Teen Girl Sharing Nude Photo Leads To Sexting Scandal In Wyckoff

WYCKOFF, N.J. (CBSNewYork) — A Bergen County middle school is at the center of a sexting scandal after a teenage girl’s explicit photos spread from cell phone to cell phone.

Virtually all teens text countless times a day, but at Wyckoff’s Eisenhower Middle School, a 13-year-old girl was sexting full nude photographs of herself.

She sent them via cell phone to two teen boys, who sent them to a few friends, who sent them to more friends, and so on.

“I was kind of appalled that a quiet girl like this would do such a thing,” student Kevin Winiarski told CBS 2’s Sean Hennessey.

Few are aware of the serious nature of the situation.

“Having photographs of this nature, of a 13-year old, is in fact a criminal offense. It’s the distribution of or the possession of child pornography,” Wyckoff Police Chief Benjamin Fox said.

Administrators sent letters and emails to parents, who were stunned.

“It’s an unfortunate reality of today’s society,” parent Brian Winiarski said.

“Too many opportunities for students, and for young people to get themselves into trouble that they didn’t intend,” Wyckoff School Superintendent Rich Kuder said.

These students may have caught a break. Instead of arrests, police are offering amnesty to delete the nude photo.

“Get rid of it because if you get caught with it after Thursday morning, we will arrest and charge you with possession of child pornography,” Fox said.

The incident is expected to spur parents to get more involved with what their child is sending and receiving via cell phone.

The school hopes what happened is a lesson to all students that a careless use of today’s technology carries inherent dangers with long-ranging consequences.

Please offer your thoughts in the comments section below.


One Comment

  1. Hal says:

    A 13 yr old does not need a cell phone, first problem, second problem parents who get them for them or let have. and third why do they allow cell phone in school? No wonder we have such a bunch of dummies running the country, instead of go to school to learn, they are playing on phones or what ever they want. Schools are only low class babysitters for the parents now-a-days it would seem. Why does anyone under the age of 16 or 17 even need a cell phone….there is no good reason at all. Yes I have a cell phone but also lots older than teen years, Makes you wonder how we every lived without them, years ago??? and we did just fine. Too bad cell phone jamming systems could not be installed in all schools under college level…PARENTS TRY BEING PARENTS FOR A CHANGE…..bottom line it is your fault

    1. Technokat says:

      “No wonder we have such a bunch of dummies running the country, instead of go to school to learn, they are playing on phones or what ever they want.” Uh, no. Kids are actually there to learn and many do–don’t judge a whole system by a few moronic people. Navy Seals training has a 20% graduation rate–with your logic, the institution that trains them is a major failure. I know it’s apples and oranges, but then again so is every other argument against the public schools. There are too many variables at play to make blanket judgements about education.

    2. Amber says:

      There’s one problem with this – when I was in school we had pay phones, about 4 of them in places like outside the cafeteria etc. Try finding a pay phone now in school or anywhere. So the calls we used to make – I forgot lunch, I need to stay late, band practice ended early can you pick me up – they can’t make those calls. It’s not that we lived without them years ago, we had alternatives.
      Parents should though have their kids be responsible for the phones, don’t get unlimited plans, restrict usage etc. It’s either that or we demand that the phone companies put pay phones back in use (which should happen about the same time pigs fly)

  2. badman says:

    better living through PARENTAL CONTROL…

    technology exists to scan all the image files on a computer and identify those most likely to be potentially “pornographic” – i.e., a lot of flesh tones, specific body parts.

    some mobile carrier is going to strike gold with mobile phone parental control settings that identifies such photos and prevents them from being texted or e-mailed.

    Even easier – how about simply not letting kids e-mail or SMS photos of any kind? kids went for thousands of years without it. it won’t kill them to wait until they’re 18.

  3. richard says:

    they make a device that leaves a cell phone useless would be great in schools

    1. nypj says:

      cell phone signal jammers are ILLEGAL.. so it is not an option.. and it is not like these images are being taken in school, and can easily be distributed after school hours, or via the internet – where many students have internet access in school now..

      while i agree that most students have no need for a cell phone, blocking access during school hours does not address the concerns about sexting.

      students need to be educated about the social and potentially legal consequences of these types of behaviors

      1. SteveO says:

        @nypj, I am not saying you’re wrong, but I know of businesses that use jammers. I bought one myself at a bazaar here in Michigan where I live. They’ve been selling them for years and I use mine when I am at the movies so folks won’t babble on their cell phones. In Ann Arbor during a concert earlier this year, I know that the theatre had one operating because I could not place a call even while I was near the front door. After the concert was over, I was able to place a call anywhere in the building.
        Schools would probably opt for using them if weren’t for the parents not liking it.

