Quantcast
Utah

Porn text: accident or negligent crime?

Comments

Return To Article
  • Funnyguy..
    Jan. 25, 2009 12:27 a.m.

    One time, accident...come-on mom...don't you remember when you were 17 and saw something...gees..get a life and stop whining..text back and say if you send this againg and I will call the cops..2 time, yes...call the cops

  • Bot
    Jan. 25, 2009 2:28 a.m.

    All pornography should be illegal. It has no socially redeeming value, and has been shown to be harmful to innocent victims. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer what caused him to murder dozens of people!

  • Boyd
    Jan. 25, 2009 4:13 a.m.

    Oh yes, by all means Bot, let's take what a serial killer claims caused him to murder dozens of people as reason for his criminal mindset. With all the porn out there, I'm surprised we don't have millions of mass murderers just running around killing everyone they can.

  • Where is the neglegence?
    Jan. 25, 2009 4:21 a.m.

    This mom and the police are going overboard. And why deos the mom allow the minor a device that she does not control? The mother is more guilty of neglegence than an accidental phone call. I'm sure she has receiveid a few accidental calls herself intended for a different number. There is no neglegence involved by the sender, they must prove he knew this minor to prove neglegence or intentions. As for pornography, that's subject to interpertatiion by each individual. Puritans are more offended than open minded individuals. Sex and the human body is nothing to be ashamed of, shame only creates mental problems and this mom is suffering big time. If the mother wants to shelter her children from reality then she should take full responsibilty and take the picture phone away from her minor child so the minor child isn't tempted to produce her own pictures to send to her freiends and unsuspecting receipents.

  • 3arwax
    Jan. 25, 2009 6:22 a.m.

    Pornography is a drug that is ingested on sight. Once somebody has ingested it there is not way to remove it from their mind. I believe that the number is around 90% have viewed pornography by the time they are 16. When are we as a nation going to realize the damage this is doing to our population and get rid of this great evil?

  • Get a life, people
    Jan. 25, 2009 7:54 a.m.

    I hope you modern-day Puritans never do anything wrong accidentally.

    Then again, the more I think about it the more I fervently hope you get a politically-ambitious prosecutor who turns your "innocent mistake" into a felony case.

  • Accident
    Jan. 25, 2009 8:29 a.m.

    It was an ACCIDENT!
    Leave the poor guy alone!

  • dave
    Jan. 25, 2009 8:48 a.m.

    There is no victim here.

  • huktonphonix
    Jan. 25, 2009 9:08 a.m.

    Ahhhhh... how did we ever grow up without cell phones? None of my children have had or will have cell phones, and they seem to be getting along just fine. Ditto to what mom said. "In our day, we had a name for people like this guy..."

  • Doc
    Jan. 25, 2009 9:22 a.m.

    Bot your argument holds no water. Porn movies are seen more than Hollywood movies--and makes more money. We aren't a country full of homicidal manics. Besides, no one said this was porn. It was a picture of a body part.

    But lets take a step back. Hasn't anyone either prank called someone or received a prank call? So if you said something dirty you could go to jail? You can say this isn't apples to apples comparison--but it is based on how technology has changed. The problem is that the law doesn't change quickly enough. Leaving this guy in limbo.

  • Wow!
    Jan. 25, 2009 9:30 a.m.

    So much vitriol against the mom here! What I wonder is how many of you attacking the mom of this girl are doing so because you have sent pornographic pictures through your phones as well?

    Or maybe you are just trying to pick a fight.

    The guy sent a previous text to the girl before sending the picture. Why didn't he wait for an acknowledgment of the text before sending the picture? The picture of his genitals should be kept private. Why didn't he insure the person receiving the text actually WANTED to see the picture?

    The thought of getting a picture message like that, whether on purpose or by accident, is just plain icky.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2009 9:56 a.m.

    A friend of mine accidentally sent a picture of his "geneter" (by the way, are these people so sheltered and/or ignorant that they don't know the innocuous word, "genitals"?) to his entire phonebook. Reaction from everyone, including his mother: "That's gross."

    And no police were called...

    Everyone has accidents. If it happens twice it's intentional. This is a misguided moral crusade, and someone is trying to harm a man's life to make a point. That's disgusting.

  • Calm down
    Jan. 25, 2009 10:28 a.m.

    It was a stupid mistake, but it shouldn't be considered a felony.

