America's schools are churning out sluts in droves.
Police in Duxbury, Massachusetts are investigating to determine how exposés of over fifty girls attending Duxbury High School in the Boston suburb were posted to the Internet photo site DropBox. Authorities say that the girls, all identified by name in the postings, are simply innocent minors who eagerly took "embarrassing photos" of themselves or encouraged others to photograph them in "varying stages of undress."
For background, read how more and more schools incorporate pornography in the curriculum because experts say it belongs in the classroom.
Click headlines below to read previous articles:
Teen Students Learn to Produce & Distribute Child Pornography
Arresting Kids for Sexting is Overreaction, Say New York Parents
Students Film Porn - School, Cops Give it a Pass
Child-Self Porn Legalized in New Mexico: Sexting
Hundreds of Colorado Students Self-produce Child Porn, Police Say
Sexting Epidemic: Indiana & Illinois Schools, Police Say
Teens Jailed for Child Porn Group Sex Video in Illinois
Homosexual Teacher Says Child Porn OK to View
Homosexual Teacher Arrested for Watching Anal Sex Pornography in Classroom
Also read Education Experts Say: Relax Parents, Sexting is Simply How Kids Flirt Today
-- From "Duxbury police are investigating how dozens of photos of local high school girls in varying stages of undress came to be uploaded on the Internet photo storage site Dropbox" by The Associated Press 5/6/16
Police were alerted to the Dopbox page on Wednesday by officials at Duxbury High School. Authorities worked with the Internet site to have the photos removed.
Duxbury Police Chief Matthew Clancy says some of the images were taken by friends or the subjects themselves. Others appeared to be fakes.
He says police were conducting interviews at the high school, but did not expect to charge any of the students there.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Police: Dropbox page contained explicit photos of Duxbury High School students" by Dialynn Dwyer, Boston Globe 5/5/16
“There are some young people here who are very embarrassed and very upset,” Police Chief Matthew Clancy said in a statement. “They are victims. They made a mistake and someone took advantage of that. Unfortunately we are learning that many communities have been dealing with this very issue. We will join the Schools as needed and requested in educating students on the negative impacts of this activity.”
The department said officers are focusing on identifying the victims involved and the person responsible for creating the page.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Police, Dropbox trying to ID source of lewd Duxbury pics" by Marie Szaniszlo, Boston Herald 5/7/16
[DropBox, the] San Francisco-headquartered company could take weeks to turn over data that could help investigators trace who started the Dropbox page and who used it to post or share the photos, Duxbury police Chief Matthew M. Clancy said, adding that search warrants of those people are likely to follow.
“It’s a very sensitive, private and embarrassing matter,” the chief said. “In most cases, these are selfies that were sent to a boyfriend. That’s a crime in Massachusetts, but we’re not treating it as one in the case of these girls. We want them to learn from this.
“We’re clearly identifying these girls as victims because that’s what they are,” said Clancy, who declined to say how many there are.
Both Duxbury Schools Superintendent Benedict Tantillo and high school Principal Blake A. Dalton did not return repeated calls yesterday. But Clancy said police will join school officials as needed to warn students about the dangers and the consequences of sharing nude photos of themselves or others.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Police investigating website with illicit photos of Duxbury High School students" by Rebecca Everett, masslive.com 5/6/16
[Chief Clancy] said police are investigating to determine who created and contributed to the site.
He or she could be looking at a decade-long prison sentence.
That's because even if the images originated as "sexts" and were shared willingly with a teenage boyfriend or girlfriend, they are still considered child pornography if the subject is under 18. That means that even before they made it on the website, the images were technically illegally shared if they were texted or emailed.
A conviction on a charge of distributing child pornography in Massachusetts carries a minimum sentence of 10 years in prison and a maximum of 20 years.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Also read Failed Sexual Utopia Plagued by Rampant Disease
Showing posts with label public decency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label public decency. Show all posts
Monday, May 09, 2016
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Women's Breasts vs. Men's: Could Police Discern?
After a New Hampshire judge essentially legalized topless female nudity, state lawmakers considered a bill banning bare female breasts/nipples in public, but critics explained that such a law would require police officers to determine if the offender is a man or a woman and because of the myriad new transgender rights, any apparent female offender could simply claim to "identify as a man" and thus negate the infraction.
Also read President Obama Demands Communal Nudity in Public Schools
And read San Francisco Law Ensures Nudity at Parades, Festivals
-- From "'Nipple bill' killed by New Hampshire House" by Garry Rayno, State House Bureau, New Hampshire Union Leader 3/9/16
The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee had voted last week, 18-0, to kill the bill, with several members saying passing the bill would guarantee the law would be challenged in federal court because it violated equal protection rights under the Constitution.
