15 year-old boy forced to register as sex offender

[Gravlen]

I think the OP is a good example of why it's difficult to have an honest discussion about potential biases in the courts. When a story is presented by someone who has not bothered to look beyond the headline and first paragraph of an article, and completely fails to understand what's happening, it can easily end up in outrage based on a false premise.

"Two groups of people did two different things, and they were treated differently as a result. We need drastic change now!!"

Good job, OP, distracting yourself away from the real outrage here, which is that he was required by the trial court to register as a sex offender.

It's funny to me that you didn't even explain how I misunderstood it.

But I'm sure you'll engage in your usual sophistry here in order to muddy the waters and chastise anyone who is rightly outraged by this.

Pathetic, and not worth my time.

I'm sorry, I assumed you would look at other posts in this thread, like the one right above the one you responded to, or many of the later posts. I understand now that I was thinking too highly of you. My apologies.

You misunderstood it because the boy and the girls were in completely different situations, having taken different actions. The boy sent pictures unsolicited (the girls didn't), asked for pictures in return (the girls didn't), and kept them afterwards (the girls didn't). When he was being investigated for a different crime (the girls weren't) the pictures were found on his phone (they were never found on the phones of the girls).

That's your example of institutional bias. That's your bullshit.

[Greater Eurasian Empire]

I don’t care that they were under 18, but he harassed them.
I’d like to think he would mature, but plenty of men seem not to. 20 years might be a bit extreme, but he’s probably a real douchebag.

[Costa Fierro]

I don’t care that they were under 18, but he harassed them.
I’d like to think he would mature, but plenty of men seem not to. 20 years might be a bit extreme, but he’s probably a real douchebag.

Based on what evidence?

[Ifreann]

I don’t care that they were under 18, but he harassed them.
I’d like to think he would mature, but plenty of men seem not to. 20 years might be a bit extreme, but he’s probably a real douchebag.

Based on what evidence?

The unsolicited dick pics.

[Costa Fierro]

Based on what evidence?

The unsolicited dick pics.

Do we know they were unsolicited?

[Gormwood]

The unsolicited dick pics.

Do we know they were unsolicited?

Both girls believed they were in a relationship with the boy. The youngster, from Colorado, sent both a photo of his erect penis and asked them to send a naked selfie in return.

You seem determined to believe the girls were treacherous sluts.

[Ifreann]

The unsolicited dick pics.

Do we know they were unsolicited?

Yes.

[Ors Might]

Do we know they were unsolicited?

Both girls believed they were in a relationship with the boy. The youngster, from Colorado, sent both a photo of his erect penis and asked them to send a naked selfie in return.

You seem determined to believe the girls were treacherous sluts.

Haven’t seen him call them treacherous sluts. Might wanna stop straw manning.

[Chestaan]

So then all sexual acts are coerced?

Are all sexual acts between men and women?

As in all sexual acts between men and women, yes? Are they all coerced?

[Zhivotnoye]

A "sex offenders register" is stupid enough on its own, why the need to add innocent people on it?

[Galloism]

Um, in mixed gender households generally yes. Exceptions exist of course.

In single gender households, then the gender of that household controls it.

I believe you, as that has been my experience. I would be curious to see the data you have around that, though, particularly with regards to trends over time.

I don't know that I have trends over time.

Here's a few articles about the present:

https://girlpowermarketing.com/womens-purchasing-power/
https://wwd.com/business-news/retail/wo ... 203079955/
https://www.bloomberg.com/diversity-inc ... consumers/
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/329780

The thing is, single men and single women earn about the same (under 30 single women actually earn more than single men), while married men earn more and married women earn less. But typically, married women substantially control the finances of the household, so even though they earn less than men, they spend more than men, because they're substantially in control of the spending in a mixed gender household.

[Greater Eurasian Empire]

Do we know they were unsolicited?

Sending them dick pics and harassing them for nudes?

It’s a shame it had to be a 15 year old but men actually should be called out legally for their nonsense, after a sex ed that tells them no one appreciates it.

