“That’s when I got angry,” she said during a disciplinary hearing, per the AP. The teenager admitted to attacking the student suspected of creating the AI photos and encouraging others to join her. As a result of her actions, the district sent her to an alternative school for 10 weeks.
According to a release from the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office, a male student is now facing 10 counts of unlawful dissemination of images created by artificial intelligence, and more charges could come.
She was suspended by the school for fighting. The boy was charged by the Sheriff’s office for crimes on AI nudes. The title is misleading to the point of misinformation.
Edit to add: I think there’s a lot of people missing the order of events here. When she was suspended they obviously knew about the fight. But at that moment the AI nudes were an accusation and there was no proof at that time. So they suspend the girl for the fight and give the investigation of AI nudes to the sheriff’s office because phone unlocking needs a warrant. The boy is later charged.
Tbh it sounds like a reasonably proportionate response. Just take any weapons off her and make her stop if she knocks him out. It would be a learning experience for the lad.
Misleading but not inaccurate. The girl was the victim of sexual harassment boarding on sexual assault and the school chose to do nothing. It was only AFTER she escalated the situation that anyone in a position of authority took notice.
Misleading when it makes you think situation x instead of reality y is misinformation. You have to jump through some serious mental hoops to say it’s accurate when it misleads you. “Oh oh oh that was on you I just tricked you that’s all”. Now how people looked into AI nudes is an entirely different matter. Honestly that you had to muddy the two together, well see the start of this response because you’re trying it too. Ciao.
But it creates outrage, and that’s what lemmy posts are made for. These people love being pissed off
I’ve noticed that Lemmy is actually getting worse than Reddit with all this propaganda. There’s just no comparable scale of moderation due to the way federated servers splinter mod teams.
The boy had “nude” photos of a 13 year old. Seems like child porn to me and not just AI nudes.
That’s “zero tolerance” for you. I remember getting in trouble for fighting back against a bully while they didn’t get in trouble (or in as much trouble).
I think there’s a lot of people missing the order of events here. When she was suspended they obviously knew about the fight. But the AI nudes were an accusation and there was no proof at that time. So they suspend the girl for the fight and give the investigation of AI nudes to the sheriff’s office because phone unlocking needs a warrant.
I think there’s a lot of people missing the order of events here.
If you only read the OP article, I think that’s a reasonable conclusion.
But the AI nudes were an accusation and there was no proof at that time.
Read the linked AP article. They had many complaints/accusations, and corroborating photos and video from the bus available to them before they decided to suspend her, and before they sent her to the alternative school.
Yeah, zero tolerance might as well just be called zero thought or zero effort.
It would be ironic that schools so often pick the policy that avoids thought if I still believed schools were about teaching kids to think.
The title is not misleading in the least. The school took no actions against the boy. They did against her. The title has nothing to do with the Sheriff’s Office.
Wonder why it was the Sheriff’s office that took actions against the boy instead of the school? Because AI nudes are a crime. Not some minor school infraction. JFC. It’s jurisdiction if you really need it spelled out. And, the school took action against her for fighting, not because AI nudes were made of her like the title suggests.
“Instigation” and “Incitement” are crimes. It was the boy’s unreasonable and criminal acts of harassment against her that drove her to engage in the physical altercation. Those acts constitute “instigation”, and make him criminally responsible for the altercation.
Do they have proof of instigation or incitement or criminal acts? No, they have an accusation. Pretty sure you need a warrant to force students to unlock their phones. That’s the whole issue and that’s why it goes to the sheriff’s office to get that proof. They know she started a fight though. Y’all seriously need to understand some basic legal principles.
They know she started a fight though.
It was his egregious, deplorable, and criminal acts of harassment against her that caused her to engage in a physical altercation that she otherwise would not have engaged. That makes him responsible for the assault, not her.
I think you need to read a little more on the concepts like “instigation” and “incitement”. The actor is not always the person legally or criminally responsible for their actions.
I would remind you that she isn’t being charged: the state does not think she committed battery.
Did you read anything else I said? Proof. You need proof of AI nudes. You need a warrant to get proof. Without proof it’s an accusation. Ok I’m leaving this conversation because you refuse to read.
*Is it the order of events that has you confused? Event 1) the accusation. Event 2) the fight leading to the suspension. There is no proof of AI nudes at this point. Event 3) at a date far after the suspension, the sheriff’s investigation does get the proof. But the suspension is now in the past. Ok that’s as much goodwill I’m going to give you. Out.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. The school had to take some sort of action quickly after the fight, and you believe they didn’t have the full evidence available at that time. You’re arguing that they did the best they could with the information they had at the time.
Did you happen to click any of the links in the article?