      2. gaymedia says:

        Cell phone jammers are legal. But when I was a kid, you weren’t allowed to bring walkmans and electronics to school. they warned people REPEATEDLY and tod parents the otems would be confiscated and locked in the vault until the end of the school year. those devices were practicaly out-dated 9 months later and students and parents HOWLED. But the schools were not fooling back then. they should do the same thing here. AND they should start charging students for this “I’ll show you mine” behavior. NOT just the boys, but the girls should be seriously punished. This is WAY not cool and is a huge cultural problem.

  4. nypj says:

    just a nude photograph of a minor is not necessarily legally defined as pornography.. there has to be lavish exhibition of the genitals or sexual organs or in a manner that would be considered sexual in nature.

    if she just took a nude photo of herself and it does not confirm to the legal definition of pornography the police are just using scare tactics. likely the image would not be classified as pornography, otherwise i am sure that they would have made attempts to prosecute instead of trying to scare these kids with this warning.

    children do need to be supervised and taught the dangers of using technology improperly – many cell phone cameras also provide GPS information on the photos, and if these photos have that information, and they fell into the wrong hands it could be disastrous..

    glad that this instance turned up as just a wake up call to all involved, but to try to sensationalize this by claiming that anyone who received a copy of this image would face child pornography charges is ridiculous

    1. LG says:

      So you can show teenage boobs and it wouldn’t be porn? I mean, as long as they weren’t exhibited “lavishly,” right? I don’t believe that for a second. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want my daughter’s face and bare breasts being distributed for the world to see. But now you are saying that’s not porn unless she’s doing exactly what with them in the photo?

      1. nypj says:

        I think that you may need the laws concerning child pornography if you believe that ANY nude to topless photograph of someone under 18 years old is considered child pornography.

        These laws are in place to punish people who actually produce, distribute, and possess images and videos of children being sexually exploited. They are also carefully crafted as to prevent parents from being convicted for taking nude baby photos.

        In your mind depiction of nudity would be considered pornography. Why are you so ashamed of the human form? There are many artistic displays of nudity, many in museums around the world would you consider all of that pornography also?

        No one on here has seen the images that this girl took (hopefully no one has) so none of us would be able to judge if these were tasteful nudes or pornography.

        To your question of if I would want my daughter, if I had one, to take and post images like this – NO I would not and I would hope that I would raise my children to understand the dangers of such actions on their future. But that does not change the legal definition of pornography

      2. nypj says:

        *many need to read

      3. Brian Newton says:

        You don’t have to believe it for it to be true. Get a damned dictionary – and read it.

      4. LG says:

        To nypj: Read them, and I did attempt to post a response last week, but it didn’t make it to the page—probably too long. 😛

        You are making this a simple case of defining the law without any sense of judgment and interpretation. It’s much more complicated that that, I’m afraid.

        [BTW, I’m not in any way ashamed of the human form. I believe it is to be respected.]

        But if you look at an excerpt of the laws, you will see that these laws are open to interpretation. And with interpretation, we’re talking about judgments as to what is considered explicit and obscene.

        The laws state that full-blown images of genitalia are not pornographic unless something obscene or explicit is being done with said genitalia—an action of sort that either IS sexual or that simulates a sexual act. Therefore, any person in possession of a photograph of an underage person’s genitalia is not in possession of child pornography, as long as there is no explicit or obscene action taking place in said image. I believe this is also your interpretation since you mention that these may be “tasteful” images. Taste is a matter of interpretation and the contextual position of the observer.

      5. LG says:

        (con’t) My interpretation is a little different: An image of underage genitalia is explicit and obscene except in the case of its application for medical use. There seems no other need to see underage genitalia whether engaged in an activity or not.

        How one interprets any situation has much to do with the context in which the observer finds him or herself. A photo of an underage child showing his or her genitalia in their entirety (with nothing else touching said parts) is allowable under these laws. Would you agree if that child were your son/daughter? Or does your sense of judgment change when you’re close to the case?

      6. LG says:

        (con’t) Now to address your comment on art–art, in general, is best approached with a sense of education and discrimination in order to fully appreciate it. That’s not to say that one cannot enjoy art without being educated about art. But to simply pass off a naked body as an art object to justify intent for passing the image around is irresponsible and completely without context. Nudity in art exists to study form and function or to illicit a response (hopefully, an intelligent one) to said form and function. Once you cross the line of intent in so-called art, it ceases to be art anymore. It’s soft porn. The problem here is that you cannot legislate intent any more than you can legislate judgment of what is obscene or explicit. Judgment is interpretation that is left up to the courts. The law gives you guidelines—it isn’t scripture.

