High school yearbook pulled over child porn

Threatening to charge students with possession of child porn seems harsh.

http://www.sbsun.com/ci_18288552?source=most_viewed

The San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department is recalling all copies of Big Bear High School's 2011 yearbook after they discovered a photo in the book that can be construed as child pornography.
... Sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Bachman said it appears a 17-year-old boy has his hand inside the clothing of a 15-year-old girl.
The photo shows that the crime sexual penetration of a child had possibly occurred, officials said
... "At this time, anyone possessing the photograph should be on notice to turn in the photographs to school staff or the Sheriff's Department or risk potential criminal charges involving possession of child pornography," the Sheriff's Department wrote in a press release.

 

That's just stupid and a sign of the times.

 

Wow. Now I've seen (almost) everything.

 

Dude, if a guy's hand is down a 15-year-old girl's pants? Yeah, that's an issue. You can't really think that should go in a yearbook.

 

Seeing the thread title, I was thinking it was about those baby pictures that are sometimes put in, and that someone put a naked baby pic in.

 

I don't think it should be in the yearbook, but to tell everyone that if they don't turn them in they can be busted for child porn is a little much.

Is everyone who has a yearbook from the 60s and 70s where guys wearing basketball short shorts and their dong is showing supposed to turn them in, too?

I don't have a problem with them saying to bring the books by and and have it fixed, but to basically accuse hundreds of people of a felony is outlandish.

 

Those milk-sop liberals at the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Not only should they arrest the 17-year-old in question, putting him on a sex offender's registry for life, but they should lock up the entire senior class.

Failing that, a good book burning is the least they can do.

 

High school yearbooks and graduation speeches have great potential for failure.

 

In one of my yearbooks, there's a picture of a girl in my class running the 110-meter hurdles and her beaver is plainly visible. I don't know if the administration never noticed it, but there certainly wasn't any kind of uproar about it like this.

I can agree if the school wants all the yearbooks returned and offers "fixed" ones for free. As IJAG said, it's inappropriate to have the photo in the yearbook. But to say people in possession of the yearbook are possessing child porn seems like a stretch.

Am I wrong to infer from the blurb in the opening post that it sounds like the kid has his hand down the girl's pants? Even if that's the case, it seems like it would still be difficult to prove that "sexual penetration of a child" had occurred, which is why the story says it "possibly" occurred.

 

Hell, the worst thing my yearbook had was the one girl who had goth-chick makeup and a spiked mohawk. The parents of every other kid on the page flipped out.

It came out the day of a state baseball playoff game. I remember hearing the mother of one of the players, who was right next to the girl in the yearbook, whining about it.

"My little junior will have to look at his picture next to that forever!"

Of course, he just laughed about it.

 

She might not have had to worry about that if she had just run the 100-meter hurdles.

 

So, let me get this straight.
Police (in this case, a lieutenant) say a 17-year-old boy appears to have his hand inside the clothing (we're left to assume its at least pants, shorts or a dress, and possibly underwear) of a 15-year-old girl.
And it's possible that the crime sexual penetration of a child has occurred.
So on these two suppositions, without the benefit of seeing said picture ourselves to make a judgement, we're told to believe that the photo is not only evidence of a crime, but also a crime itself to possess.
Now, it could all be true and the boy in question could end up facing charges, as well as one very upset father.
Or, it could be that a photo (as such, probably a tad blurry, since they were not the intended subject of the photo) at a high school dance that includes two people in a darkened background (because of lighting, shadows and timing of photograph) who appear to be engaged in some inappropriate behavior.
I hope the sheriff's department and school have a lot more than "appears" and "possibly" going for them when this is all finalized, or I'm sure someone will be paying off a huge lawsuit.