She just felt like she was victimized multiple times — by the pictures and by the school not believing her and by them putting her on a bus and then expelling her for her actions,” her father, Joseph Daniels, said in an interview.
From that link:
When the girl stepped onto the bus 15 minutes later, the boy was showing the AI-generated images to a friend. Fake nude images of her friends were visible on the boy’s phone, the girl said, a claim backed up by a photo taken on the bus. A video from the school bus showed at least a half-dozen students circulating the images, said Martin, the superintendent, at a school board meeting.
The preponderance of the evidence available to the school at the time she was suspended was in her favor, and against the boy. Yet they chose to take action against her rather than him.
Does any of that win me a little more goodwill on the timeline?
I would note that the school had fucked up before the physical altercation, by putting her and her harasser in close proximity on the same bus, effectively unsupervised, after they were aware of the complaints she made against him.
Sexual harassment and bullying are absolutely something schools have the capacity to punish. Don’t be absurd.
And when it gets severe enough it warrants, oh I don’t know let’s just think here, an actual criminal investigation and actual judicial proceedings. You don’t want to (and can’t) leave criminal investigations up to some measly school admin. Don’t be absurd indeed. I’m gonna leave this conversation because you have no idea how things work. You fell for the clickbait and can’t get yourself out of it.
The school is entirely capable of adding shit on top. They literally don’t even need an investigation to suspend a kid.
They didn’t even protect the victim when it was their jurisdiction.
I believe you need a warrant (read judge) to force students to unlock their phone. So no I don’t believe they have jurisdiction or even the ability to investigate properly. That’s why it went to actual law enforcement.
We live in a rape culture. I know because almost every woman I know has experienced it and we are punished for standing up to it.
Is there a socialist kind of solution? NOT being insensitive, just being curious.
No. This is why those leftists who think all problems are class problems fail.
Why?
not rape, sexualized.
these kids wouldn’t think this way if the content that was pushed on them wasn’t so hypersexualized.
I saw a 8 year old “twerking” at a school event. how’d they learn that? who showed them it? where is their parent, and why aren’t they teaching them this is inappropriate? why aren’t any of the school chaperones stepping in?
I’m not saying ban the content, I’m saying parents need to be more responsible. I’m saying we have a socioeconomic problem that hinders parents from teaching their kids morals and instead the kids are being brainwashed by corporate interests to sell more and increase profits. they’re doing that by selling sex as a commodity, and the children are watching it then imitating it.
Is there a socialist kind of solution? NOT being insensitive, just asking.
a UBI would help immensely, along with free healthcare and childcare.
most adults work two, sometimes three, jobs just to make ends meet. that leaves them too exhausted or unavailable to care for their children properly.
I believe the first step towards reversing the collapse of our society begins with giving children a chance of more time with their parents.
Try to get away from monomaniacal thinking. It’s the downfall of any worldview. The Nazis and Hitler had their own obsession. They saw absolutely all of history, progress, struggle, everything as a grand story of race against race. They found ways to interpret every problem or historical event as a race struggle.
In the same way, one can myopically paint everything as a class struggle. But the truth is some things just aren’t related to class. And if you myopically view the world as only one of class struggle, you end up making the same kind of unforced errors that the Nazis did when they tried to approach everything from a race-based lens.
If the US were a socialist/communist society, we would’ve had more classes and lessons on respect and consent. Seriously!
That girl’s parents should sue the school district. Seriously!
Can I get a “didn’t read the article” for 20 pence and 5 shillings?
They should sue the district. Absolutely.
“Instigation” is a crime. The boy instigated the physical altercation with his truly deplorable and criminal acts of harassment against her. Her actions were not unreasonable given his instigation. He is criminally responsible for the altercation.
Signaling the “saved you a click” squad
Ah, so the US is going all-in on accepting child porn? Okay…
Removed by mod
Since the ratification of the 26th amendment.
Yes, thirteen year olds are children.
They expected the victim to endure what they personally would not. Pretty typical for lousyana.
ITT: We victim blame.
The principal, Danielle Coriell, said an investigation came up cold that day as no student took responsibility. The deputy assigned to the school searched social media for the images unsuccessfully, according to a recording of the disciplinary hearing.
“I was led to believe that this was just hearsay and rumors,” the girl’s father said, recounting a conversation he had that morning with the school counselor.
But the girl was miserable, and a police incident report showed more girls were reporting that they were victims, too. The 13-year-old returned to the counselor in the afternoon, asking to call her father. She said she was refused.
When the girl stepped onto the bus 15 minutes later, the boy was showing the AI-generated images to a friend. Fake nude images of her friends were visible on the boy’s phone, the girl said, a claim backed up by a photo taken on the bus. A video from the school bus showed at least a half-dozen students circulating the images, said Martin, the superintendent, at a school board meeting.