      7. LG says:

        Brian Newton–You are making assertions about how “what parents want” dictates what schools do. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true. Get some damned experience as a school administrator before you spew your comments. 🙂

      8. nypj says:

        “The laws state that full-blown images of genitalia are not pornographic unless something obscene or explicit is being done with said genitalia”
        NOT correct – if the main focus of the image is the genitalia or sexual organs, then the image would be considered pornographic… if the image is taken in an unnatural, or provocative pose then it is pornographic..

        if the image is of her just standing there naked, then in all likely hood it is not obscene, or pornographic… if she photographed herself with her legs spread, or bent over then they could be considered pornographic.

        i am not sure why you are so shameful of the human form where you feel that any image depicting nudity is pornography.

        as i stated, i would not want a relative taking or posting photos like this, but that does not change the legal definition of what can and what can not be considered pornography.

        “An image of underage genitalia is explicit and obscene except in the case of its application for medical use”
        1 – i disagree that it is obscene or explicit just because it is an image of someone under some arbitrarily set age – so after a certain age the obscenity just vanishes for you?
        2- who is to determine what a medical use for the image is?
        did your parents never take a photograph of you as a child where you might not have had anything on? or perhaps you of your children if you have any? do you consider that pornography?

        there is a reason why nudity does not equal pornography…

      9. nypj says:

        one more point to make..
        when have you ever known the legal system to not seek prosecution for a crime?

        since they have not attempted to prosecute anyone it is obvious that the images in question would not stand up to the legal definition of child pornography..

      10. LG says:

        To nypj:
        “ ‘The laws state that full-blown images of genitalia are not pornographic unless something obscene or explicit is being done with said genitalia’
        “NOT correct – if the main focus of the image is the genitalia or sexual organs, then the image would be considered pornographic… if the image is taken in an unnatural, or provocative pose then it is pornographic..

        Actually, what you posted is incorrect. The laws state that depiction cannot “lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” One can assume that if the image has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value,” it is not considered pornography. Many photographs depicting medical conditions of genital organs are perfectly permissible for medical (scientific) reasons. See: http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?PageId=1504

      11. LG says:

        “if the image is of her just standing there naked, then in all likely hood it is not obscene, or pornographic… if she photographed herself with her legs spread, or bent over then they could be considered pornographic.”
        According to a literal interpretation of the law, you are correct. But what is your interpretation of “just standing there?” Are we going to take into account what expression she has on her face? What if she were just innocently standing there and you could see parts of her that were not intended to be seen? Would that suddenly become pornographic? As I’ve said, this is all open for interpretation in the court system.

        Are citizens allowed to walk about the streets completely naked or would they be stopped by law enforcement for “creating a disturbance” or “public nudity?” I am not ashamed of the human body, as you once again are asserting. I have stated the contrary. Now is society ashamed of the human body? That’s up for debate, but why would there be laws about public nudity if it was not so? Perhaps it’s not a case of shame–there are social structures in a society that one cannot ignore.

      12. LG says:

        Nobody is comparing a middle school female with a naked baby. You cannot legislate intent (however there are some laws that use intent to commit them as their opening), but you also have to be reasonable as to at what age public decency becomes an issue. Certainly, no one is going to arrest a baby for public nudity. Does the law dictate an age for when a person’s nudity becomes “public nudity?”

        “1 – i disagree that it is obscene or explicit just because it is an image of someone under some arbitrarily set age – so after a certain age the obscenity just vanishes for you?” Actually, obscenity is obscenity and pornography is pornography. The law is supposed to protect underage people from being victims of pornography. Your point is not germane to the argument.

        “2- who is to determine what a medical use for the image is?” The medical professionals.

        “did your parents never take a photograph of you as a child where you might not have had anything on? or perhaps you of your children if you have any? do you consider that pornography?
        there is a reason why nudity does not equal pornography…” Yes and you are comparing a middle school female to a baby. At what age do you consider private to be private?

      13. LG says:

        “one more point to make..
when have you ever known the legal system to not seek prosecution for a crime?
        since they have not attempted to prosecute anyone it is obvious that the images in question would not stand up to the legal definition of child pornography..”
        Haven’t you ever heard of cases being settled out of court? Have you ever heard of plea bargains? Just because you haven’t heard of a case brought into court by prosecutors does not mean you know what happened in this case.