  • JanSan
    Jan. 25, 2009 10:39 a.m.

    I don't think that the person who sent this picture should have been prosecuted for sending the picture to the wrong person - except that the picture was of a pornagraphy nature. This should not be on text phones at all!!!! They should make it illegal to be sending porn over text messaging.

    Porn is porn - and it should be taken more seriously.

    This man should be held accountable of sending a porn text period !! no matter who it ended up with.

    YES!!!! there is a victim here! The girl who got the pornographic text - who will have that image in her brain for some time to come... she is a victim - how can you be so callous? Just because you enjoy porn does not mean everyone else does - nor do they want to. Some people think that it is absolutly horrible and their rights are just as important as yours. If you want porn - fine it's your life - have your trash - just don't force it on other people!!!! GROW UP !!!

  • not so fast
    Jan. 25, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    Sending 2 wrong messages to the same number, back to back? The second more graphic than the 1st? With no reply in between? The guy is either majorly stupid or was trolling.

    Before judging too harshly, I would want to know if the number was stored or typed. If typed, where is it written down or how did he get it? I would also want to know the number of the person he thought he was sending it to and whether that number was stored.

    Some may say it was 'innocent'. I say the jury is still out.

  • jumpin' jack
    Jan. 25, 2009 10:53 a.m.

    ..someone is guilty of the crime when they either know the victim is minor or "having negligently failed to determine the proper age of a minor."

    This is a no brainer. The man did not know nor could he know who he was mistakenly sending the photo to, so how could even find the girl to to determine her age?

    Perhaps mother and daughter could file a civil suit but no law was broken.

  • BH
    Jan. 25, 2009 11:11 a.m.

    Those who send pornographic images over cell phones take an inherint risk of sending it to the wrong number. And with that risk, there is an inherint responsibility.

    Those who participate in pornography make a conscious decision to do so. Those who choose to not do so should not be required to have such smut forced upon them by no choice of their own.

    Next time he better be 100%, and not one iota less, of the destination.

    If you go out in the country for some target practice, and due to carelessness, shoot out the windows of someone's truck, you still have to pay the damages. Hit the accelerator instead of the brake in a parking lot, and smash a tail light on another car, you pay the damages. Sorry, but carelessness is no excuse.

  • Chuck
    Jan. 25, 2009 11:30 a.m.

    It should be a crime REGARDLESS of whom it is sent to. Porn is a cancer that is rotting the foundation out from under America.

  • Jason
    Jan. 25, 2009 12:33 p.m.

    Jumpin jack is right. The mother needs to file a civil suit. Monetary damage will be enough to ensure that this guy dials safely in the future. The money can go to counseling if this girl is as traumatized as she seems to be. This guy doesnt deserve jail time. I agree with the people who said that this girl shouldnt have a cell phone. When you have a cell phone, or you have the internet, or email, you can reasonably expect that these things have certain risks associated with them. You cant expect that you will never receive pornographic email or see pornographic images on the computer. It happens. The best thing to do is TEACH your children what it is and that you dont approve. Tell them you wont be angry if they accidentally see it but that they should delete it. They are right, this is a different world. We need to teach our kids how to defend themselves from the inevitable accidents and not provide the technology unless WE understand the corresponding risks. You cant expect the world to protect your children, that is your job

  • Nude Pictures are not harmful
    Jan. 25, 2009 12:36 p.m.

    In Europe they have nude bodies, showing all the parts painted on the ceilings of the churches. In Europe the children don't seem to be any worse for it.

    Everyone says this material is harmful. I don't believe it.

    How is a child harmed by seeing this material? How is a child harmed by going to church in Europe?

    Perhaps by hearing they will go to hell forever unless they do this or don't do that, but not by the pictures.

  • re Chuck | 11:30 a.m.
    Jan. 25, 2009 12:39 p.m.

    "Porn is a cancer that is rotting the foundation out from under America".

    Porn is not a cancer, it serves a useful purpose. There was a time when my wife was withdrawn. Porn saved my marriage, allowed me to endure this period, and kept me from looking for another woman.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2009 12:44 p.m.

    De-sensitize yourselves, Utah! This incident is not about whether pornography is good or bad, but whether someone made a mistake or not

  • Just back from Spain
    Jan. 25, 2009 12:52 p.m.