ITT: We leave out the reasons for things that happened to shape the narrative into what we prefer.
Fed up, she attacked a boy on the bus, inviting others to join her
She physically assaulted someone and tried to get others to join in and got punished for it. Being a victim of one thing doesn’t justify becoming a perpetrator of something else.
Frankly, I would support a law where someone making nonconsensual nudes of you is legal justification to literally kill them.
People support all kinds of foolish and stupid things.
She went to the authorities, who did absolutely nothing, so she was FORCED to take matters into her own hands. If I were her parents, I couldn’t be prouder of her. I’d take her out to dinner anywhere she wants, then take her to a lawyer.
It was not forced. She chose to. She could have coped in ways other than violence. Failure of the system to resolve things in a way you prefer is not justification for violent assault. It’s just barbarism.
Instigation. She is not being charged because she is not responsible for the assault. His deplorable and criminal acts of harassment against her make him criminally responsible for her attack.
You do not get to harass someone so egregiously and incessantly as to instigate a physical altercation, and then call them “barbaric” for having attacked you.
She wasn’t charged because the police have discretion and the victim of her assault can still press charges. That doesn’t mean she didn’t commit a crime or that she absolved of responsibility. It is not other people’s responsibility for how you react to how you feel, it’s yours to manage your behavior, even when people hurt your feelings.
victim of her assault can still press charges.
He can be charged with assault and battery, due to his instigation of the physical altercation.
It is not other people’s responsibility for how you react to how you feel
That is true only as a general condition, not an absolute one. There are certainly exceptions. “Instigation” is one such exception.
He would never be found guilty and charges would not be pressed. He absolutely didn’t do anything to satisfy incitement. Incitement is for encouraging people to do violence or commit crimes, like she tried to do when assaulting someone. This is not a circumstance where personal responsibility is abdicated. She should not have viciously attacked someone over pictures that aren’t even her.
When peaceful resolution is made impossible, violent resolution becomes inevitable.
There is no resolution through violence.
There is no resolution through violence.
Tell that to over half a million Jews circa 1930s.
Okay, killing Jews wasn’t a resolution to the Nazi beleif in a “Jew problem”.
I mean, if they’re in the ground, they won’t be making nonconsensual porn anymore. That sounds like a pretty damn effective resolution if I ever heard one. Brian Robert Thompson hasn’t murdered anyone in months, and that guy killed tens of thousands of innocent people.
And you’ll be in prison for life. What a great resolution.
Being a victim of one thing doesn’t justify becoming a perpetrator of something else.
From the article:
the female victim will not face charges in the attack.
She faces no charges; she is not a perpetrator. Let’s be very fucking clear on this point: nothing she did has been determined to have been “illegal”. Since her actions don’t violate law, we are left with discussing only morality and ethicality.
tried to get others to join in
Yes, she did. The first entity she asked to “join in” was the school itself. She asked the school for help. The school was given ample opportunity to end the harassment, and refused. Only after the school’s refusal did she ask anyone else to help stop the harassment.
As soon as the school failed to act, she became ethically justified in acting directly to end the harassment. She became ethically justified in requesting the help of others to aid her in that effort.
Your entire argument stopped being valid the moment the school failed to adequately intervene against the harasser.
She is still a perpetrator, she doesn’t need to be charged or convicted. She violently assaulted someone. That is not in dispute. That she isn’t charged is a mercy given by society because of the circumstances. The victim of her assault could still press charges if they wished.
Failure of society to address a grievance when it suits you does not justify forming a mob and violently attacking someone. She is not ethically justified violently assaulting someone because her feelings are hurt.
Do you understand the legal concepts of “Instigation” and “incitement”?
The person who throws the punch is not always the person legally responsible for the punch being thrown. When his unreasonable actions rise to the level of “instigation” or “incitement”, he becomes responsible for the actions she takes against him.
So the way she tried to incite others to commit felony assault?
You do understand that she’s not being charged with that, right?
What I am saying is that if I deliberately try to piss you off enough for you to take a swing at me, I become criminally responsible for the violent acts you take against me. That’s “instigation”.
“Instigation” is why she isn’t being charged with assault and battery. She’s not responsible for the violence on the bus. He is.
Nobody joined her so she failed at it and that’s why.
May your days be as interesting as hers.
They have been.
Hey man if you distribute porn of someone non consenting, you deserve at least a solid punch in the face.
What harm is done that is severe enough to justify violence? There was in no imminent threat of physical harm to themselves or others. Nobody is in danger. The content in question also isn’t actually them. Being violent just because your feeling are hurt is barbaric and has no place in a society. Violence is not acceptable.
