Comments on: A Crime Against Self

By: HaleyHanabusa

HaleyHanabusa — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 06:47:23 +0000

Just a quick comment: I’ve read a lot of these stories in the paper at work. The only thing that truly unnerves me is that these teenagers are going to be marked as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, just cos they were idiots as kids. (I’m a teenager, I live in a sex-drenched world, and I’m still sane. I don’t feel badly for calling them idiots, no matter how much media is shoving them.)

On another note, Bratz do, in fact, horrify me to no end.

(Also, back in my day, Doctor Barbie didn’t wear a mini-skirt and stilettos. Just sayin’.)

By: Alterati: One Year Best Of Personal Picks | Alterati: The GSpot- The Inside Look at the Outside Culture

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 06:34:10 +0000

[...] A Crime Against Self Excuse Me, Who Are You? Perfect Blue Review Deep Puddle Dynamics: Alex Grey’s CoSM Redefining [...]

By: jamescurcio

jamescurcio — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:57:26 +0000

This article itself is getting on in years in internet time. But yes, that is yet another “interesting situation” resulting from the intersection of real life and law.

One thing I don’t get though, is people keep saying how terrifying this article is. Maybe I’m just desensitized– i think the litigation here is plain stupid. Stupidity doesn’t terrify me, it either enrages or annoys me, depending on how much it actually effects me.

By: creatcher

creatcher — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:41:23 +0000

This is all a very terrifying look at the problems of youth sexuality. But I do want to point out that the article about the girl being charged with posting her own pics is tagged on the USA Today site as “Posted 3/29/2004 6:34 PM”. Much has happened in the last five years.

One very disconcerting thing that is developing in various states is that as the age of consent is crossed by a youth (in many states 16 is the age of consent) the teenager does not realize that they are now legally an adult (in terms of sex) and having sexual interaction with someone under the age of consent constitutes a crime. Beyond this in many states if a 16 year old is convicted of having sex with a 15 year old (who days before their birthday was legal) they are marked for life as a sex offender.

By: Kalomyal

Kalomyal — Wed, 07 May 2008 18:04:17 +0000

But you are say, that this idead is bad?,

By: alterati » Blog Archive » C'Lick Me Reader Review

alterati » Blog Archive » C'Lick Me Reader Review — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:52:27 +0000

[...] actual act of fucking entirely, at least for some (Witness the weird shit going down in Second Life Curcio brought up a month or so ago, for example). So this C’Lick Me Reader then might be the first academic glimpse at the [...]

By: Adrian Garcia

Adrian Garcia — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:35:34 +0000

Quote by atomiczagnut

‘Disturbing article, James. Though I am as apalled as you by our eroding civil liberties, there is something in this article I have to take issue with. You make it sound as if these children are being tried as adults, and I see no evidence that they are. This kids will not “be jailed alongside the fifty year old minister who rapes his choir boys,” but in a juvenile detention facility. Granted, they may very well expereince sexual abuse there as well, but it will be within their own age group. Aside from that, you make some very interesting points about thoughtcrime, and have sparked a very interesting ethical debate between me and my roommate’

That they’re punished at all is rediculous. ‘they might experience sexual abuse there, but it will be within their own age group.’ I guess legitimate child protection gets forgotten quickly, just as long as it’s not creepy old men having all the fun. Is there any sense putting these adolescents in harms way for the private actions that they’ve conducted that concerns no-one but themselves.

I believe the only reason the law in this girl’s case is doing anything, is because they’re trying to tackle online cp in any foolish way they can, whilst eradicating any already eroded any entitled freedoms that ‘children’ still had over their bodies.

Charged with sexual abuse of children, made possible by the intentional widening of the definition of sexual abuse toward children. Charged with possession of child pornography… they might as well charge her with possession of her own body, the fact that she merely encapsulated it into an intricate arrangement of pixels to form a digital image seems pretty obsolete to me.

The only thing she should be charged with is naivety. She shouldn’t be charged, she should be educated… nay, she should have been educated, about just who will see what when images float down the gutters of the internet to join the seas of crud.

The pathetically ironic thing is that this whole spectacle leaves people unclear just who the perpetrator is and who the victim is.

By: jamescurcio

jamescurcio — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 17:03:30 +0000

…Huh?

By: Bill Compton

Bill Compton — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 22:49:34 +0000

Hi Jim. Photos i received. Thanks

By: N.Sonic79

N.Sonic79 — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:14:26 +0000

Sounds like less of a religious war than that of the law trying to dictate common sense. If nothing else works to stop it, use the letter of the law to get things done. Tis a pity that the letter of the law is so convoluted and out of touch with reality that it lacks the tools to fix what’s broken. And who are the people that are trying to fix it? The very same people that are out of touch with the whole concept.
We need to stop worrying about what to do when one “acts out” and just see they get their just dues by using a heavy hand and some common sense.

By: Thirtyseven

Thirtyseven — Thu, 31 May 2007 23:47:46 +0000

This was a supremely good article, lots of meat and the topic itself blew the lid of my skull off. Thanks for the Big Peek, I had little to no idea any of this was going on.

By: jamescurcio

jamescurcio — Thu, 31 May 2007 18:26:15 +0000

Note: an update on the LJ situation from them: http://news.livejournal.com/99159.html

By: atomiczagnut

atomiczagnut — Thu, 31 May 2007 16:10:58 +0000

Disturbing article, James. Though I am as apalled as you by our eroding civil liberties, there is something in this article I have to take issue with. You make it sound as if these children are being tried as adults, and I see no evidence that they are. This kids will not “be jailed alongside the fifty year old minister who rapes his choir boys,” but in a juvenile detention facility. Granted, they may very well expereince sexual abuse there as well, but it will be within their own age group. Aside from that, you make some very interesting points about thoughtcrime, and have sparked a very interesting ethical debate between me and my roommate.

By: Modemac

Modemac — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:31:46 +0000

Surely you would agree that any action, no matter how draconian or authoritarian, is justified if it’s done in the name of Protecting The Children! That’s why we’ve even proposed a law to deal with this behavior:

http://tinyurl.com/cdae6

By: novus.liber » Blog Archive » A Crime Against Self

novus.liber » Blog Archive » A Crime Against Self — Thu, 31 May 2007 11:53:57 +0000

[...] ‘Something mighty strange is going on. The lines between virtual and real self, fantasy and reality, and freedom of speech and safety are being blurred by a string of unusual child pornography rulings.’ (Alterati article). [...]