      14. richard says:

        she sent them and expected what? PLEASE she knew what she was doing. children arent as dumb as parents want them to be

      15. Henry says:

        In order for pictures to be considered porn the child must be performing some type of sexual or simulated act, otherwise it is just a picture. The courts have ruled on this over-and-over again. Just having pictures of naked children isn’t enough for a charge.

  5. D.C. says:

    OMG, another non-crime.

    GET THIS, PEOPLE: unless you are physically restrained, there is no such thing as sexual assault.

    This “sex crimes” meme has really gotten out of hand…there’s much more graphic stuff in your local art museum! Anyone want to try the classic “Rape of Europa” involving woman and bull (literally)??

  6. T.Mike says:

    I’m just happy that for once, they took a reasonable attitude and said “Get Rid Of It” first instead of just automatically going around and making FELONY arrests on teen kids and then branding them for life by putting them on the sex predator lists.

  7. J says:


    1. ridiculous solution says:

      enough said.

  8. JimAKAblue says:

    It’s her camera, her body and her friends.

    Quit shaming people because they have a body.

    1. LG says:

      Yes and her friends have other “friends” who may not be her friends. Do you have any idea who can get their virtual hands on those photos? Possession and distribution of child pornography is illegal. Please don’t ever spawn.

    2. doc in NJ says:

      fear not – Jim will be undoubtedly be a recipient of the Darwin Award.

      1. LG says:

        Like I alway say…you need a license to have a dog, but any idiot can legally have a child.

  9. emote says:

    I’m 50+ and all I can say is “thank god” we didn’t have cell phones with video, youtube and digital cameras back then.

    1. LG says:

      Are you admitting that you did the same thing as this young girl? =-o

  10. Mark says:

    Umm, excsue me but the school should already have a rule in place that all cellphones or any electroinic devices that interferres with school operations should be left at home or could be confiscated if found inside the school or on school grounds. The school is to blame for this fisaco by not controlling their enviroment.

    1. LG says:

      This “fiasco” could have happened anywhere–it isn’t the school’s fault.

      While I agree that personal cell phone use should not be allowed during school hours, this is difficult to enforce without strip searching kids. With that rule in place, the only way to know for sure if a student is in possession of and using his or her cell phone is if the student makes the mistake of not hiding it well enough to not be noticed by school employees.

    2. ES says:

      Umm, excuse me, but the schools already have such policies; but teachers are not allowed to physically take phones away, so the kids text until a teacher comes over and speaks to them. The parents could call their phone carriers and have the text function disabled during school hours, or better yet, have the phone itself disabled during school hours. Stop blaming teachers and schools for things that parents should do.

    3. Brian Newton says:

      Parents complain when school’s try to keep cell phones from kids during school hours, because of Columbine, 9/11, etc… Nice try, though.

      1. Brian Newton says:

        schools*, just to beat whoever will come next to correct me to the punch.

      2. LG says:

        And parents have no rights in that matter for two reasons: There are phones in schools for emergency purposes. Too many people using cell phone will interfere with communications during a crisis.

        Every school has protocols in place for crisis situations. There is NO reason for a child of any age to have a cell phone during school hours. I don’t care which parents complain–they have no case. THEY are not in charge of the health and safety of all the students in that building–the school administration is. Parents need to get that through their heads.

  11. Carla Jen McCarthy says:

    Lord have mercy!

  12. Steven Moshlak says:

    Wow. Who was the moronic parent(s) that gave their 13 year-old youngster a cell phone, with a camera?

    1. Primetime Editorials says:

      Steven u took the words right out of my mouth u must be an ole skool parent
      cause at thirteen yo cell phone is for emergencies only or u dont need it
      she is only 13, these parents should be critical thinkers and not big spenders

      1. Just saying says:

        Agreed. My children did not get a cell phone till age 16 and they were either driving to work or school in the event there was an emergency. They always called when leaving/arriving somewhere. And if they ever abused the privilege, it was gone for good and understood. Kids do some pretty dumb things, Lord knows I did my share, but as a parent, you have to set limits. And 13 is far too young for a cell phone and for what purpose? Want to call your friend, use the phone in the family room. Yep. I am a mean parent. I know this.That’s my job.

    2. Moronic Steve says:

      The only moronic person is the one named Steven Moshlak

      1. naughty boy says:

        i think kids need a license to use sophisticated techno toys, coz d have crazy minds..

        bad influence at young age has dark future..

        thumbs up steven..

