraction of them.
The obvious answer it to reign back on possession laws.
Any connection to this, BTW?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnvzMmtRNtg
@ Whoopdie:
LOL Yah and me to for replying.
@ Nightmask:
so True…….
AND, WHAT NO MORE……
“””””””””””””this comic…. trivializes underage sexting…….. and Passing off……… what is a very serious issue……..”””””””””””””
COMMENTS.
Raen wrote:
Not what I heard, some one once told me (and no, I don’t know whether it’s true or not it’s just what I was told) that you have to have more than 3 pics of child porn on your computer to get arrested for it here in Canada.
The “Sandra and Woo” fanbase consists mostly of pedophile furries.
For those that say that it’s impossible to process 47 million cases of possession of child porn, you’re forgetting that there is no statute of limitations for that crime and, in the US, prosecutors don’t need to prove intent to convict. The bit about “needs to possess 3 or more images” is the test to prove intent to distribute. Possession of even a partial image defined as child port is enough to convict. The US Supreme Court has even ruled that an image of a fully clothed child can be considered pornography.
The greed of government knows no bounds and 47 million people having to pay an average of $2,500 fine and up to 5 years in prison and forever be registered as a sex offender is money in the bank. Even if they can only process 1% per year, (470,000 cases) that’s $1.2 billion annually for upwards of 50 years to prosecute half of the “violators”.
Zero Tolerance policies are also Zero Brain policies. They don’t care about circumstances, only slavish obedience.
every cloud does has a silver ending, and something very good came out of this stuff XD
Lucy wrote:
Enough space, but not enough water. Texas has enough space and plenty of water for the next several days. (They have the unwelcome guest of Himmocane Harvey, for the next several days.)
Is it just me, or does the psychologist somewhat resemble Lilith and San De Vertis from Gaia?
Yes!@ GreatLimmick: