(Couldn't find this under search ... lock it if already exists).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/02/23/myspace.guns.ap/index.html

Quote :

"DENVER, Colorado (AP) -- A 16-year-old boy was arrested Wednesday after postings on the popular Web site MySpace.com allegedly showed him holding handguns, authorities said. The teen was being held at a juvenile detention center facing three misdemeanor charges of juvenile possession of a handgun, said district attorney spokeswoman Pam Russell. He is due in court February 27. Police searched the boy's home after receiving a tip from Evergreen High School on February 10, the same day he was suspended, officials said. School spokesman Rick Kaufman said parents were calling with concerns and some kept their children home after photographs posted on the boy's profile on MySpace.com, a social networking Web site, began circulating through the community. One photo allegedly showed him lying on a floor surrounded by nine rifles with the caption, "Angel o' death on wings o' lead." "The photos were very disturbing, and while the content was not a direct threat, we just felt it was important for us to take appropriate disciplinary action," Kaufman said, adding the student could be expelled. Evergreen High School is in the same district as Columbine High School, where two teenage gunmen killed 12 students and a teacher before committing suicide in 1999. One of the gunmen had posted a threat on the Internet before the shootings. "

I'm still waiting for a Supreme Court case in the next 5 to 10 years which determines whether Internet photos can be used as incriminating evidence.

2/26/2006 3:09:33 PM

Columbine

2/26/2006 3:15:57 PM

^^why shouldn't they be?

if you're dumb enough to post incriminating photos of yourself online, you should be ready to face the consequences

2/26/2006 3:21:15 PM

[old]

2/26/2006 3:24:31 PM

lock it. already in chit chat.

2/26/2006 3:24:32 PM

chit chat this is not.

2/26/2006 4:43:04 PM

^^^^

one of the problems with that is that with photoshop you can make someone look like they're doing anything.

if someone photoshops a picture of you doing a line of coke, should you be arrested for the picture being online?

[Edited on February 26, 2006 at 4:45 PM. Reason : one more]

2/26/2006 4:45:05 PM

there is also a big difference between posting a picture of yourself on myspace and going in an shooting people at a school. the internet is NOT serious business.

2/26/2006 5:14:14 PM

Quote :

"if someone photoshops a picture of you doing a line of coke, should you be arrested for the picture being online? "

Presumeably said picture isn't on your personal site.

2/26/2006 5:46:17 PM

why had no one found this myspace account yet?

2/26/2006 6:34:27 PM

let's arrest all the goth kids who post angsty poems about death online as well.
same thing.

2/26/2006 7:18:03 PM

i'm thinking the photos could be used to justify a search of his house or something, but if they don't actually find the guns IRL, then the pictures alone shouldn't be enough for an arrest.

2/26/2006 7:23:02 PM

Quote :

"Angel o' death on wings o' lead."

2/26/2006 7:24:00 PM

^^
BUT, you run into the issue of who owns the guns. He wasn't arrested on owning a firearm, just possessing one. The parents technically own the house and presumably the guns. A warrant would do nothing except show legally registered guns.

And as has been pointed out ... you can digitally alter a photo or two, get the login/password to somebody's personal home page/Myspace account/etc., upload it, and then go after them as incriminating evidence?

I'm curios how frequently this occurs with adult cases ... you only usually hear about the under 21 years of age cases.

[Edited on February 26, 2006 at 7:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2006 7:42:43 PM

Quote :

"He wasn't arrested on owning a firearm, just possessing one."

Same thing in the eyes of the law. It's just as illegal for a minor to have possession of a handgun as it is to own one.

2/26/2006 7:53:30 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/03/02/myspace.suspensions.ap/index.html

New Story: Students suspended over viewing Myspace posting

Quote :

"COSTA MESA, California (AP) -- A middle school student faces expulsion for allegedly posting graphic threats against a classmate on the popular MySpace.com Web site, and 20 of his classmates were suspended for viewing the posting, school officials said. Police are investigating the boy's comments about his classmate at TeWinkle Middle School as a possible hate crime, and the district is trying to expel him. According to three parents of the suspended students, the invitation to join the boy's MySpace group gave no indication of the alleged threat. They said the MySpace social group name's was "I hate (girl's name)" and included an expletive and an anti-Semitic reference. A later message to group members directed them to a nondescript folder, which included a posting that allegedly asked: "Who here in the (group name) wants to take a shotgun and blast her in the head over a thousand times?" Because the creator of a posting can change its content at any time, it's unclear how much the students saw. "With what the students can get into using the technology we are all concerned about it," Bob Metz, the district assistant superintendent of secondary education, said Wednesday. Metz said the students' suspensions in mid-February were appropriate because the incident involved student safety. Some parents however questioned whether the school overstepped its bounds by disciplining students for actions that occurred on personal computers, at home and after school hours."

[Edited on March 2, 2006 at 6:07 PM. Reason : .]

3/2/2006 6:07:02 PM

how can you tell from a blurry photo that it's not a replica?


or does that just give them probable cause to go searching for the real gun?

3/2/2006 6:15:38 PM

didn't read, but i already know it's the parent's fault. lol

this is somewhat like that bitch who wrote up people on facebook.

[Edited on March 2, 2006 at 6:53 PM. Reason : facebook]

3/2/2006 6:26:43 PM

can't believe they found a prosecutor stupid enough to pursue this

3/2/2006 6:46:40 PM

Wait, they suspended 20 kids for *VIEWING* a posting on my space?!?

holy shit.

3/2/2006 7:03:28 PM

The internet truly has made people stupid.

