United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: These Teens Kept Their Sexting Private, But Cops Found Out. Now They Face Sex Offender Registry, Jail.
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/01/t ... s-kept-their-sexting-private-b
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: Robby Soave
Post Date: 2015-09-02 10:24:48 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 3812
Comments: 83
Fayetteville, North Carolina, cops have charged 17-year-old Cormega Copening with sexual exploitation of a minor—his girlfriend, who is the same age—because the couple sent each other nude photos of themselves during their relationship. There’s no evidence the photos were ever sent to anyone else, and police only became aware of them because they searched Copening’s phone for unrelated reasons that haven't been specified. Even so, the teen—formerly the starting quarterback at his high school—faces decades on the Sex Offender Registry and up to ten years behind bars if convicted. He’s also been benched from the team while Jack Britt High School investigates the matter. Copening’s girlfriend—who remains unnamed in the news articles—is also facing charges, ABC11 reported. These teen-sexting witch hunts are almost always outrageous; they conflate child pornography with something far less sinister. It’s perfectly normal—and wildly common—for kids to express an interest in sex. Should authority figures discourage underage sexting? Sure. Should they ruin kids’ lives for doing it anyway? Absolutely not. But Copening’s situation is more outrageous than most. As far as I can tell, the pictures weren’t shared with anyone else—this isn’t a case where a boy texted a girl’s nude photos to all of his friends and caused her some considerable public humiliation. The photos were private, and remained that way, until the cops got hold of them. If there’s public humiliation here, police intervention is the cause. Consider as well that Copening reciprocated with photos of his own. Does not a mutual, voluntary exchange of photos undercut the notion that “sexual exploitation” is a factor here? It’s more than a little ridiculous to accuse these two of exploiting each other—although this is precisely what the authorities are doing, I presume (the specific charges against the girlfriend were not reported). Lastly, it bears repeating that these teens were 17. If they had waited until they were 18 to send the photos, no crime would have occurred. Eighteen-year-olds are recognized as fully-autonomous sexual adults. Kylie Jenner, who just turned 18, has been inundated with requests to make a sex tape (indeed, filmmakers began making these requests even before she turned 18). The law, by its very nature, permits no nuance: you are 18, or you’re not. But it’s ridiculous to think that teens are magically transformed into adults on their 18th birthday. Many of them—perhaps Copening and his girlfriend—might be ready for mature relationships that involve sex (or, at least, sexy pictures) prior to the government’s randomly-selected date. There’s one more disturbing angle to this story. If Copening is too young to send pictures of his own body, is he not also too young to be made a social pariah? Don’t news agencies often withhold publication of the names of crime victims when they are underage? Copening is a crime victim, according to the police, but multiple local news agencies reported his name and the full situation. They reported on his suspension from the high school football team. They showed his headshot. They pointed out the likelihood that he will have to register as a sex offender. The criminal charges and possible jail time are the worst consequences of the police investigation, but the smearing of Copening’s name and ruining of his high school experience are also unfortunate outcomes—each of them much worse than the harm from a nude photo swap that would have never come to light if the cops had minded their own business. 
Dreamstime
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
The level of potential punishment is extremely disproportionate.
Perhaps. But back in the day the father of the son and the father of the daughter could go to war over such happenings. Hatfields and McCoys etc. But a more reasoned approach is for the father of the daughter to work the matter with the father of the son. However, given the family unit today you cannot be assured either has a father that is present or cares. The moral of the story is to not expose your body to someone who is not your husband/wife.
There are more morals to the story than that. The law itself is excessively harsh, and THEREFORE ungodly. God never prescribed imprisonment, crushing, fines, or anything else, for mere nakedness. It was shameful, that is all. PRISON? Years on a registry that prevents work and habitation? It is pagan in its barbarism. Men are angry that they cannot control the sexual of youth, so they excessively crush one or two as an example to the others. Let us be very clear: these teenagers did something dumb and socially inappropriate, and that is all. The law should not be involved with this. And if it is, the law should be lenient and instructive to the teenagers, not barbaric and life ending. Any man who stands and bellows that these children should be crushed "to make an example" is standing there with a stone, and the accused are not even adulterers. Remember what Jesus warned: let he among you who is without sin (not without this SPECIFIC sin - Jesus did not narrow it like that, but we can: let he among you who is without SEXUAL sin) cast the first stone. And remember well what else Jesus warned: he who forgives will be forgiven, but he who will not forgive shall not be forgiven by the Father either. Think on that well. Every man who crushes these teenagers for something that is an imprudence, nothing more, has set the standard by which God will judge him for his sexual sins. What man casting that stone to crush has MERELY the sin of exposure to a lover, hmmm? The men who want to hound these teens into a hell on earth are casting their own souls into hell. God will not forgive them their sexual sins, and he will crush them at judgment BECAUSE they set the standards. In other words: if you yourself do not want to be thrown into the soul prison of hell for your own sexual sins, back off on these teenagers and forgive them. Have mercy on them, and God will have mercy on you. Refuse them mercy, and you have damned your own soul. Jesus said that - and he said it three times. He meant it. Take is literally, or burn in hell.