Some on the committee said the place to enact restrictions is at the local level, not statewide, and others noted that if a women had commited a second offense under the proposal she would have had to register as a sex offender and could have spent up to seven years in jail.
New Hampshire, like most states, does not have laws prohibiting women from going topless if men are allowed the same privilege.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "NH nipple ban rejected, saving cops from 'uncomfortable position'" by The Associated Press 3/9/16
The House voted against making it a misdemeanor for women to show their breasts with "reckless disregard" for whether it would offend someone. The bill was partly a response to a "Free the Nipple" movement that led to two women being cited for going topless at a Gilford beach. A judge dismissed that case in February.
Bill supporters had cautioned that allowing women to go topless at beaches could lead to them also going topless at libraries and Little League games. They said they were trying to shield families and children.
[However, the House committee reported that] the bill also would place police officers "in the uncomfortable position of having to determine the gender of a potential offender."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lawmakers Behind 'Nipple Bill' Warn of Societal Decline" by Kathleen Ronayne, Associated Press 2/29/16
At Monday's public hearing, backers of the legislation cautioned that allowing women to go topless at beaches will create a slippery slope where women are going topless at public libraries and Little League baseball games. [Rep. Brian] Gallagher and Rep. Peter Spanos, a co-sponsor of the bill, said New Hampshire could lose tourism dollars if women are wandering public places with their breasts uncovered. Both said they brought the legislation in response to concern from constituents over the incident in Gilford.
But opponents charge such a ban violates the constitution by creating different standards for men and women. Kari Stephens, a Hampton resident who said she goes topless at the beach, argued lawmakers shouldn't be taking away a right that women in New Hampshire already have.
The New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union also opposes the bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
"It's a shame that some folks are more concerned with exposing their breasts in public places than they are concerned about how families and children may be impacted by being forced to experience this evolving societal behavior. This is about a movement to change the values of New Hampshire society."For background, read how conservative lawmakers continually try to counter the sexual revolution of gay/transgender rights.
-- Rep. Brian Gallagher (R), New Hampshire House of Representatives
Also read President Obama Demands Communal Nudity in Public Schools
And read San Francisco Law Ensures Nudity at Parades, Festivals
-- From "'Nipple bill' killed by New Hampshire House" by Garry Rayno, State House Bureau, New Hampshire Union Leader 3/9/16
The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee had voted last week, 18-0, to kill the bill, with several members saying passing the bill would guarantee the law would be challenged in federal court because it violated equal protection rights under the Constitution.
Some on the committee said the place to enact restrictions is at the local level, not statewide, and others noted that if a women had commited a second offense under the proposal she would have had to register as a sex offender and could have spent up to seven years in jail.
New Hampshire, like most states, does not have laws prohibiting women from going topless if men are allowed the same privilege.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "NH nipple ban rejected, saving cops from 'uncomfortable position'" by The Associated Press 3/9/16
The House voted against making it a misdemeanor for women to show their breasts with "reckless disregard" for whether it would offend someone. The bill was partly a response to a "Free the Nipple" movement that led to two women being cited for going topless at a Gilford beach. A judge dismissed that case in February.
Bill supporters had cautioned that allowing women to go topless at beaches could lead to them also going topless at libraries and Little League games. They said they were trying to shield families and children.
[However, the House committee reported that] the bill also would place police officers "in the uncomfortable position of having to determine the gender of a potential offender."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Lawmakers Behind 'Nipple Bill' Warn of Societal Decline" by Kathleen Ronayne, Associated Press 2/29/16
At Monday's public hearing, backers of the legislation cautioned that allowing women to go topless at beaches will create a slippery slope where women are going topless at public libraries and Little League baseball games. [Rep. Brian] Gallagher and Rep. Peter Spanos, a co-sponsor of the bill, said New Hampshire could lose tourism dollars if women are wandering public places with their breasts uncovered. Both said they brought the legislation in response to concern from constituents over the incident in Gilford.
But opponents charge such a ban violates the constitution by creating different standards for men and women. Kari Stephens, a Hampton resident who said she goes topless at the beach, argued lawmakers shouldn't be taking away a right that women in New Hampshire already have.
The New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union also opposes the bill.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
San Fran. Law Ensures Nudity at Parades, Festivals
Public nudity by gay men in San Francisco used to be for "special occasions," but now with naked men on the streets every day, public officials want to outlaw exposure of genitals and buttocks to only specifically-sanctioned public displays of debauchery.