As soon as society refuses to adequately intervene to stop the harm, any degree of harm justifies any level of force necessary to end that harm. Your position is only valid so long as society is willing to intercede on behalf of the victim.
The content in question also isn’t actually them.
The content in question is harassment at a minimum. It is harm. Serious harm.
Being violent just because your feeling are hurt is barbaric and has no place in a society.
So long as society is willing to intercede against the harm caused by harassers, I agree. Here, that intercession was explicitly denied. The school refused to act. The school failed to even separate or supervise the two parties. Consequently, society lost its ethical justification for criticizing the victim’s efforts to end her victimization. With the school failing to act reasonably or responsibly, we don’t get to criticize the victim’s actions.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Society fails at justice all the time, but it will respond with force and punishment if you take justice into your own hands. The failure of society to adequately address these scenarios is one of the reasons exacting your own justice is unwise, because society will punish you for it, as it did to the girl when she tried. Violence is not acceptable.
So if a man is hurt by a woman and the world doesn’t stop that harm, is any degree of harm justified and any level of force necessary to end that harm, justified?
Yes.
Society fails at justice
I see the problem. You are conflating “stopping harm” with “justice”. There is a massive difference between the two concepts, and we aren’t talking about justice here.
Asking police to stop the woman from keying his car is an attempt to stop harm. Asking the prosecutor to charge her with destruction of property is an attempt to seek justice. You described a scenario where the woman is actively harming the man. He is, indeed, justified in using any level of force necessary to end that harm. You did not describe a scenario where the woman has previously caused harm, but is no longer doing so.
Keep in mind that the boy on the bus was actively engaged in harassing his victim at the time his victim used physical force against him. She was not attempting to retaliate for past harms; she was not attempting to seek justice. She was attempting to end the harm he was in the process of perpetrating.
Then by your reasoning, if a woman rejects a man and she hurts him, he can beat her. Glad that’s clear.
- It’s more than just feelings being hurt, this is illegal.
- What does this oh-so-perfect system do? Punishes wrongdoing. Guess what a fist to the face does.
- The harm done is trauma, that poor girl is probably traumatised for life and will most likely need hours of therapy to deal with something like this. Actions hurt people, threats in the physical realm aren’t the only ones that matter.
- You know what’s barbaric? A society where this sort of antisocial, criminal, traumatising behaviour goes unpunished. This is sexual harassment and the school didn’t want bad press so they just shrugged it off. She was forced to take matters into her own hands when the sexual harassment continued.
- She didn’t lash out of legalities.
- Nobody claimed perfection
- Violence doesn’t heal trauma
- Her actions made the situation worse for herself and likely did not do anything to stop the sharing of images.
the situation didn’t just naturally become worse. it’s only worse because the school shares opinions with you.
It did naturally become worse. That’s what happens by not intervening, nature occurs. Becoming violent when you experience injustice only leads to more problems. It is not a wise or effective response.
Hard disagree. What other option did she have at this point, she tried following proper channels to get the bullying resolved and when that didn’t work, did the only other thing she could.
I would 100% go far further if this arrive to my daughter. I would go yo police reporting school sponsored diffusion of pedo pornography. And ruin the school reputation and have all parents involved. This would make me go thermonuclear.
The system not making her feel better is not justification for violence. Taking justice into ones own hands with violence is not acceptable. Period. We are not barbarians or wild animals. She could have gone to her parents, a counselor or a trusted adult to help her manage her emotions over the situation until a better resolution could be reached. While it is understandable to want to be violent when feelings are hurt, it isn’t acceptable to throw hands, or to encourage others to help you violently assault someone. Her violence will do absolutely nothing to stop the sharing of the photos, it will only appease her momentary desire to lash out, with worse consequences, like getting suspended.
It was foolish, impulsive, unhelpful and unacceptable.
She could have gone to her parents, a counselor or a trusted adult to help her manage her emotions over the situation until a better resolution could be reached.
She did. She fucking did all the things that you say she should have done. She availed herself of all the support structures you say she should have utilized, and they all failed her.
Those parents, counselors, and trusted adults could have helped her “manage her emotions” by separating her from the harasser. Instead, they put the two of them together on a bus, effectively unsupervised. She did everything right. All of the social structures that should have supported her failed, and now you’re all <pikachu face> that the most reasonable course of action she had was direct violence.
The school’s actions were foolish, lazy, unhelpful, and unacceptable. In the specific circumstances she faced, her actions were perfectly reasonable.
Managing emotions can’t be done through external acts, it is an internal act. Those systems she availed to were still working on the issue, instant gratification is not reasonable. Violence is not a reasonable or effective course of action, it is an impulsive and stupid one and it only made her life worse.