    I just got back from Spain. There, at 10:00 p.m. movies that we consider porn are shown on regular t.v. I was a bit offended because of my beliefs. However, I did not see where there were serial killers running amok. Further, there were no reported drive-by shootings in the two weeks I was there. In fact, we were treated kindly by everyone. It was a very safe and pleasant place to visit. So, my new opinion is... if you don't want to watch it, don't. As for the rest of us, be offended if you will, but don't be afraid.

  • Nyal D
    Jan. 25, 2009 12:52 p.m.

    Porn should be illegal?

    Who are you to say what is and is not acceptable speech or expression? Should a pornographer be allowed to restrict the equal rights of a religious person, based on their opinion of the harm that religion causes?

    Let us remember that to be free, you must allow others to be free as well. I agree, shame on this mom for sacrificing an innocent person (innocent of causing actual harm) to her preferences. I maintain that this poor example has harmed her daughter more than any picture of natural body parts that even Jesus had.

  • College student
    Jan. 25, 2009 12:54 p.m.

    Like with all things close-mindedness and censorship cause more problems then those they try and prevent. the girl was 17 yrs old, she should know what male genitals look like and while not necessarily attractive, it shouldn't be perceived as gross or perverted. the responsibility falls on the mom. her puritan ways and beliefs raise her children in an unrealistic fantasy world. this little bubble we live in called Utah is not the entire world. many parts of the world are more acceptable to nudity and there not all mass murderers. i suggest this mom grow up, take responsibility and educate her daughter rather than censor her from everything

  • Religion can be harmful too
    Jan. 25, 2009 1:13 p.m.

    Guns, food, religion, porn, medicine can all be harmful if not used with disgression.

    Free speech and freedom of religion are both protected in the constitution.

    Yes porn sometimes is harmful, but so is religion.

    We have evengelical christians, saying the earth is 12,000 years old, dumbing people down, and saying unless you don't believe as they do, you go to hell forever. Talk about emotional damage !!!

    Porn deserves the same protections it as the Evengelical Christian church. Both have damaged people, both I am sure have improved the quality of life for certain people too, those that needed a sexual lift and those who needed structure in their life, and didn't want or care about the truth.

  • Whatever!
    Jan. 25, 2009 1:14 p.m.

    Sure, porn is just plain stupid. Those who need to engage in it (however they engage in it) are like little men who need big trucks. I know, it's not just men, but what I'm saying is there's something lacking. So I say to those who engage in porn, "YOU need to get a life!" Find someone you really care about and make life real!

    And if parents are going to let their minor children have cell phones, they need to also understand that there are responsibilities and perils that go along with them. There comes a time when we have to let our children experience the world and deal with it how they will. They have to get their own life and live it someday.

    If you're living under a rock, you're missing out on life. Coming out from under the rock doesn't mean you have to always like the view, but under the rock, there is no view.

  • Anne
    Jan. 25, 2009 2:20 p.m.

    The man who sent pictures of his genetalia is lonely, confused and a sicko.

    Pornography destroys marriages and families. It objectifies women and creates unreal expectations.

    Based on comments from this board, our society is in deep trouble. Pornography is a poison that might be more damaging than cocaine. At least cocaine can eventually leave the system. Those who disagree with this truth are in complete denial and are unwilling to see.

  • Ema
    Jan. 25, 2009 2:24 p.m.

    It would be interesting to know how similar the phone number of the teenager was to the number he meant to send it to, since I'm assuming his argument is that he just hit a wrong number somewhere in there. What I'm wondering is why the guy was sending a naked pic to someone not already saved in his phonebook. You know? Was he sending it to someone who's number he was just barely given? If so, I find that very funny/weird.

  • re Jason | 12:33 p.m.
    Jan. 25, 2009 2:48 p.m.

    "Jumpin jack is right. The mother needs to file a civil suit".

    I think the guy who sent these pictures needs to file a suit against the mother and the police for blowing this who thing out of proportion. If people would start doing this we wouldn't have frivolous lawsuits and prosecutions.

    What actual harm does it do a 17 year old or any child to see body parts? Go to any art museum, they are all over the place, and as one poster here said, even in the churches of Europe.

  • Matt
    Jan. 25, 2009 3:03 p.m.

    Do you people realize that if this guy gets convicted he will forever be a sex offender? Doesn't seem like he deserves to have is life ruined and to be mentioned with rapists and pedophiles.

  • RE:RE: Chuck
    Jan. 25, 2009 3:06 p.m.

    You were looking at another women, someone elses daughter, perhaps, someone elses wife, with lust.

