Because someone is claiming that basic "human rights" are being violated and the kid is being oppressed. I want to know what "human right" we're talking about. Can you tell me? Is there a basic "human right" to send pictures of your willy to any girl you know? What has the world come to when we make such nonsense a "human right"?
He was put on a registry without trial. As an american looking at this, that is a violation of his liberty. It may not be a 'human right' to send a pic, but it's not an affront to anyone's rights to receive one either. What has the world come to when we insist on breeding oversensitivity into whole generations, then enact crazy punishments on those who 'trigger' them? I also find it interesting that she wasn't charged for 'distributing child pornography.' We've already had a few kids here in the states trampled by those laws..laws that were meant to protect them. I guess now we know the true intentions of the advocates who pushed for them.
You don't know this, and it isn't your place to judge on her behalf. Nobody was thrown into a gulag over this.
It isn't her 'human right' to expect everyone else to give a shit about her feelings over such trivial events either. Despite what happened here, there are plenty of men out there who were thrown into both figurative and literal gulags over shit far less. A registry listing is no minor matter.
But that's not a valid argument for saying that burglary isn't wrong, just as you not minding if people send you naked pictures of themselves is an argument against it being wrong when others are the recipients.
Stealing a tv != sending a picture. One is theft of property, the other is ???
Wait a minute. He can't be expected to "know better" when it comes to whether it is appropriate to send the picture in the first place, but he is supposed to "know better" that the girl would know how to bypass the "delete automatically" feature of snapchat? "Should have known better" is a two-edged sword here.
He should have known the natural consequences of distributing a nude picture of himself over to someone else, yes. Your 'appropriateness' is merely something imposed by people who obviously want others to conform to their moral expectations.
It wasn't a lasting mark on a predator list.
Yes it is. For 10 years. Did you read the article? It's a list that will inform any employer of this incident, so it's close enough.
I have a "crush" on your teenage daughter. You won't mind if I send her naked pictures of myself, then? She can just delete them if she doesn't want to see them, and it won't cause her any harm, right? It's harmless fun.
If that's all you're going to do, go ahead. If she doesn't like it, she'll delete it. If she doesn't know already, I'll explain to her how she shouldn't trust random strangers and how to put you on ignore. Since she's my daughter, she'd hopefully have had that sensibility since childhood. Anyway, this example is not valid either. This issue concerns two adolescents. There's no mention of persistent behavior, which is why I don't agree with him being treated as a predator into his 20s for some stupid impulsive thing he did over an adolescent crush.
That's why he got such a light slap on the wrist and isn't standing in a dock facing a judge. And nobody is saying he should be.
No, but being placed on that list is effectively treating him as someone who has, and was found guilty.