-- From "Legislation seeks to clothe Castro's naked guys" by Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle 10/2/12
Nudity would remain legal at street fairs, festivals and parades - and thus, the Folsom Street Fair, Bay to Breakers and the Gay Pride Parade could remain as flesh-filled as ever. The legislation also wouldn't affect nudity at public beaches or on private property.
"I don't see a reason for banning [public nudity]," [a nude man] said. "People who don't want to look just turn the other way. Most people just walk by like I'm a streetlight."
[City Supervisor Scott Wiener] said he has seen the naked guys publicly wearing genital jewelry designed to stimulate arousal. He's heard reports from others that the naked guys have publicly engaged in sexual touching and charge tourists $5 to take pictures with them.
Currently, San Francisco bans nudity only in parks and restaurants and on port property.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "SF Supervisor Proposes New Fines For Public Nudity, Mayor Approves" posted at CBS News Sacramento 10/3/12
[Wiener] said, “Our neighborhood has had a general tolerance” for the nudists, but their numbers have gone “well beyond what is acceptable” and “public opinion in our neighborhood has shifted.”
Last year, the board approved legislation that banned nudity in restaurants and outlawed sitting on benches or other public seating without first placing clothing or other material atop the seat first.
State law only bans “lewd” behavior, which courts have interpreted to exclude simple nudity, according to Wiener’s office. Other Bay Area cities, including Berkeley and San Jose, have already enacted similar public nudity bans, he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Proposed Ban on Public Nudity Offends Some in San Francisco" by Geoffrey A. Fowler and Vauhini Vara, Wall Street Journal 10/3/12
"This is, in my opinion, an attack on freedom," said George Davis, 66 years old, who was soaking up the sun Tuesday wearing nothing more than sunglasses and a hat, reading a book about Twitter, the microblogging service. As one of the Castro's famous nudists, "I meet people from all over the world," he said, including South Korea, France and Liechtenstein.
Some argued a ban would mark a slippery slope for the city. "Today it is naked people, and next week it will be drag queens, and then the week after that it will be people who wear leather," said Mitch Hightower, 51, who organizes an annual "nude-in" body freedom demonstration in the city and runs an exhibitionist website.
"If only they looked better, it would be great," said Tom Moore, bartender at the Twin Peaks bar in front of the Castro plaza, which doesn't let the naked people inside.
Josh Moreno, manager at the Hot Cookie shop on Castro Street, said he had no problem with the naked guys, including in his cookie store. "We don't discriminate against people based on their appearance," he said. "We shouldn't be focusing our taxpayer dollars to ban something that is just natural."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
"I don't believe this behavior would be tolerated by the police if they were doing it in Dianne Feinstein's or Nancy Pelosi's neighborhood."For background, read Public Sex in the Streets of San Francisco and also read San Fran. Police Observe Sanctioned Public Sex Fest
-- Cleve Jones, San Francisco resident
-- From "Legislation seeks to clothe Castro's naked guys" by Heather Knight, San Francisco Chronicle 10/2/12
Nudity would remain legal at street fairs, festivals and parades - and thus, the Folsom Street Fair, Bay to Breakers and the Gay Pride Parade could remain as flesh-filled as ever. The legislation also wouldn't affect nudity at public beaches or on private property.
"I don't see a reason for banning [public nudity]," [a nude man] said. "People who don't want to look just turn the other way. Most people just walk by like I'm a streetlight."
[City Supervisor Scott Wiener] said he has seen the naked guys publicly wearing genital jewelry designed to stimulate arousal. He's heard reports from others that the naked guys have publicly engaged in sexual touching and charge tourists $5 to take pictures with them.
Currently, San Francisco bans nudity only in parks and restaurants and on port property.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "SF Supervisor Proposes New Fines For Public Nudity, Mayor Approves" posted at CBS News Sacramento 10/3/12
[Wiener] said, “Our neighborhood has had a general tolerance” for the nudists, but their numbers have gone “well beyond what is acceptable” and “public opinion in our neighborhood has shifted.”
Last year, the board approved legislation that banned nudity in restaurants and outlawed sitting on benches or other public seating without first placing clothing or other material atop the seat first.
State law only bans “lewd” behavior, which courts have interpreted to exclude simple nudity, according to Wiener’s office. Other Bay Area cities, including Berkeley and San Jose, have already enacted similar public nudity bans, he said.
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
From "Proposed Ban on Public Nudity Offends Some in San Francisco" by Geoffrey A. Fowler and Vauhini Vara, Wall Street Journal 10/3/12
"This is, in my opinion, an attack on freedom," said George Davis, 66 years old, who was soaking up the sun Tuesday wearing nothing more than sunglasses and a hat, reading a book about Twitter, the microblogging service. As one of the Castro's famous nudists, "I meet people from all over the world," he said, including South Korea, France and Liechtenstein.