To play devil’s advocate, at that point she had photographic evidence of this happening, so she could have gone back to the school/police with it and let them handle it.
Counter devils advocate: our legal system does allow civilians to stop a crime in progress against themselves, physically, even if the crime itself is nonviolent in nature.
For instance, If i witness someone stealing my property, I am allowed to use reasonable, non-deadly force in defense of my property. She faced serious, permanent, and ongoing mental harm, which she had every right to attempt to stop as it occurred
And the police have fundamentaly agreed she was justified in her actions, and upheld this right, as shes not being charged.
(Although personally I think they should threaten school officials with charges of conspiracy after the fact and abetting the dissemination of csam for the expulsion, to force them to recant it.)
You know that psychological pain tramscends into physical pain and often leads to various illneses sometimes even causes cancer, many people cant endure it and commit suicide. You think why victims of bullies often commit suicide? Our brain doesnt distinguish much between psy pain or phys pain. You can even suppress mental pain using tylenol
So everyone gets to throw hands and violently assault people whenever they feel bad, then?
You’re allowed to defend yourself from threatening behavior, such as sexual harassment. That’s why the police are charging the creep making child porn, while the girl who smacked him around is not facing legal consequences.
Only if that danger is physical in nature. Feelings are not an excuse to be violent and she was punished for doing so. Lack of charges is a mercy the police and the victim extended to her given the circumstances, either still have legal standing to charge her. Her victim being charged is a separate, but related, thing.
You sound like you make nudes of women without their permission.
Then you should get your hearing checked. You’re just lashing out with insinuations because your reason is failing you. Will you also call me a doody head and storm off?
I knew there’d be some one like you in here spreading some victim blame around.
The fact that people like the commenter would likely fare much better than me in society makes me want to unlive myself.
If you think accountability is victim blaming then your worldview is not worth listening to.
Schrödinger accountability ? Be harassed and humiliated daily : nothing. Defend yourself : punition. She would have not strike him but the society forced her.
Responding to a non-physical threat with physical violence is not acceptable. Society did not force her, she chose to be violent.
It 100% is: legally, you have the right to physically defend yourself from nonviolent crime- im allowed to hit the guy trying to break into my car if he doesnt stop when I yell at him to do so.
He’s damaging your property and putting your physical security at risk. Both are crimes of violence. It isn’t an emotional crime. If he says something mean, you don’t get to punch him.
When you say ‘society did not force her’, what exactly do you mean by this?
Can you spell out the scenario that you concocted in your head as to how a girl, harshly bullied by having faked nude material of her passed around school without her consent, in front of her, should correctly behave in this situation? Keeping in mind, of course, that she already went to the socially acceptable and correct official channels which did nothing to help her?
Why don’t you ask the poster above what they meant by it and then we can discuss.
Feelings are not an excuse to become violent, even if you don’t see any other option than to suffer.
Can we just criminalise possession of photos, art, or AI art depicting children in sexual situations and teach kids that this is unacceptable behaviour?
At the very least, the boy who made the images should be made to register as a sex offender, and everyone who had the images (whether they shared them or not) should have their phones confiscated and either destroyed, or wiped and given to charity. Preferably to a battered women’s shelter. They should all stand as an example to their peers to teach the school that possessing sexual images of minors (even faked by AI) is not acceptable and they will lose their phones. Any parent who tries to retaliate should be referred to the police — with proof of what their kid(s) had on their phone. So either “take the lesson and walk away, or face potential CSAM-related charges.” I think most parents would opt for the former.
In Switzerland, where I’m from, possession of such material is both criminalised and you’re also taught in school that you need to immediately call the police and delete the photos if you receive them and don’t want major trouble. It seems to me like it’s working pretty well, as I only ever see news of underage people being sexualised in the USA, even though I try to avoid negative news from there as much as possible.
Consider who’s in power in the US. It’s not just DJT, either. There are a whole lot of them in the pyramid who are dirty and corrupt and they keep each others’ secrets and protect each other.
Anime is immediately illegal
They dont HAVE to draw sexualized children so maybe if it was banned they’d shift away from that.
Then they just pull the, “yes, she looks 11, but she’s actually a 400 year old half-elf in the story.”
I think thats not so bad. I’m trying to prevent the characters that are in primary school being sexualized. Stories where its undeniable that the character is under aged.
I already supported CerebralHawks’s idea, you don’t have to sell it to me
Good
Who decides if it’s a sexual situation or what that means?
There’s a test that the courts have, actually. Stewart’s test for obscenity, or basically, “I know it when I see it.”
It’s not a perfect test, there’s lots of edge cases where it fails, but it’s not nothing. It’d definitely work in this case.
