Glad I ain't the one making this decision. That's all I have to say about that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hard time understanding how Mo could be in trouble but not the two guys actually doing the crime in the video.
So you really think that HS aged kids, in America, that have cell phones don't take and send pictures of their wangs, boobs, butts or who-ha's?Yes. You are.
You have a twisted sense of logic and a disturbing pattern of thought. You automatically assume the girl is evil and out to get the guy. Using the “everyone does it” card is pathetic and representative of the largest issues we face as a society.
Whether the young ladies actions were consensual or not are inconsequential to the issue with Washington. The facts are a person had an illegal video of an underage person, she did not provide it to him. Beyond possession he used something that was hurtful to her to attack her personally. Regardless of any of the circumstances he knew that she would be ashamed of seeing the video, which was his motive for sending it. The notion that a 16-17 year old should be able to do things consequence free is ignorance at best. The victims in these situations don’t get to escape the results of the situations, why do we as a society insist on helping the perpetrators of crimes and ignore the issues that they present to the victims?
I can only assume you don’t have daughters, think about setting them down and saying that it wasn’t a big deal because the perpetrator was under some arbitrary line set up (age). Rather than teaching people there are consequences at any age we marginalize people who are the victims because they had the unfortunate circumstance of being violated by somebody under the arbitrary line.
I am shocked that some posters are so out of touch.I like how birthhawk doesn't understand a simple concept like high school kids sending nude pics of themselves to each other, but if anything remotely impugns the University of Nebraska, even though he probably doesn't understand a single word of the explanation, he is there to blindly hit "Like" like the slackjawed yokel that he is.
I am not arguing the law. I am saying should he be kicked off the team? If what is be alleged really happend, According to the law, he broke it. I agree. I just think from the university stand point it also needs to be taken into context. I have a feeling it won't be and he will probably be kicked off the team in the very near future. Just in my opinion he shouldn't be based on what we know right at this moment.As I said, it may not be just, but that is the law. What I think doesn't matter in this case. It is what the law says.
They do, they only difference is their parents haven't found it.So you really think that HS aged kids, in America, that have cell phones don't take and send pictures of their wangs, boobs, butts or who-ha's?
You really think that?
You're coming across very badly here.I like how birthhawk doesn't understand a simple concept like high school kids sending nude pics of themselves to each other, but if anything remotely impugns the University of Nebraska, even though he probably doesn't understand a single word of the explanation, he is there to blindly hit "Like" like the slackjawed yokel that he is.
So you really think that HS aged kids, in America, that have cell phones don't take and send pictures of their wangs, boobs, butts or who-ha's?
You really think that?
Ha! No kidding!They do, they only difference is their parents haven't found it.
Good job arguing hyperbole...let me ask...what % do you think it is?I really think that not ALL of them do like you said. You were wrong.
Good job arguing hyperbole...let me ask...what % do you think it is?
I am not arguing the law. I am saying should he be kicked off the team? If what is be alleged really happend, According to the law, he broke it. I agree. I just think from the university stand point it also needs to be taken into context. I have a feeling it won't be and he will probably be kicked off the team in the very near future. Just in my opinion he shouldn't be based on what we know right at this moment.
So you are saying that it could very well be 99.9%? Deal, I will agree with your %.Less than the 100 that you said.
No, I fully understood the context of his justification.
Again, wow.`It's still child porn if they are under 18. See the definition, dope.
So you are saying that it could very well be 99.9%? Deal, I will agree with your %.
Wait, is that super dork still arguing what I said???I can't help you any more than I already have, stupid. This is a remedial, and even though 3 or more people have attempted to help explain life to you, you still can't grasp a simple concept. You are just going through life with a perpetual David Puddy look on your face, aren't you?
So, it's not considered child porn to send naked images of minors?I can't help you any more than I already have, stupid. This is a remedial, and even though 3 or more people have attempted to help explain life to you, you still can't grasp a simple concept. You are just going through life with a perpetual David Puddy look on your face, aren't you?
So you are saying that it could very well be 99.9%? Deal, I will agree with your %.
No, I rounded up from your 99.9%.
I am arguing that the laws need to be rewritten or worded differently. There is such a huge difference from 17 year old Tim taking a picture of his ass and sending it to his 16 year old friend as a joke (Child Porn) compared to some 50 year old dude tricking 10 year olds into posing naked for him.Not even sure what you are arguing here, or how you think it is relevant. Is your thought is that because some (or most) kids send nudes of themselves that it is okay for Washington to possess and send that video to the girl?
You agreed to 99.9%. Are you no longer agreeing to it? If not, I need your number.That was your 99.9 not mine. So you are sticking with 100%?
So you are saying guilty until proven innocent? I haven't seen anyone saying he should have no consequences for sending the video. He should. You are right, all action have consequences. Kids need to learn that. The question becomes what is a fair consequence. Should he be labeled and face the same consequences as a 45 year old perv? Should he face jail time? Should he be kicked off the team, should he be suspended? Lucky for him none of us get to make that life altering choice.What do we know? I see a lot of assumptions that the girl is lying based on a lack of prosecution but there are tons of crime that are never prosecuted for various reasons. However, the truth is the content of the video means nothing in how it relates to Washington, over the age of 18 sending a video of a minor engaged in a sexual act to her out of anger/revenge/whatever is the issue. That has to have consequences under the law and the culture that Frost says he wants.
Hopefully the university investigates themselves and takes it out of Frost's hands.
You agreed to 99.9%. Are you no longer agreeing to it? If not, I need your number.
So you are saying guilty until proven innocent? I haven't seen anyone saying he should have no consequences for sending the video. He should. You are right, all action have consequences. Kids need to learn that. The question becomes what is a fair consequence. Should he be labeled and face the same consequences as a 45 year old perv? Should he face jail time? Should he be kicked off the team, should he be suspended? Lucky for him none of us get to make that life altering choice.
You did? That is ****ing awesome! You are relentless and I love it!I did
So, it's not considered child porn to send naked images of minors?
Because it's incredibly easy to prove what Mo did. Open and shut, there's the proof right on the phone that he sent a video he should not have possessed by law.Hard time understanding how Mo could be in trouble but not the two guys actually doing the crime in the video.
Kids do stupid things and I personally don’t see this as some major crime. Stupid yes but I’d have to say it was more of an unintentional crime if anything.
How the hell was it unintentional? If he did what was said, did he accidentally click the video, type the text and hit send? Ignorance of the law is not a legitimate defense.
Let me lay it out slowly for you all:Listen dunce, when you get up to speed on what is happening with young people in 2019, then you'll be able to understand the answers to the questions you ask. I suggest you go do some research.
The fact that he used the video to shame her after she rebuffed him is much more germaine to this topic than him having a nude video of her on his phone. Much more so. As many have unsuccessfully tried to explain to you, many high school kids have what would be considered child porn on their phones.