MTG Salvation

"No, we'll have to leave you here..." said Officer Martin. "We'll have to go and check this out immediately - most of our officers are out of town. I guess you'll have to stay in a cell. Just for now."

National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo) starts in about a week (November 1 - November 30). For those who don't know about it, the aim is to write a 50,000 word (roughly 175 page) novel in a month. Anyone can participate!

Who's in? I'll try, even though I have very little creative writing skills and will probably run out of motivation after a few days. I've got a fairly good idea for a novel already that just needs a bit of tweaking. I'm almost certain that it won't be any good, but it'll still be fun to have a go.

"Oh, don't worry. We'll sort out the money. You need to get here as quick as you can - there will be more disasters like this if you don't act fast."

"Oh, I would if I could. We have no idea. But there are others like you. Not many, but they are out there."

S'fine, just whenever you can.

She silently nodded, and was about to say something else, when yet another officer barged into the room, frantically getting the other two officers' attention.

"You two - massive blast at Fort Wayne High. Just like the kid said."

1. The White Tiger
2. India
3. Music of India
4. Indian pop
5. Bombay Rockers

Bombay Rockers to 1995 Pacific Grand Prix

[499] will enter ced395 and Minineko.

Quote from Jhoira

For the last time, Naked Body is not equal to Porn.

Get that into your head. Porn is a vague term. Porn means anything created with the intent of causing sexual arousal. If the girl did not distribute the pictures with the intent of causing sexual arousal, then it is not PORN.

I can post a picture of a non-nude person in a sexy position, and if I intended to cause sexual arousal, then it is porn.

Similarly, I can post a naked body picture of a man/woman with detailed annotations like that of a doctor annotations and if it did not cause sexual arousal, it is not porn.

Get this in your head, people.

When discussing this issue, Nakedness =/= Porn.

I agree with your sentiment, but I'm pretty sure the nude pictures were distributed with the intent of causing sexual arousal. But you're right in saying that this is not a pornography case, and a minor case of sexual harassment is the issue here, if any.

Quote from Annorax

My brain is open. Pick at will.

K.

1) She created child pornography. That in and of itself is harmful. The media doesn't make children commit crimes, it just tells them to do stupid sexual things. It's a parent's responsibility to teach their kid not to listen. This one obviously didn't learn.

You're right that child porn is harmful. It is harmful because children are abused and exploited by other (almost always older) people, and forced to be in situations against their will. It's not harmful because people see the results (with much younger children it can be very offensive to people's sensibilities to see, but not in the case of a 15-year-old girl). It's the process that creates child porn that is harmful. And in this case, there was none of that. The girl made an independent, albeit possibly stupid, decision to distribute these photos, and no one was exploited, abused, or otherwise harmed.

2) Manipulation has nothing to do with it. The boys are just as guilty, if not more so, than she is. Possession of kiddy porn is bad too, amirite?

I don't know exactly what the boys did with the photos, but are they guilty as soon as they receive the pics in a text? They can't exactly control what is sent to them. I can't say that much about this as I don't know what happened with the photos, and I agree if they distributed it somewhere online or to friends it is wrong, but surely they can't be guilty just because someone sent them some pictures.

(again, I'm talking about morals and common sense here, not the law, which is on your side. I'm mostly arguing against the way the laws are enforced.)

3) I actually believe harsh justice is necessary to make an example and teach kids not to be stupid like this. Sometimes you have to throw the slowest member of the herd to the wolves to ensure the rest of the herd gets away. I'd have absolutely no problem if this became an issue of life without parole vs. death sentence because she showed that she has absolutely no common sense and no chance of making it in the real world. Maybe her example will show others that this stupidity is not tolerated.

If it means anything, I know a lot of people who have done this sort of thing as teenagers who are now perfectly normal, well-adjusted adults, with normal jobs and healthy relationships. Doing things like this as a teenager doesn't show a complete lack of common sense - it is just a poor decision according to some people's morals.

Laws are in place to protect people. Not to enforce one person or group's moral code on everyone else. As I've said, anti-child porn laws are there to protect children from exploitation by those who wish to take advantage of them and to do them harm. There was none of that here.

I'm not sure that date has much to do with it.

He sighed.

"Okay. Good. Thank you so much, Jovana. I know this might be a bit inconvenient for you. But you have to come to America."

"I see. Now these...messages...you received. Can you tell us about them?"

This question reminded Josh that his flash drive was still in the computer at the school.

While the customers just watched, baffled, the fellow worker (named Martha) ran over and started calling an ambulance.

"Well try and make sure he's ok!" she snapped at Cole.

Thank you to everyone who voted [499] in the recent contest.

We'll definitely be entering the mafia contest, as well...

Oh, what she did was technically illegal under the current laws, of course. No one's arguing that. All I'm saying is that it's ridiculous. The laws against child pornography are in place to prevent the exploitation of children by those who wish to do them harm. The laws aren't there to prevent people from having to see nude teenagers - let's face it, most straight adults would probably love to see a naked teenage girl - they are there to prevent sexual deviants from taking advantage of someone who can not legally give consent. When a girl distributes these photos herself, no one is harmed or exploited - although the girl might do some damage to her reputation, and should probably be punished by her parents. Several people have pointed out that this is technically pornography (which is defined as anything intended to produce sexual arousal, which this almost certainly was), but nude pictures are a long way from graphic sexual scenes.

Remember, I'm talking from a moral point of view here, not a legal point of view. Legally, she is a "sex offender". Morally I think that this is a stupid reaction, and that we're all too sexually conservative anyway. But that's my opinion anyway. I'm not really interested in a big debate on this, but I just thought I'd state my views.

"Of course. Although there are some people out there who know about you. Some who aren't exactly on your side. I'd stay with us if I were you, and we can protect you."

He smiled - a nasty smile. Whether he was trying to trick Buckley or whether he was just a naturally nasty person was unclear.

There was silence for a few seconds, and then the man answered in a sombre tone.

"...that was it?"