Woah there. As shit of a thing he did, he himself is child. Don’t ruin his life over it.
Yes. Ruin the victim’s life instead.
Grow up and use your brain and realize that you can handle this without doing either of those things
And yet, oddly enough, that’s not what actually happens in most cases of sexual assault.
There’s a reason why women don’t report rapes.
Reported mine. Never heard a peep back. Hold those in power responsible not some little boy who doesn’t know any better.
The fact some teen doesn’t know better is also a reflection of the parent. Perhaps hold the parents accountable too.
He’s 13 not 7. I feel like he did know better. That’s why he didn’t own up to it when he and his classmates were questioned by school officials.
If only the law had a way of handling juveniles. It’s too bad nobody bothered to deal with that entire subset of criminals. We’ve only had a few centuries… Ah well, write your congressman. /s
Everyone at some point wished to “be with” the prettiest girl or most handsome boy in class or the teacher or friend. We just didn’t have AI in school back in our day. Looks like its a bad idea, so we should just not give AI to kids. No phone or AI until you’re 18.
It was likely due to the publicity of the case, but nonetheless the police did their job in this one.
“According to a release from the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office, a male student is now facing 10 counts of unlawful dissemination of images created by artificial intelligence, and more charges could come.”
He needs to be charged for inciting/instigating violence. There was an assault. There was a battery. The girl is not responsible for these crimes, but these crimes did occur. They occurred because of this boy’s deplorable, egregious, and criminal acts of harassment against her, and he should be charged for having instigated the attack.
Nah, I’m pretty sure making AI porn of a minor is something any police force would shit bricks over.
Police officers beat their spouses at twice the rate of the general population. That should tell you everything you need to know about how serious most cops take sex crimes.
You would be mistaken. Cops dont even investigate rape most times. There are precients where they have thousands of backlogged rape kits they havent even processed, much less started investigating.
This case went viral immediatly and brought on a lawsuit. I guarentee both of those facts are what made sure it got actual attention from the cops involved.
Let’s take a moment to realize that 95% of you hadn’t heard of cafe mom as an outlet until just now. And that the article’s headline is misleading/tabloidy at best. And while the rest seems well researched, it’s clearly misleading a bit. If you start beating a kid on the bus and ask others to join in, it’s not a surprise that you get suspended. Yes, she’s also the victim of terrible bullying and felt let down by the faculty (who - understandably - may need more than hearsay before they start taking action). You can still not beat people up. Nobody doesn’t understand that she did it. And indeed even the police looks at all of this as mitigating circumstances. And she’s back in school and on probation and that’s hopefully what they do with all kids who start fistfights. The buried headline is that the other kid is under police investigation, which has the potential not only to get him suspended after all but will have even more serious consequences. From what I read here, the system works as well as it can but the story is written to cause outrage.
I understand that victims of bullying like this or sexual assault in general face an uphill battle they never wanted to fight. And with the details in this story I can totally understand why the girl snapped. And I wish her nothing but the best and appropriate punishment for the kids who circulated the images. And still, you can’t resort to violence and expect not to be punished for it. We are not talking about self defense here.
And still, you can’t resort to violence and expect not to be punished for it. We are not talking about self defense here.
We actually are talking about self defence here. The thirteen year old girl is the victim of a sex crime. A sex crime, I should note, that the authorities she duly reported it to treated lackadaisically doing minimal “investigation” and then nothing.
When you
feelare abandoned by your supposed protectors, and when you see the attacks happening again right in front of you, as well as attacks on your friends, you’re going to take your defence in your own hands. Anybody who thinks this is wrong, but handwaves away everything that happened beforehand, is an idiot.Exactly. We have a justice system so we don’t have lynchings. Well, if the justice system disappears, the lynchings come right back.
Sorry, if a child goes to the school and makes the allegations she did and the school’s response is “I don’t believe you” and then after a second time of reporting it to the school the response is “I can’t find the images on Facebook, I don’t believe you” and “no you can’t contact your parents” it’s frankly inevitable that this would escalate.
Yes it is, but that’s not the point the poster was making.
I myself am a school bus driver and I can tell you that if anyone started beating a kid like that, they’re getting suspended. It doesn’t even matter why. If it’s everyone enough the other kid could be suspended too if they did something awful to start the fight, but that’s just not something you can do.
The issue people have here is that she got punished and the kid spreading the pictures around didn’t.
Yes, I would expect her to be punished for starting a fight, but I do not expect her to be punished more than the person creating pornographic images of her and spreading then around.
Let’s take a moment to realize that 95% of you hadn’t heard of cafe mom as an outlet
Cafemom linked to the AP article they shortened.
you can’t resort to violence and expect not to be punished for it.