    3. Eric says:

      Ack! Egad! Technology! RUUUUUNNNN! Yes, when an underage person obtains a device that allows them to take naked pictures of themselves, they immediately do so. That is the exact reason that people under 18 cannot buy digital cameras that they can easily use to photograph themselves then email them to others. Oh wait, there is no law against minors using digital cameras….

    4. Jeff says:

      r u serious, almost kids her age have a cell with camera, Get Real. They just don’t all behave this way. This generation of kids lack respect for themselves and others. And now our leaders, like Gov. Christie are setting a fine example of lack of respect for others.

  13. Arthur Kinney says:

    OK enough of this BS, we all played this game at 13 called “show me yours and I’ll show you mine” the only difference is now its digital, but that doesn’t change the fact this is not the governments freaking business, this is between the kids and their parents period.

    1. m says:

      But when a 50 year old pedophile gets hold of that picutre then it becomes EVERYONE’s problem. That’s one of the main issues with sexting – it does NOT just stay between the original sender and recipient. Those pictures end up out there all over the place. If it were your kid would you want to risk that?

  14. Concerned College Student says:

    I think it’s absolutely deplorable that this comment thread is being used by adults to post sarcastic, and sometimes even hateful, comments towards this young girl and other young commenters. You all speak about how parents must work to educate their children on the morality of this issue – maybe you should take the log out of your own eye before worrying about the splinter in your neighbor’s. Some of you should be ashamed. There is clearly an underlying issue here that needs to be dealt with, whether or not teen sexuality is natural, but hostility won’t bring us to a solution. Apparently, a 21 year old can deal with conceptualizing this issue in a more mature way than some of the parents commenting on this…

    1. ED says:

      it is juvenile delinquency.









      1. Dan says:

        I am not quite certain that a 13 year old is considering the implecations of student loans or food stamps later in life when she is taking or sharing pictures of herself.

    2. Stephen Holland says:

      In a perfect world kids are not having sex, giving birth and taking nude pictures of them self

      Maybe some of us without children that live in Disney World know how a child should act

  15. Chris says:

    Ragnar, I miss the Pirates Week Podcasts!

  16. Ragnar Danneskjold says:

    How about changing the stupid laws instead of blaming the kids for being kids and being social? The stupid war on nudity is lost in this modern age of the internet and phone cameras, just like the war on drugs is lost. How’s that going by the way?

    1. MR says:

      ragnar you must be a pervert… since when is it being “social” for little kids to send each other naked pictures. MORON. And yes at 13 a girl is still a kid.

      1. Lungs_of_Steel says:

        MR, are you really that dense? His comment is about how this isn’t child porn, the same way swaying mammaries in the Cote d’Azure (sp?) isn’t pornographic. Under the law, this is considered child porn.

        Kinda ironic considering the receivers of the photos are children themselves!

      2. Ragnar Danneskjold says:

        MR, you must be an idiot. Kids have been showing themselves to each other and playing doctor since the dawn of man. Yes, it is social. That’s what they do, and what they’ve always done, just not using the new technology. People yelled and screamed about the new technology called the telephone which was going to lead young people astray with calls from strangers, etc. That’s why there are bills in the works to make texting a misdemeanor instead of a felony. So, before calling someone a pervert, look in the mirror and gaze at a true idiot and moron.

      3. Arthur Kinney says:

        Shut up MR as a kid you didn’t play “show me yours and I’ll show you mine?” if you say no your freaking lying or not human. this is no different,

      4. nicky says:

        Arthur kinney
        I never played the show me yours I’ll show you mine game…I guess I’m not human. I had morals as a kid. I wasn’t some crazy teen.

      5. Brian Newton says:

        MR never played that, as he was a good, christian boy. He was too busy in the back of the church with the priest.

    2. No Brainer says:

      What kids don’t realize, and parents don’t tell them, is that the life expectancy today stands at 78.2 in the U.S., and it’s even higher in some other countries. So, a person’s Education and Career is first and foremost their top priority. Because once you bite into the forbidden fruit, no one is going to be thinking about school anymore. So get that out of the way, then you’ll be rewarded with a good job, good living and a spouse + family = happy ending.

    3. m says:

      So basically what you’re saying is that you think we should allow child pornography? Idiot.

      1. Lungs_of_Steel says:

        I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

        Irony rings supreme in your post, M. Not only do you demonstrate poor manners by calling him an idiot, but – irony of ironies! – your post fails to grasp the simple fact that he’s not suggesting that we should allow child pornography.