3/2/2006 7:10:05 PM

What does the school hope to accomplish by suspending those students?

3/2/2006 7:49:41 PM

Quote :

"I'm still waiting for a Supreme Court case in the next 5 to 10 years which determines whether Internet photos can be used as incriminating evidence."

I totally agree. And it needs to happen sooner rather than later. This shit is getting rediculous. And it isn't just photos, but all internet evidence. People say shit that has zero truth to it just because they can and because the internet is somewhat anonymous. Granted maybe they shouldn't be putting themselves in that position by saying those stupid things. But last I checked freedom of speach is supposed to apply to everyone. So long as it isn't a direct threat. Some of these preventative measures could fuck up someones life.

Quote :

"Presumeably said picture isn't on your personal site."

If I'm not mistaken, some of those State students that got in trouble for pictures with alcohol didn't have pictures on their account. They were on someone else's account. You can't control what pictures other people store.



[Edited on March 3, 2006 at 8:15 AM. Reason : ]

3/3/2006 8:10:14 AM

why doesnt somebody file a class action suit against parents to man up, do their fucken job, and kill all this other bullshit litigation?

3/3/2006 8:25:19 AM

how did they find out who viewed it anyway? sounds like myspace would have to turn over all the IP addresses, and the ISPs would all have to turn over information on who was using the address at the time in question.

and it sounds like they did it without subpoena, because im not seeing anything criminal about looking at a website.

3/3/2006 8:34:32 AM

^ they signed up for a group - you can see group members easily

Quote :

"why doesnt somebody file a class action suit against parents to man up, do their fucken job, and kill all this other bullshit litigation?"

sums it up

3/3/2006 10:15:23 AM

ahh, that makes more sense, thanks for clearing that up. also makes a lot more sense why the school would suspend them too... even though i dont agree with it, i can see why.

3/3/2006 10:21:54 AM

Quote :

"Same thing in the eyes of the law. It's just as illegal for a minor to have possession of a handgun as it is to own one."

I don't know the laws in CA, but in NC, it's legal for a minor to possess a handgun for lawful activities under parental supervision. No information on if the kid had permission to take pictures with them or whatever, so I don't know.

3/3/2006 10:30:21 AM

so if somebody made a thread without a nudity tag and there was child porn in it, everybody who views said thread should go to jail?

3/3/2006 11:06:43 AM

^ ZING!

3/3/2006 11:19:19 AM

no, but if someone made a group called WE <3 KID PRON. then i could see that happening to the members.

3/3/2006 11:21:02 AM

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH LOVE

3/3/2006 11:23:33 AM

Quote :

"I don't know the laws in CA, but in NC, it's legal for a minor to possess a handgun for lawful activities under parental supervision. No information on if the kid had permission to take pictures with them or whatever, so I don't know."

The laws are federal. It doesn't matter if he had permission or not. If his parents weren't there, it was illegal.

3/3/2006 1:46:13 PM

Quote :

"The laws are federal. It doesn't matter if he had permission or not. If his parents weren't there, it was illegal."

The federal law leaves room for states to allow for activities and such. But, since the parents were not there, it was not a supervised activity, and was thus most likely illegal. I saw nothing in the article about where the parents were, so I could not analyze that further.


Just for reference, the federal law on this is here (can be found in 18 USC 922)

I am not saying that he was following the exemptions listed, just noting that this is what federal law allows.

Quote :

" (x)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile - (A) a handgun; or (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun. (2) It shall be unlawful for any person who is a juvenile to knowingly possess - (A) a handgun; or (B) ammunition that is suitable for use only in a handgun. (3) This subsection does not apply to - (A) a temporary transfer of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile or to the possession or use of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile if the handgun and ammunition are possessed and used by the juvenile - (i) in the course of employment, in the course of ranching or farming related to activities at the residence of the juvenile (or on property used for ranching or farming at which the juvenile, with the permission of the property owner or lessee, is performing activities related to the operation of the farm or ranch), target practice, hunting, or a course of instruction in the safe and lawful use of a handgun; (ii) with the prior written consent of the juvenile's parent or guardian who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from possessing a firearm, except - (I) during transportation by the juvenile of an unloaded handgun in a locked container directly from the place of transfer to a place at which an activity described in clause (i) is to take place and transportation by the juvenile of that handgun, unloaded and in a locked container, directly from the place at which such an activity took place to the transferor; or (II) with respect to ranching or farming activities as described in clause (i), a juvenile may possess and use a handgun or ammunition with the prior written approval of the juvenile's parent or legal guardian and at the direction of an adult who is not prohibited by Federal, State or local law from possessing a firearm; (iii) the juvenile has the prior written consent in the juvenile's possession at all times when a handgun is in the possession of the juvenile; and (iv) in accordance with State and local law; (B) a juvenile who is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard who possesses or is armed with a handgun in the line of duty; (C) a transfer by inheritance of title (but not possession) of a handgun or ammunition to a juvenile; or (D) the possession of a handgun or ammunition by a juvenile taken in defense of the juvenile or other persons against an intruder into the residence of the juvenile or a residence in which the juvenile is an invited guest. (4) A handgun or ammunition, the possession of which is transferred to a juvenile in circumstances in which the transferor is not in violation of this subsection shall not be subject to permanent confiscation by the Government if its possession by the juvenile subsequently becomes unlawful because of the conduct of the juvenile, but shall be returned to the lawful owner when such handgun or ammunition is no longer required by the Government for the purposes of investigation or prosecution."

[Edited on March 3, 2006 at 2:00 PM. Reason : +]

3/3/2006 1:53:13 PM