Yeah. Just like drunk driving. Hey, if no one was injured, no property damaged ... WTF? Right? Why ruin some guy's life because he did something dumb and socially inappropriate?
Why ruin some guy's life because he did something dumb and socially inappropriate? Yes. Like that, but much moreso, because drunk driving can kill people. Dumb pictures cannot. Sending nude pictures of each other is a far more trivial thing than driving a ton of metal while inebriated. But we punish the nudie pictures more harshly than drunk driving, even. In any case, my approach to law is based upon what God said to do and not to do, and on the way that he taught judgment and punishment. I am making the point, to Christians, that if they are harsh and unforgiving, they are setting themselves that very standard of judgment when they are judged by God for everything they have ever done. There is no statute of limitations with God, and nothing is hidden. Everybody is a sinner. Everybody has done dumb, and evil and illegal things. If a man is a self-righteous "CRUCIFY THEM!" prig, because his own sins are hidden, if he's a Christian he needs to understand that, because he has taken that approach, that he has himself chosen the standard of judgment God will apply to him. The harsh righteous prig who says "CRUCIFY THEM, THEY BROKE THE LAW!" has broken the law of God many time, and God will crucify him for having done so - God will apply to each man the standard of judgment that that man has applied to his fellow men. Jesus promised that three times, and he did so as a matter of warning - he said that those who do not forgive other men will not be forgiven for their sins by God. My primary concern is not for the "criminal" or the "victim" in this case. It's with the Christians ready to cast stones. I would prefer that men not cast themselves into Hell by being judgmental jackasses, but that's what they do, and they ought to know that, because Jesus made it so clear, so many times. Nudie pictures are degrading, and the individuals can be shamed, and taught not to do that. But prison and long periods of severe punitive restriction afterwards? It is excessive. And eagerly urging on such a system of excessive judgment earns Hell for the man who delights in harsh punishment of others, because it means that God will likewise brutally punish him for every minor sin he ever committed. The harsh man can abandon all hope of heaven, because he has set a standard of judgment of his own crimes, by God, which makes it impossible for him to pass it. And that's stupidity incarnate. The pagan doesn't know this. But the Christian who can read OUGHT to know this. If he doesn't, he's ignorant of the truths of his own God. If he HAS read it, and doesn't give a damn what God says, and chooses to be a judgmental jackass anyway, then he is one of those Christians who cries "Lord, Lord", but who has apportioned for himself a place in the fire. You're worried about the effects of the nudie pictures on the people photographed. I'm worried about the eternal damnation of the souls of the judgmental jackasses who want to crucify children for what are truly petty mistakes. Send a boy to jail for 10 years for exchanging nude pictures, and you have damned yourself to hell. Understand that.
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
If merely a slap on the hand would stop the taking, collection and distribution of underage nude pictures, I'm all for it. Do you expect me to believe that's all that's necessary? Just how naïve are you? Worse, how naïve do you think I am?
But we punish the nudie pictures more harshly than drunk driving, even. The harsh laws stem from recent (within the past few years) events where young people/kids committed suicide because some idiot posted their photos on the internet. That is why some localities have strict laws on this type of cyber blackmail/bullying. I'm not saying these punishments befit the crimes, they don't, but some localities and our society in general treats cyber blackmail/bullying crimes more serious than others. We live in a very sensitive society now. Where people take their own lives when their profiles and nude photos, and sexual orientation is posted for the entire world to see. And sensitive so much that they make all sorts of laws thus increasing the possibilities of the authorities to arrest and DAs to prosecute people.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#36. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
The level of potential punishment is extremely disproportionate.
#43. To: redleghunter (#36)
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#43)
"Let us be very clear: these teenagers did something dumb and socially inappropriate, and that is all. The law should not be involved with this. And if it is, the law should be lenient and instructive to the teenagers, not barbaric and life ending."
#57. To: misterwhite (#55)
Yeah. Just like drunk driving. Hey, if no one was injured, no property damaged ... WTF? Right?
Replies to Comment # 57.
#60. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
Yes. Like that, but much moreso, because drunk driving can kill people. Dumb pictures cannot. Sending nude pictures of each other is a far more trivial thing than driving a ton of metal while inebriated.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 57.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]