[Gravlen]

Now, repeatedly asking after a no has been given is different and may well constitute sexual harassment. But the court does not say that occurred.
It says the girls were reluctant, not refusing and made to change their minds.

About that:

¶ 7 E.H. testified during the trial that, in the fall of 2012, the juvenile had texted her photographs of his erect penis. When E.H. received them, "[she] deleted them" because she "didn't want to keep those on [her] phone."

¶ 8 The juvenile repeatedly asked her to send him nude photographs of herself. She said that "[t]he first time [she] told him no. Then after that [she] was like well, maybe after a while, and then just kind of like getting him off [her] case, and then finally [she] just gave in."

The People of the State of Colorado In the Interest of T.B., Colorado Court of Appeals 2016.

So he did indeed repeatedly ask after a 'no' was given. Just FYI, since it made a difference to you.

[Vassenor]

A "sex offenders register" is stupid enough on its own, why the need to add innocent people on it?

He was convicted of a sex offence in a court of law, the offence in question required that he be placed on the register.

[Nova Cyberia]

It's funny to me that you didn't even explain how I misunderstood it.

But I'm sure you'll engage in your usual sophistry here in order to muddy the waters and chastise anyone who is rightly outraged by this.

Pathetic, and not worth my time.

I'm sorry, I assumed you would look at other posts in this thread, like the one right above the one you responded to, or many of the later posts. I understand now that I was thinking too highly of you. My apologies.

Sorry but I don't think Blaat's post has anything to do with me.

You misunderstood it because the boy and the girls were in completely different situations, having taken different actions. The boy sent pictures unsolicited (the girls didn't), asked for pictures in return (the girls didn't)

He was charged with sexual exploitation of a minor. Considering that the girls voluntarily sent pictures of themselves to him, it seems rather odd to charge him with sexual exploitation. Especially considering, you know, he himself is a minor. Who was he exploiting?

and kept them afterwards (the girls didn't). When he was being investigated for a different crime (the girls weren't) the pictures were found on his phone (they were never found on the phones of the girls).

Um, Gravlen, they had to have been on their phones at some point. It's literally impossible to take and send a picture on a phone without it being stored on a hard drive.

That's your example of institutional bias. That's your bullshit.

Yes, it is. Institutional bias against men in our court system is an easily verifiable fact. This is just one example.

But remember the thread about the Indian man who was ordered to allow his wife to us his sperm to become pregnant? Remember how you unironically tried to argue that a judge threatening a man with legal consequences was not coercion?

It's fairly clear you are only interested in trying to deny any and all examples of bias and discrimination again. I don't know why this is (female fragility?) but it's easy to tell you are not at all looking to be honest. Facts mean nothing to you.

Again, pathetic.

[EastKekistan]

Yep.

A 15 year-old boy was convicted and ordered to sign the sex offenders register for swapping nude photos with a girl the same age as him.

The unnamed youngster got chatting to two girls – aged 15 and 17, while visiting the Future Farmers of America conference in 2012.

Both girls believed they were in a relationship with the boy. The youngster, from Colorado, sent both a photo of his erect penis and asked them to send a naked selfie in return.

After initially resisting, both girls sent the nude photo of themselves, Reason magazine reported.

The snaps he’d received were discovered when the boy was later arrested on an unrelated charge.

He was then charged and convicted with sexual exploitation of a child, ordered to spend two years on probation – and 20 years on the sex offenders’ register.

The boy’s initial court hearing convicted him after ruling that the girls’ initial reluctance to send nudes in return ‘suggested a sexual coyness.’

It also reasoned that the boy’s repeated requests for nude photos, after sending his own X-rated snap, showed that he wanted the pictures for ‘overt sexual gratification.’

That is necessary to prove the charges against him, and is also likely to explain why neither girl was charged with any crime.

The boy appealed his conviction, but last week Colorado’s Supreme Court upheld it.

They did so despite a 2018 change to the law aimed at preventing teens being charged with ‘sexual exploitation of a child’ for sharing nude photos.

Justice Monica M Marquez explained: ‘Our holding today may strike some as unfair, especially given the recent changes in the law addressing juvenile sexting behavior.