    Explain to me again how that is okay.

  • Jess
    Jan. 25, 2009 3:07 p.m.

    When I was in the army, I was occasionally subjected to porn just because of the nature of our living quarters. Some was soft and some was shockingly gross (none of it looked like paintings in a European church). Those gross images are still, after 40 years, part of my memory--inprinted on my cerebral cortex and I don't appreciate it. I don't intentionally try to remember these images but things come up such as this article and the memory does come up. It hasn't done me permanent damage at all, but I don't know what it might have done if I was younger or more impressionable. Porn is porn and people young or old who don't want to view it, shouldn't be subjected to it--even by accident. And I doubt this was an accident--TWO messages were sent to this girl. What are the chances that you are going to misdial the same number twice in a row? Some are defending this pervert, but would you like him living next door to you and your family?

  • Whatever!
    Jan. 25, 2009 3:16 p.m.

    Interesting thought, Ema! I think sometimes kids play and play with fire until they get burned, then go running to their parents.

    Anne, I agree porn is worse than drugs. I agree our society is in deep trouble. What's new?

    The truth is, very sad to say, porn is a fact of life. No one has been able to fix it on my watch over the past 50+ years. It's like tornadoes. No one has found a way to stop them, but they have learned how to prepare themselves and their families against them.

    So what I'm saying is, and I am religious by the way, yes, let's fight porn, but let's especially teach our children how to prepare themselves for the day when it hits them---and it will.

    Let's not deny either, that Utah does porn. Let's not deny that some of the very parents who say we need to fight porn are hooked on it.

    So let's talk about integrity. Is what we are saying a true reflection of what we are actually doing?

    Something to think about!

  • LEWD CONDUCT
    Jan. 25, 2009 3:25 p.m.

    IT WAS LEWD CONDUCT WITH A MINOR, INTENTIONAL OR NOT.

  • ema
    Jan. 25, 2009 3:47 p.m.

    I was wondering the same thing; I wonder the homology among the actual number to the intended number and if the intended recipient could verify that he/she could expect a text of such diverse nature from the sender.

    If this man cannot provide a number similar to the one he intended to send to he should receive some form of citation.

    I have no problem with porn and people using technology to communicate their awkward lusts for one another, to each their own. However, if this man was trolling or procured the girls number elsewhere and intended to send the picture to this girl, than the mother does have a case, a neurotic, protective case, but a case nonetheless.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2009 4:35 p.m.

    The Mom and daughter aren't the ones with a problem here. It's the idiot who thinks other people actually care about what he looks like nekkid. Sounds like he's the one with a mental problem. He's nothing more than a high tech flasher.

  • 2 nude pics aren't harmful
    Jan. 25, 2009 4:41 p.m.

    Okay then let's let every single flasher prowl any park they want to and expose themselves to whoever they want to. According to your logic, kids aren't traumatized by seeing nudity. There is a difference between art and porn. There's a difference between loving spouses seeing a nude person and some creepy pervert exposing themselves. I've never seen artwork in a church or museum that shows only the sexual areas of the body. That art shows the entire body in it's natural splendor and isn't intended for sexual arousal.

  • Get a life
    Jan. 25, 2009 4:50 p.m.

    I'm so sick of people who talk Christian values and than judge other people without compassion and forgiveness. The girl needs to grow up, she'll see worse in college art class and the guy needs to grow up and be more careful. Some people are just too judging. This is not a crime its a mistake, not worthy of newspaper print. Oh, by the way I'm LDS.

  • Anonymous
    Jan. 25, 2009 4:51 p.m.

    My kids and I have cell phones. I pay the bill so I can use the phone how I want to, not to receive porn on. I think cell phones are a wonderful invention. We need a do not send porn list just like we have a do not call registry for our phones. I used to get very frustrated with the intrusive and interupting phone solicitors who used my phone to advertise on. Fax machines were used to send ads on until they passed a law making it illegal because the fax owner was using his ink and paper to print useless advertising. I hope there is a way to block texts from coming from a number that isn't preapproved.

  • A Religious Dad
    Jan. 25, 2009 6:00 p.m.

    This guy is obviously lonely and sick. The problem is that he didnt break the law unless it was intentionally sent to this girl. If they dont know each other it would be very hard to prove that it was intentional.

