Comments on: Pornography on Cell Phones

By: KattyBlackyard

KattyBlackyard — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:54:01 +0000

I really like your post. Does it copyright protected?

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:12:45 +0000

Covenant Eyes is attempting to come out with accountability software for mobile devices. I just wrote an article about this last week (http://www.covenanteyes.com/blog/2008/09/12/faq-friday-why-doesnt-covenant-eyes-have-accountability-software-for-the-iphone/). Thanks for your thoughts here!

By: Silus Grok

Silus Grok — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:31:31 +0000

You’re kidding, right?

Rather than sweeping this problem under the carpet, we should confront it head-on with tough training and enforcement of the law so we don’t let juveniles exploit other juveniles or develop into adult pornographers

You really think that childhood foolishness should be aggressively prosecuted? It’s just this sort of “zero tolerance” hu-ha that is turning our schools into police states — and is further eroding the special place that childhood holds in our society.

Don’t misunderstand: kids e-mailing photos of their naughty bits to each other (or other’s bits, more likely) is not to be winked at… but felony prosecution is hardly a reasoned response.

The easiest way to nip this behavior in the bud is to turn off internet on the children’s phones.

This plague is a direct result of parents who refuse to say “no” to the demands of their children.

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:53:31 +0000

Larry, did you know that the filters at the Church Office Building blocked access to your post so that I couldn’t open it until I got home? Likewise, the post at By Common Consent a few days ago was blocked because its title contained the phrase “facial hair.” That’s the problem with keyword filters; maybe the ridiculous nature of censoring you will finally get the attention of somebody in your department …

By: ldsWebguy

ldsWebguy — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:10:14 +0000

Actually, law enforcement is LESS likely to pursue misdemeanors than felonies. And the problem with the legislation is that by reducing child pornography to a misdemeanor, it makes it harder to pursue and convict the 50-year-old perverts making and distributing child pornography.

By: jacob

jacob — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 19:37:06 +0000

The way I read your post, if a teenager were to forward a pornographic picture on his cell phone to one of his friends, then he could be convicted of a felony. It seems to me that getting a felony as a teenager could potentially ruin someone’s life–a harsh penalty for forwarding a pictures.

Don’t misunderstand me, it is still wrong to forward porn, but teenagers are kind of dumb sometimes and I don’t think that giving them a felony is a right way to combat the situation.

It seems to me that most teenagers won’t think, “Oh, it is a felony which is more more than a misdemeanor to forward this picture, so I’m not going to do it.” To many teenagers, there is traffic-ticket, and there is against-the-law. I suspect that whether the crime is a felony or misdemeanor won’t change teenage behavior, only their suffering afterward.

Contrarily, I would think that prosecutors and criminal enforcement authorities would be more likely to prosecute teenagers for cell-porn distribution if the crime was only a misdemeanor. They can get tough on the law enforcement without having to worry about being too tough on the future lives of teens.