‘However, we must apply the law in effect at the time.’

Communicatons Professor Amy Hasinoff, from the University of Colorado at Denver helped draft the revised law, and condemned the upheld appeal.

She told The Washington Post: ‘Asking a few times for a photo doesn’t rise to the level of what should be on the sex offender registry. ‘Just because you have a 15-year-old asking another 15-year-old for photos doesn’t mean you’re a threat to children for the next 20 years.’

A 2018 survey found that one in four teenagers polled had received a sext, with one in seven respondents admitting sending one themselves.

So, a 15-year old boy has been forced to spend two years on probation and will have his name on the sex offender registry for the next 20 years (essentially, his life has been destroyed before it really even began) for voluntarily exchanging nude photos with another 15-year old girl. He appealed his conviction to the Colorado Supreme Court but they upheld it. So, are we still living in a patriarchy?

Obviously, I find this to be abhorrent. Of course, the girl he exchanged them with was charged with nothing. This is yet another example of the institutional bias of our courts against men and young boys. It's clear drastic changes need to happen in this country if we are to correct this sort of bias.

Thoughts?

What's the purpose of such an absurd law? Is it prudism from both Christianity and feminism at work or is it just an attempt by adults to harm teens who don't obey them?

[Greater Eurasian Empire]

The boy was charged for harassing the girls, not for their being underaged.

[Vassenor]

Yep.

So, a 15-year old boy has been forced to spend two years on probation and will have his name on the sex offender registry for the next 20 years (essentially, his life has been destroyed before it really even began) for voluntarily exchanging nude photos with another 15-year old girl. He appealed his conviction to the Colorado Supreme Court but they upheld it. So, are we still living in a patriarchy?

Obviously, I find this to be abhorrent. Of course, the girl he exchanged them with was charged with nothing. This is yet another example of the institutional bias of our courts against men and young boys. It's clear drastic changes need to happen in this country if we are to correct this sort of bias.

Thoughts?

What's the purpose of such an absurd law? Is it prudism from both Christianity and feminism at work or is it just an attempt by adults to harm teens who don't obey them?

Since when is punishing harassment prudish?

[EastKekistan]

What's the purpose of such an absurd law? Is it prudism from both Christianity and feminism at work or is it just an attempt by adults to harm teens who don't obey them?

Since when is punishing harassment prudish?

Of course harassment sucks and should be punished.

However I think there are cases where kids are charged simply for..uh..having sex or sending pictures to their lovers. What's the cause of such laws and why are they enforced?

[Vassenor]

Since when is punishing harassment prudish?

Of course harassment sucks and should be punished.

However I think there are cases where kids are charged simply for..uh..having sex or sending pictures to their lovers. What's the cause of such laws and why are they enforced?

Sending sexual images of yourself to someone unsolicited and then harassing them for sexual images of themselves isn't actually all that kosher.

[EastKekistan]

Of course harassment sucks and should be punished.

However I think there are cases where kids are charged simply for..uh..having sex or sending pictures to their lovers. What's the cause of such laws and why are they enforced?

Sending sexual images of yourself to someone unsolicited and then harassing them for sexual images of themselves isn't actually all that kosher.

I'm not talking about this particular case. Instead I'm talking about other cases where what I described do take place.

[Nova Cyberia]

What's the purpose of such an absurd law? Is it prudism from both Christianity and feminism at work or is it just an attempt by adults to harm teens who don't obey them?

Since when is punishing harassment prudish?

Such horrible harassment that they voluntarily sent nudes back to him.

[Gormwood]

Since when is punishing harassment prudish?

Such horrible harassment that they voluntarily sent nudes back to him.

Pressuring people into sending nude selfies is now considered Voluntary.

[Nova Cyberia]

Such horrible harassment that they voluntarily sent nudes back to him.

Pressuring people into sending nude selfies is now considered Voluntary.

Yes, it is actually.

[Gormwood]

Pressuring people into sending nude selfies is now considered Voluntary.

Yes, it is actually.

Even underaged minors who cannot legally consent, whom one of the girls were.