    If you care about protecting your children DONT give them cell phones. If they have to have a cell phone DONT give them text. The phone company can stop the texts if you ask them not to provide text service. Your kids dont NEED text. But if you are really serious about them not seeing anything counter to your beliefs you need to home school them, disallow friends who havent passed serious evaluation by yourself or a professional, dont give them access to a computer, and dont let them leave the house without you. Otherwise they WILL see things you dont approve of, guaranteed. Questionable media is everywhere. I feel bad for this generation of kids. Not only is the world more deprave than ever, but we are raising a generation of morality wimps who wont have the conviction or fortitude to protect themselves or their children.

  • Cocaine in my brain
    Jan. 25, 2009 6:10 p.m.

    Anne says, "Pornography is a poison that might be more damaging than cocaine. At least cocaine can eventually leave the system."

    As a recovering cocaine addict, I agree the drug eventually leaves the system, however, there are still times when I think, "That high would be great."

    Pretty strong words to say "Those who disagree with this truth are in complete denial and are unwilling to see."

    Obviously you don't KNOW the truth and are in complete denial in thinking that you see and know all.

  • Technology
    Jan. 25, 2009 6:18 p.m.

    Jess: Do you have a cell phone?

    "And I doubt this was an accident--TWO messages were sent to this girl. What are the chances that you are going to misdial the same number twice in a row?"

    All you have to do is go into your text history or dialing history ... you don't have to actually re-dial the same number, you can merely click on the last one. Hmm ... technology, a funny thing it is.

    Yeah, I wouldn't want to receive a photo text with genitals, but hey ... the phone also has a delete button. How handy is that?!

  • Sarah
    Jan. 25, 2009 9:43 p.m.

    The mother is wrong. Her child is the minor and her child is the one with the cell phone...therefore the parent (mother) should be restricting who can call her daughter over trying to make all cell phone content "child friendly".

    The U.S. government TRIED to make all the internet "child friendly" but the courts saw through that and put the responsibility where it belongs...with the parents to protect their own children! The courts chose not to violate the free speech of adults on the internet! The same thing applies to cell phones.

    Now we could solve this easily by banning all cell phones for anyone under the age of 18 and then no harmful material could come to the eyes of the minor. And why is there no nanny software for the cellphones of teenage users like there is for computers? If teenagers must have cellphones, then the restrictions should be placed on them to receive only callers or content approved by the parent...and then there would be no danger of them receiving adult material by accident!

  • sorry people
    Jan. 25, 2009 10:06 p.m.

    but, this guy was just testing the boundries of society and he lost.

  • Please...
    Jan. 25, 2009 10:35 p.m.

    I enjoy reading these comments, but please, check your spelling and grammar before submitting your comments. It is far easier to digest an opinion when translation is not necessary. It also lends more credibility to you, the author.

  • Debbie
    Jan. 26, 2009 7:30 a.m.

    As a mom, I can understand why this mom took it to the police. Personally, I wouldn't have handled it this way but to each their own. I actually received such a text and picture a few months ago. I handled it by calling the number back and letting the person know that what they had done was potentially illegal, how I felt, and let them know I would be saving the number and if anyone else I knew received such a thing then we would go to the police. The guy was fortified and terribly embarressed. As for letting my children have cell phones, each of them was added onto our plan when they started driving alone for their safety. If I considered them mature enough to drive they could handle a cell phone. I commend this young lady for going to her mom. Seems like they have an open and trusting relationship.

  • Andrew
    Jan. 26, 2009 10:44 a.m.

    Many times I have sent a text to the wrong number by switching a number or two up. Im not a big fan of porn but it is under peoples freedom of speech as long as they are not maliciously trying to offended others. Here a simple mistake that has been blown out of proportion due to this mother trying to force her morals or ideas of what she feels is right or wrong on to other people who dont share the same view. get off your personal vendetta and find something more constructive to do with you time. Stop trying to destroy others lives because you are a vindictive unhappy woman who probably sees this as an opportunity to make some money when she tries to take it to civil court. get a life.

  • Whitney
    July 13, 2009 8:47 p.m.

    Wait...are we living in the US? Oh wait, thats right we do have freedom...right?

    I personally don't believe the government has any say to what I send-or don't send through txt. If I want to send a picture of myself to my husband should that be considered a crime?

    If underage children are sending unappropriate pictures I believe this problem should be resolved by the parents; not any concern to the government.

    People are always going to find a way to abuse innocence-why punish those who are doing no harm...