No one is saying that. But you should stop looking for a perfect victim and look at how many adults failed her. The actual issue is she already gone to guidance counselor, principals and school sheriff looking for help but nothing happened. Even at her young age, she is learning that women are not believed while being sexually harassed. She already attempted to deal with the problem “the right way”.
The girls begged for help, first from a school guidance counselor and then from a sheriff’s deputy assigned to their school. But the images were shared on Snapchat, an app that deletes messages seconds after they’re viewed, and the adults couldn’t find them. The principal had doubts they even existed.
With the mocking unrelenting, the girl texted her sister, “It’s not getting handled.” As the school day wound down, the principal was skeptical. At the disciplinary hearing, the girl’s attorney asked why the sheriff’s deputy didn’t check the phone of the boy the girls were accusing and why he was allowed on the same bus as the girl. “Kids lie a lot,” responded Coriell, the principal. “They lie about all kinds of things. They blow lots of things out of proportion on a daily basis. In 17 years, they do it all the time. So to my knowledge, at 2 o’clock when I checked again, there were no pictures.”
It’s easy to armchair moralize that this child acted inappropriately. But I think the best quote of the article is…
“When we ignore the digital harm, the only moment that becomes visible is when the victim finally breaks,”
Too add on here, the pricipals defense for doing nothing about what the girl and her friends reported worked out to “ive been doing this for a long time, and kids lie a lot.”
Thats it. As usual, a victim of sexual harrasement gets told that since they dont have irrefutable proof, the “system” wont do anything. They didnt even act to seperate the two students from riding the same bus for 1 day.
Its no wonder the girl took action.
What’s so mind-bogglingly stupid about this is the adults pretending that the only form of evidence is the images themselves. Testimony IS evidence. In fact, it’s often the primary form of evidence, as no other form of evidence can be admitted in court without someone to testify to its veracity. You don’t just present security camera footage, you present the footage and have someone testify that they set the camera up and can swear to the authenticity of its images. Same with DNA evidence. A scientist gets on the stand and says under oath that they performed a DNA analysis and reached certain conclusions. Ultimately every form of evidence has to have some personal testimony behind it, as you fundamentally have a right to face your accuser.
I mentioned that I do understand why she did what she did. You add more information to this story that only increase understanding as far as I’m concerned.
Let me turn this into an extreme example for comparison’s sake. If a parent shot their child’s rapist and murderer, we all get it. Nobody will say “I have no idea why they would do such a thing.” A lot of us outsiders would look at that case and even be glad about this outcome. And at the same time, the mother or father would end up in prison. Because you cannot take the law in your own hands and expect not to be punished for that. There will be mitigating circumstances, they won’t go in for life. The punishment might just be exactly the time they spent in custody before their trial. But there will be punishment because we have rules about that. (Obviously, this example is not the same as this case of bullying. I’m only using it to compare consequences.)
Was this self defense? She was just defending her digital privacy? I’m not a lawyer. As a layman, I’m going to say this does not meet the legal criteria. Morally? Absolutely.
We can meter out appropriate punishment to everybody else here: the school that maybe responded badly. The parents of the dipshits who got their hands on an undress app. The fact that there are undress apps available to middle schoolers or anybody really. Etc. But we also have the benefit of hindsight.
You and I get why she threw punches. We might even go as far as cheering her on, in our heads, had we somehow been there. Go get those bastards, black eyes for all of them. My point was merely that if you resorted to violence like that you cannot expect not to be punished for it. Like in my extreme example, there are mitigating circumstances. Plenty of them. All should be considered. But there will be something on the record. In this case the suspension/probation, which I hoped is the punishment for every fight.
She got suspended and he didn’t (yet, as we find out halfway through). The headline of the linked article in the post implied that this was the outrageous part. My criticism was aimed first and foremost at the writer/editor of that article.
Was this self defense? She was just defending her digital privacy? I’m not a lawyer. As a layman, I’m going to say this does not meet the legal criteria. Morally? Absolutely.
Why do you say that?
She was being harmed and so she defended herself, and the harm stopped. Looks like self-defense to me.
In my view, self defense is a legal defense when somebody used violence to defend themselves against an immediate threat of physical harm. I don’t see how, legally, you could expand the parameters to fit this case. But I’m also not a lawyer.
The argument it seems to me you could be building here is that the victim of despicable bullying, ignored and misunderstood by all the authorities, lashed out out of desperation. And that in itself is an act of self defense. I think that’s a moral way to look at it, but not a legal one. The latter will look at this exactly as mitigating circumstances.
What is required is that there is a reasonable belief that they are in imminent physical danger. There are other factors, like attempting to deescalate and such, but she actually did that when she begged her school for help.