        Any normal-thinking American understands the current laws don’t address the problem. This is no different than the 19 year-old kid who slept with his 17 year-old girlfriend, then was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He ended up in prison due to an overzealous prosecutor who couldn’t fathom the idea that it’s proper for a 19 and 17 year-old to date . . . and a kid taking pics of herself doesn’t make it child porn. An adult in possession of it? A completely different story.

      2. Brian Newton says:

        lol @ m

  17. Parents wake up!!! says:

    What are the parents doing to educate their children? As a mother of an 11 years old, I can tell you we are constantly talking to him about these stuff. They need to know from very early what is right and wrong. Kids grow faster these times, and it is our duty as parents give them advise. We did not have cell phones or fancy computers when we were teens. So our parents did not have to worry about this in particular, but now, we all need to be aware…..

    1. Jeff says:

      Yeah, I’m sure the fact that you’re “talking to him about these stuff” will stop him from being interested in sex or sexting. What exactly do you think you are educating him about that these teens in question didn’t already know?

      In three or four years time your son will not share your moral objection to this practice. He will probably participate in it.

  18. Idiot Parents says:

    I grew up with 10 brothers and sisters in the 70’s. My parents had a phone but it was only to be used in case of an emergency. If we got caught using it for anything else, a very nice beating would follow. It took a few beatings to drive home my father’s message, which was “do your chores, do your homework and find a way to contribute to this household”. Today, if the parents are idiots, the child is an idiot too. And trust me, parents today for the most part, are IDIOTS.

    1. Ken F says:

      I agree with you. I totally understand where you are coming from. I do not like this texting BS. What ever happened to just talking on the phone and why do they have camera phones in this age of digital cameras?

      1. Pete says:

        @Ken you have a camera in your phone so you don’t have to carry and phone AND a camera…

      2. elchiablo says:

        How is texting BS? It’s how it’s done today and it’s perfectly acceptable. Times change good sir you need to accept it and move on instead of being a grumpy old man

      3. LG says:

        To elchiablo: How “what’s done? Wasting time? “Talking” to friends? There are no relevant people skills in use when one incessantly texts “small talk” over and over to the same person. Why not pick up the phone and call your friends–or better yet, talk to them face to face? You’d probably be more productive in life and learn something about sincere communication.

      4. Brian Newton says:

        You should be aware that your comment reads as “I’m old and scared of technology!” Camera phones are the evolution of digital cameras, by the way. You added nothing to the conversation. Well done.


      and what are you/ just another part of the clan of morons..nothing new..move on and die fool

  19. Peach Fuzz Inspector says:

    Now the whole world knows that this 13 year old girl has peach fuzz south of the boarder. How sad this is.

  20. Rod Anders says:

    60 years ago, my Sunday school teacher went to prison for having sex parties for kids in his attic after church.

    1. PIKE BISHOP JR. says:

      bet your stupid mind was blown..right cupcake?..bet it was real gay attic day

  21. Captain Bruce says:

    You can’t blame the young people. Our culture, advertising, media, movies, games, literally everything is full of sexual images. what do you expect them to learn except what we are all modeling for them? the best you can hope to teach at this point is Caution, Care, Be careful what you put out there. It is beyond you now.

    1. Lungs_of_Steel says:

      You’re absolutely correct! 30 years ago, teens were not interested in sex at all!

  22. Alton says:

    It amazes me how the rationale, with regards to some of the behavioral patterns by teenage girls, is basically pointing out the age being an impressionable one. I have an older sisters as well as two younger ones and they’ve never been placed in comparable situations, so it brings to mind this notion that some individuals prefer taking the route which follows and others are innately leaders.

    Sadly, this girl is following the very path of someone she shouldn’t. I can’t entirely blame the parents because i’m pretty sure they provided their roles at home. When a childs exits said home, ultimately they decide to practice the values instilled or not. Well, she chose to send nude photos without having the slightest inclination to how detrimental the action could be.

    It’s quite sad being witness to the state of this world.

    1. Rod Anders says:

      If you’ve ever been out of this country, I’m sure you know that the REAL world is MUCH worse than this.

    2. Brian Newton says:

      You know this girl, this family? If not, how exactly are you “pretty sure” the parents did anything at all.?

  23. Who Cares says:

    Some of y’all bugging… When I was in school about 15 years ago, kids were wilding out like it was nothing. This ain’t nothing new at all. The only thing that has changed is the technology. Back in my days it was disposable cameras, now it’s camera phones. Like one commenter said, it’s all about these kids and their lack of hormonal control, the lack of supervision and attentiveness of the parents, and an increase of the vulgar images that we see on TV that makes it seem like it’s alright.