Some argued a ban would mark a slippery slope for the city. "Today it is naked people, and next week it will be drag queens, and then the week after that it will be people who wear leather," said Mitch Hightower, 51, who organizes an annual "nude-in" body freedom demonstration in the city and runs an exhibitionist website.
"If only they looked better, it would be great," said Tom Moore, bartender at the Twin Peaks bar in front of the Castro plaza, which doesn't let the naked people inside.
Josh Moreno, manager at the Hot Cookie shop on Castro Street, said he had no problem with the naked guys, including in his cookie store. "We don't discriminate against people based on their appearance," he said. "We shouldn't be focusing our taxpayer dollars to ban something that is just natural."
To read the entire article above, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Washington Post: Porn is Everywhere
Oh, how American society has changed! Such a writing as this would be unimaginable not many years ago -- it used to be that "consuming" porn was relegated to creepy, back alley shops.
-- From "Publicly, a whole new lewdness" by Monica Hesse, Washington Post Staff Writer 11/12/09
. . . the increasing popularity of laptops and handheld devices, and the prevalence of wireless Internet access, means there's a greater chance of becoming a bystander to a complete stranger's viewing proclivities. Like being exposed to the cigarette smoke of a nicotine addict on the street, people are inhaling secondhand smut.
Last fall, some airlines announced they would work on filtering in-flight Internet access to prevent the surfing of inappropriate content (dirty DVDs brought on by passengers, however, would be nearly impossible to filter). But this secondhand smut can also happen on the ground. On buses. In gyms. In movie theaters.
Perhaps this is the real problem: the increasingly blurred boundary between public and private. If we are so accustomed to burying our noses in tiny screens, carrying our entertainment in and out of the house, perhaps people are simply getting confused as to where they are.
Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment. The trouble was knowing that they couldn't escape it, not until the plane landed or the Metro doors opened.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
-- From "Publicly, a whole new lewdness" by Monica Hesse, Washington Post Staff Writer 11/12/09
. . . the increasing popularity of laptops and handheld devices, and the prevalence of wireless Internet access, means there's a greater chance of becoming a bystander to a complete stranger's viewing proclivities. Like being exposed to the cigarette smoke of a nicotine addict on the street, people are inhaling secondhand smut.
Last fall, some airlines announced they would work on filtering in-flight Internet access to prevent the surfing of inappropriate content (dirty DVDs brought on by passengers, however, would be nearly impossible to filter). But this secondhand smut can also happen on the ground. On buses. In gyms. In movie theaters.
Perhaps this is the real problem: the increasingly blurred boundary between public and private. If we are so accustomed to burying our noses in tiny screens, carrying our entertainment in and out of the house, perhaps people are simply getting confused as to where they are.
Those afflicted with secondhand porn say it's not that they oppose adult entertainment. The trouble was knowing that they couldn't escape it, not until the plane landed or the Metro doors opened.
To read the entire article, CLICK HERE.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Disney CEO Defends Nudity and Profanity on Public Airwaves
From "Disney CEO Defends Nudity and Profanity on the Public Airwaves" press release, 3/6/08
Read the rest of the press release.
At the Walt Disney Shareholders meeting today, the Parents Television Council™ President Tim Winter requested that the company reconsider its lawsuits against the federal government that assert a “right” to air unedited profanity and nudity on its broadcast network – even in front of children. Disney President and CEO Robert Iger thanked Mr. Winter for his comments but defended the company’s decisions by saying that they do not want the government interfering in what they can broadcast.
“Joining a federal lawsuit that asserts a right to use the ‘F-word’ on broadcast television at any time of the day – even in front of children – is a contemptible step for a company named ‘Walt Disney’ to take. Yet when an actress recently used the ‘F-word’ during a live interview on Good Morning America, that was the course of action ABC chose, instead of offering a commitment to make sure it didn’t happen again. I ask that you reconsider suing for the right to air the ‘F-word’ in front of children on the public airwaves,” said Mr. Winter during the meeting.
“When the FCC recently imposed a fine on ABC for airing a scripted primetime drama with a fully-nude woman, this corporation defended the nudity and initiated a legal action against the FCC. Can you imagine Walt Disney airing a naked woman on primetime television, and then suing the FCC when it found the nudity to violate broadcast indecency laws? I urge this company to admit the wrongdoing, and promise not to do it again.
Read the rest of the press release.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