And being sexually harassed is reasonable reason to believe that they are in danger of sexual assault, or worse.
That’s why, when the police got involved, the boy was arrested and now faces 10 charges. She has not been arrested and is not facing charges. Legally, she seems to be in the clear.
I’m going to have to agree with the other person; I don’t think this qualifies as “self defense”. HOWEVER, the egregiousness of his harassment does seem to rise to the level of “instigation”, making him criminally responsible for the physical altercation. She’s not being charged with assault and battery, but someone is responsible. He instigated that crime; he should be charged with it.
You clearly have a different take on the situation. A bunch of dipshits showing deepfakes around on a bus, ostensibly with other people around who are not party to this dispute and a grownup in the driver’s seat, does not convince me that even your interpretation applies here. But neither one of us was present, we are both arm chairing this, we are just sitting in different arm chairs. Let’s leave it at that.
I’m not going to leave it. You’re wrong and you need to know it.
-
It wasn’t just one instance on the bus. These AI nudes were being traded around for a while and it wasn’t just happening to this one girl either. There were multiple victims that already been going to the school and the police for help. This was, essentially, a child pornography ring.
-
In the aftermath we see that the police also interpret the situation the way I do, which is why they arrested the boy while the girl who beat him up was not arrested. Not to say that the police should be totally trusted in legal matters, obviously, it’s up to the court to determine the facts from here. I don’t think the court is going to be sympathetic to this little creep.
-
In light of the fact that she and the other girls went to the authorities, what the fuck else were they supposed to do? Because it looks like beating this little creep up was actually the correct decision, because it got the legal ball rolling.
-
You’re the only one armchairing this and quite poorly. You seem to have a cop-drama level understanding of laws.
I read the actual article when it was posted on social media weeks ago right after it happened.
I want you to understand something. Revenge porn is a crime and a horribly traumatizing experience. She didn’t beat the kid up. She hit him. He didn’t end up in hospital.
The school literally is at fault because they didn’t actually do their due diligence to find out what happened and make even the most miniscule attempt to prevent the circulation of such photos. They expected a child or group of children to admit to circulating pornographic materials. If the school bus has video/photo evidence that this student had or circulated those materials he should be facing expulsion.
What we have to look at is whether or not this was self defense. I’d argue that the victim was trying to defend her right to privacy and to not have pornography materials of her spread around the school. This was defense of her mental health when the system failed.
I’d argue that while I don’t condone fighting this is exactly the situation that leads to it and the school administration let it happen. Why did they allow these kids to get on the same bus? Why was she refused permission to call home? Why didn’t they have her parent or guardian come pick her up?
There were multiple points where the school could have done something to mitigate the circumstances around this assault. They didn’t. They failed. And then they punished her and did nothing to fix the situation where a real and serious criminal act involving CP circulation was happening.
That’s bullshit.
Edit: You know what I think is even more bullshit? The situation probably wouldn’t have gotten a resolution at all if she hadn’t “snapped” . There’s thousands of kids getting bullied everyday who don’t snap and the only time their situation changes is when they are perceived to have done something wrong due to continued abuse being heaped upon them that the adults do nothing about. That’s not okay.
i don’t understand the need to pretend that she did anything wrong
What happened to her is extremely terrible and people just get was too emotional and turn off their brains so that they can let the anger make them feel just
what
OP clearly just is offended by the concept of a child pornographer getting beaten up, as they for some reason identify with the child pornographer. Interpret that how you will.
It was self defense as far as I’m concerned.
Also? It got the police involved, and now the creep is facing charges.
If this was my daughter i’d have thrown her a party after beating those little shits. Violence is the answer if people in authority are not addressing the situation. It always has been the answer since most of history.
^ = why gun ownership should be criminalised
Really? I would have said because of all the school shootings.
The headline is unequivocally false. She was suspended for attacking her bully. The AI nudes had nothing to do with the school’s decision to suspend her.
He instigated the attack. Instigation is a crime. He’s responsible for the attack, not her. The school erred in suspending her; she was the victim of his instigation.
that’s a fucking glaring issue
Let’s think about that more. What if she didn’t do anything violent. Then the school buries it all… What then? Then you risk her family finding out, right? Can you imagine what an angry violent parent might do? … Shit, the boy is lucky she attacked him. So is the school.
Woah there.
We don’t read articles.
We just circle jerk over how obviously smarter than everyone else we are.
Stop ruining the fun dude. If I wanted logic and common sense I’d be touching grass, not in Lemmy.
How dare you make a reasonable take and argument off of a clickbait article!?
deleted by creator
Late stage of a porn agenda indoctrinated dwarf… the kind of stuff that happens in the dystopian POV of a porn addict…