    Another thing about it all is that people are talking about how bad public schools are or whatever, but private schools are even worse, they just keep there scandals under wraps.

  24. None Of Your Business says:

    I think this 13-year-old girl, obviously a tramp, who sends nude photos of herself to the boys, will, in a few years, be enjoying a successful career on 42nd Street and then a few years after that will be found in an unmarked grave in a wooded area between a highway and the ocean on Long Island.

    1. None of your stupidity says:

      Haha… when was the last time you’ve been to 42nd street? =D lame

    2. Frank D says:

      You’re a bit dated- don’t go looking at 42nd Street.

      You obviously have not been there in the past 10 years

  25. Philip says:

    Its the wonderment of this world that these children are drawn into. They are easily influenced by what they hear about what others do. I guess there is a price to pay for certain actions and this must be taught to them in their schools.The virtual world is easy to get to and these children should be trained to induct more then product themselves. Sex education is here and now and it is applied but there must be some virtual sex education as well to control the mind.as for what has happened all students nationwide should have their hand phones checked if they bring them to school . This way they will understand the serious of the mistake.

    1. Eric says:

      Kids shouldn’t be brigning phones to school to begin with. They are suppose to be there to learn not play around with gadgets. And consequences to their actions should be taught at home not in the schools. Schools got enough to teach as it is and should not be there to replace the parents.

      1. Brian Newton says:

        Parents whine when you try to stop their kids from bringing phones to school.

  26. KPMc says:

    “The incident is expected to spur parents to get more involved with what their child is sending and receiving via cell phone.”

    And pigs will fly, too. Why would parents bother to start parenting now? That’s what they’ve turned schools and the government into. Baby sitters for their kids with no direction.

  27. sw says:

    Student – Thanks for reaffirming the validity of Ms. Chocolate’s comment.

  28. Truth & Beauty says:

    With each advance in technology comes additional liabilities and the necessity of teaching responsible use. If cell phone use can render an innocent recipient guilty of possession of child pornography, then children must be told what to expect when they engage in the transmission of such material.

    As for the young girl guilty of sending the original photos, her parents should divest her of her phone post haste and not let her have a phone that can take or transmit photos until she turns 18. It is, of course, far too late to start teaching her morality now, but at least prevent her from forcing others to commit crimes merely by receiving what she sends.

    What kind of world this has become when so far from Eve hiding behind her fig leaf, we have gotten to young girls transmitting nude photos of themselves into the public domain. G-d sure was right about not eating the fruit of that tree.

    1. Jehu says:

      Um. You do realize that according to your archaic creation myth, if Eve HADN’T eaten from the fruit of the tree her nudity would have been on display for eternity? They didn’t become ashamed until after their fall.

      Then again, you sound to be a Christian, so I’m not surprised you haven’t read the Bible.

      1. another student says:

        Looking at these comments their seem to be some people commenting who think they know what is best because they are grown up, pious, or whatever the case might be. This is not an issue about whether cell phones inhibit learning, or an issue of morality, it is an issue of education and learning to make proper choices. Like all other pieces of technology, cell phones must be used in the proper way. Like fire or the internet, cell phones can be useful and very helpful as long as they are used for the right reasons. The best way to do this is through education. Educating teens on why this issue is such a big deal is the only way to get through to them. Monitoring cell phone use is not going to get parents any where because it will only create more hostility between them and their children, and this will prevent children from being able to have open communication with their parents. I am an excellent student, but if my parents were to monitor my cell phone, I would deeply resent them.

      2. Rod Anders says:

        @ student – we are not here to be liked by our children. We are here to parent them.

      3. Rod Anders says:

        LOL. Good one! I have found that most Christians don’t know their own Bible. I’m an agnostic … I know the Christian Bible.

      4. LG says:

        Dear another student,

        You bring up a great point about educating children.

        However, in regard to your last comment about resenting your parents…tough. Your parents are there to protect you and aid in your growth. Until you are 18 years of age, you have limited and discriminate privacy since you are THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. If you were found performing criminal acts on either a computer or a cell phone that they are responsible for, YOUR PARENTS WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, TOO. As you grow up, you should start thanking your parents for everything they’ve done for you.

        They’ve obviously raised you well so far to speak so eloquently about the importance of education. You’ll get over your resentment when you’re old enough to understand why anyone would care enough to monitor your activities. Find other ways besides using a cell phone to promote your own privacy. Good luck to you.

  29. Ms. Chocolate says:

    As a Teacher in New York City, I can tell you, cell phone use during class is totally distracting to students. Parents give children cell phones , and in actuality they are hurting them. If you give your child a cell phone, you must monitor their use, and check the hours of their phone activity. We have to be more accountable for our children.

