Nude Cheerleaders

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   


Parents of two WA state Bothell High School cheerleaders have sued the Northshore School District, alleging school officials erred when they suspended the girls from the team this year after nude photos of them circulated throughout the student body via text message.


First off, how dumb can you be, picture messaging nude pictures. What I find disturbing about this article is that the school punished only the girls, not the football team that was actually continuing to spread the photos. I think the football players are fairly lucky they are not being charged with distributing child pornography. I'm also not sure how I feel about a school punishing people for what they do at home. I realize the pictures were probably shown at school but still. One of the pictures was three years old, wouldn't there be some sort of statute of limitations?



One of the photos was taken three years ago, according to court documents. Showing the girl topless, it was sent to her then-boyfriend's phone in the summer of 2005. Later that summer, the picture accidentally was distributed to other Bothell High students, according to her lawsuit.


One more thing that I take issue with is this:



In August, school administrators received copies of both photos. The two sides dispute who first contacted police -- the school or the girls' parents -- and whether the parents were properly notified of the incident.


What do you think ATS?
Source

[edit on 25-11-2008 by Raustin]



+13 more 
posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Raustin
 


Have you got any of the photos to help the discussion?



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Nope, and if I did I would be pretty secretive due to the legal issues!



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Raustin
 


A google photo search has yielded nothing.
I thank you for getting my hopes up.


Maybe if I search "Brothel High School"



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by Raustin
 


Have you got any of the photos to help the discussion?


Do you really think ATS needs child porn hosted here? Because, technically, that's what it is.

So, how long have you been into Child Porn?


On-topic, I have only this to say.


Kids are dumb. Thank goodness most grow out of it. If you take a picture of yourself nude, or in comprimising positions, and then SEND that pic to someone, why would you assume they won't pass it on to someone else.

Lessons learned the hard way are tough to forget. Hopefully.

Cuhail



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Why are the football team not being charged with having the pictures? Is it because they are the schools "pride" or something



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I suppose they are the schools 'pride' but I still find it pretty pathetic that only the girls got suspended and for something that happened so long ago. I know kids are dumb, but I still think the school should but out.



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Well considering no one was good enough to link the story, I thought I'd do it.


Edit - cos I'm a brit, and we don't usually go in for all that cheerleading and school sports the way yanks do - how old are cheerleaders any way? 18-19 I always thought



[edit on 25/11/2008 by Now_Then]



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Now_Then

Edit - cos I'm a brit, and we don't usually go in for all that cheerleading and school sports the way yanks do - how old are cheerleaders any way? 18-19 I always thought



[edit on 25/11/2008 by Now_Then]


There are cheerleaders of all ages. In this case, the age of the girls are below 18... which makes it "child pornography" in the U.S.



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bvproductions
There are cheerleaders of all ages. In this case, the age of the girls are below 18... which makes it "child pornography" in the U.S.


Strange I always wondered where in the laws the Beauty Pageants fitted,

I suppose if its a seven year old wearing make up, a mini skirt, lipstick, blusher, a thong, heels and smiles and parades in a "certain" way to a group of middle aged male "Judges" whilst being given points its ok, as long as these children are wearing the heels, miniskirt and bright red top, makeup....and act in a "certain way".


God forbid a 17 yr old and 300 day old WOMAN who has given birth to a child and married her Cousin Bob in certain states having a NUDE picture of herself, bloody perverts its sick castrate all those vile onlookers now...

I hear some of those "safe" pageants are funded by business and also judged by some mayors in the US too....

Im glad for the transparency and fairness and un hypocritical nature, of the legal system in this regard....


Sickened

Elf.

PS brit poster the link has no photos of the 17 yr old WOMEN im afraid


[edit on 25-11-2008 by MischeviousElf]



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by MischeviousElf
 


300 day?? that would be less than one year old - Did you mean 3,000 (three thousand) that would be 8+ years


edit - oh sorry I get you, 17 + 300 days = nearly 18... my bad.

[edit on 25/11/2008 by Now_Then]



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 




Ohmigod you owe me for a new keyboard!



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Now_Then
 


Yeah I was a little confused by the 300 day old child thing as well.
2nd line



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
The school should be aware of such activities to prevent further malicious acts........



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuhail

Do you really think ATS needs child porn hosted here? Because, technically, that's what it is.


Would it be? Is it Federal or State?

Seems a little strange if the girls were 16, a legal age of consent for them (depending on State), but sharing naked photos of themselves with boys they could legally have sex with, would be deemed child porn.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
In fact, this reminds me so much of another thread. Sharing a nude picture of yourself with your beaux is not pornography. It may be some kind of foreplay, but that's about it. Pornography is an industry. Money is exchanged. This entire thing is beyond stupid. Basically, no crime has taken place, since the teenagers are old enough to be having sex. But, since the photos were given to a boyfriend in a personal manner, and he shared them with his friends, it seems that a learning lesson was accomplished, and embarrassing one too most girls I've met. Absolute end of story! The school should have a lot more discretion and tact than what it's showing.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
What a name for a high school, eh? It's kind of strange that the school didn't quite bother to contact the parents the moment they appeared to be aware of this issue. It seems, and this is the saddest part, that they just wanted to stay out of it and relinquish any chance they might be held responsible for the incident. I understand where some teachers feel it is not their job, but personally I feel the unions have been selecting for employees, who are rather uncreative, lazy and apathetic, and wouldn't bother involving themselves beyond their job description. It sure does make sense for purposes of efficient striking. Securing the best wages often means sacrificing the best teachers, and by extension, the health of the student's learning environment.

[edit on 27-11-2008 by cognoscente]



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Raustin
 


Seems to me that current American cultural thinking is that you had better not be nude. Ever. Perhaps Americans had better start showering with bathing suits on (after all, being alone in your own home is no excuse for nudity!) and making sure that if they have to be naked, they close their eyes so they don't see. Remember, if God had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that... uuuhh never mind.

Seriously, the US obsession with nudity is preposterous. It's not like these girls were selling nude pictures of themselves or performing their cheerleading routines naked, what they were doing was private and someone else screwed it up. I suspect that with hangups like this, the US as a country needs to get laid.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Can't really see this thread attracting many views.

Perhaps go for a catchier title next time OP.






posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Cuhail

Do you really think ATS needs child porn hosted here? Because, technically, that's what it is.


Would it be? Is it Federal or State?

Seems a little strange if the girls were 16, a legal age of consent for them (depending on State), but sharing naked photos of themselves with boys they could legally have sex with, would be deemed child porn.

Im a dad I have 2 little kid I would not want them having naked pictures at 16 or any other age, but I guess eventually it will be none of my business.
I am not interested in younger girls however, I believe the law is weird.
Here, at 32, I am legally allowed to have sex with a 16yo.
However I am not allowed to have naked pictures of someone who is 17 and 11 months.
My friend who is 20, his gf is 17, put a topless pic of her on his web page blog thing.
I don't know why I guess they are exhibitionists.
Anyway he was charged with possession of child pornography of a topless pic of his own girlfriend.

And they live together.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join