    1. student says:

      if a student doesnt want to pay attention they wont i have a cell phone and it doesnt distract me, if a student does like the class they arent going to pay attention deal with it. U know wat maybe more people would pay attention if u were nicer cause just from that comment i wouldn’t to have u as a teacher. I went to Eisenhower, my year was the first year this happened, its not cellphones its just the age so just shut up

      1. Lee D says:

        Maybe you should put down the cell phone and learn proper grammar, punctuation, etc. Pay attention in school so my taxes don’t have to support you when you go on welfare.

      2. Nate says:

        I suppose you are proof of the damage that Ms. Chocolate was referring to. Your post is a display of ignorance. Grow up.

      3. Gerald Waldman says:

        I’d guess you didn’t like English class, did you? Your writing is barely legible or literate.

      4. Rod Anders says:

        Obviously, you weren’t paying attention in English class.

      5. BronxTeacher says:

        I’m having a hard time with your position that the teacher isn’t nice because the teacher wants you to be focused so you can get an education and secure a better future. It’s deplorable that you would find the efforts your teachers put in to helping you gain some kind of opportunity to become something to be nothing more than an imposition to be resented. I would have been fine having you as a student . . . year after year apparently because you surely would have failed my class based on the abject ignorance your comments reveal. Maybe you would have learned something about accountability for your choices at the very least.

      6. Eric says:

        student, you went to Eisenhower and this happened your first year? Based on your logic and writing abilities, I’m guessing you are now in your 3rd first year at Eisenhower….

      7. LG says:

        Nice comments, kid. Do you say shut up to all adults or just your teachers? I would have your butt in the office so fast if you dared be disrespectful to that degree in my room. Schools have telephones for emergency use–students do not need cell phones during the day. Turn them off and keep them in lockers. This eliminates distractions. I don’t know why all schools do not have these kinds of policies. Unless cell phones are engages as learning devices, leave them out of the classroom.

        It’s NOT just the age. It’s naivete on the part of parents. Limit cell phone use and monitor it. Do not allow your child to use the cell phone alone in their rooms. It isn’t necessary for kids to text friends 100% of their waking hours. Leave the cell phone turned off overnight. You can also look online at cell phone usage to find out to which number your child is connecting and whether it’s a text or call. You can monitor the situation. It’s just gotten so out of hand now that parents who want to limit cell phone usage do not have any support for each other. They just let kids live their lives with their cell phones because that’s what everyone does.

        Keep computers in common areas of the house so that children can be monitored. Do not buy your children laptops until they are of college age. Do not give them smart phones–these are not necessary. Cell phones have become primary communication devices for adults, and now kids are stuck on them. How great for the technology companies! They keep us poor because they know we are addicts. Don’t turn your child into one.

      8. The Motivator says:

        I find it absolutely hysterical that a kid comes on here and insults people who are seeing all sides of an issue with incorrect grammar, punctuation, and spelling. I was a hell of a distraction kid. I WAS the class clown. But at least I paid attention and learned basic life skills! I work at a law firm now. If I get a brief that is as poorly put together as this kid’s comments, I would send it right back to whoever wrote it. What a joke our society has turned into. Whether it be the liberals who make us show respect in lieu of the First Amendment or the conservatives who want to put everyone in jail for doing things they feel are lower than their morality. You’re all a bunch of dummies. The parents, and ONLY THE PARENTS are responsible for this kid’s actions. At 13, we don’t expect this kid to make any independently smart decisions. It’s the reason we don’t impose the same punishments on them as adults and the reason we don’t allow them to marry, drink, drive, or stay out past a certain hour. They’re not to be trusted and parents should know that.

      9. LG says:

        Motivator–What do you do at the law firm? Empty wastebaskets? (No offense to those who empty wastebaskets.)

        Once pornographic material depicting minors is in the possession of the public, it is the responsibility of law enforcement to track down all who have it. With no consequence for the person who originally disseminates it (minors included), porn traffickers can use children to send these images without penalty. No, that is not an overly conservative view–that is reality. Criminals can and do use the law to their advantage. Stop this activity in its tracks–NOW. Make it illegal to send pornographic images of minors, PERIOD.

      10. snowdog says:

        Open mouth, insert foot. You’re an embarrassment to yourself. Forget about paying attention to a teacher . . . no one is going to pay any attention to YOU during your life if this is how you communicate.

Comments are closed.

More From CBS New York

Get Our Morning Briefs

Listen Live