the fuzzy images of the 17-year-old girl having oral sex [NSFW] with her high school boyfriend has sent shock waves through urban India, exposing the growing friction between the conservative middle class, its increasingly Westernized children and modern technology. [Chicago Sun Times]
The boy got off (as it were) with a slap on the wrist, despite cries for his blood. Meanwhile, the girl got sent off to Canada, as if enceinte.
Magistrate Santosh Snehi Mann released the boy on bail after his parents put up 25,000 rupees ($570) and surrendered the minor’s passport. The judge called his actions a “misadventure”. The court ordered the boy, who cannot be named, to undergo a month of counselling and told his parents to supply weekly behavioural reports. However, police and prosecutors had called for the boy to be kept in juvenile detention. A police petition said: “The act of the boy was obscene, depraved and showed his animal instincts and he should undergo psychiatric treatment and counselling. The girl involved has reportedly been sent to Canada by her parents. The teenagers were both expelled from their school. [BBC]
Meanwhile, in a charmingly quaint attempt to grab the limelight, Kareena Kapoor is suing a newspaper for having had the audacity to print photographs of her canoodling with co-star Shahid Kapoor in a restaurant.
An Indian Bollywood film star has begun legal proceedings against a tabloid newspaper that published photos of her passionately kissing her co-star. Kareena Kapoor – one of Bollywood’s most famous actors – is seeking an unconditional apology from the paper. She and her co-star Shahid Kapoor say the photos were doctored, and were not of them. The poor-quality photographs appeared to suggest that the two stars were kissing intimately in a restaurant. The BBC’s Zubair Ahmed says that the photographs and film clip of the two actors – who are not related – were apparently taken by someone with a video-enabled mobile phone. On Thursday, some news channels ran the entire clip. [BBC]
Previous Posts: The next M. Knight Shyamalan? Baazee.com CEO arrested over sex clip
let me get this straight. the kid who filmed the thing got sent for psychiatric counselling, but the CEO of a company who has no idea WHAT could be on his auction website from day to day (ask the security department, they know) got arrested with no bail for indirectly ‘promoting’ the video?
i guess the cops are just following the $$$…
Would appreciate the NSFW (Not Safe For Work) tag on that ‘oral sex’ link.
Andrea, after reading all the press reports, that’s what I originally thought. However, after reading two posts on Slashdot (presumably written by Indians living in India), I think I am starting to understand the reasoning of the police:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133593&cid=11157192
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=133593&cid=11156975
In summary, it appears that Baazee did not comply with police orders in a reasonable amount of time and that the age of the girl (under 18) makes this a child pornography case, which is Serious.
Nevertheless, the Indian police force/government has received a huge black eye in the court of public opinion, as the story is already typecast as yet another instance of them abusing their powers. The Indian government needs to get with the program before other countries say that it’s not safe to invest in India.
Done, and will do so in the future. Had neither heard nor seen that tag before.
Out of curiosity, what did you expect on a link labelled “oral sex” ? And was that really work unsafe? [I suppose it depends on where you work ….]
canoodling
you read way too many gossip columns
I guess graphics are usually unsafe for work while text only tends to be OK.
you read way too many gossip columns
apparently, so do you! 🙂
Anything inside 48 hours is certainly reasonable, and within 3 days is defensible.
Two 17-year-olds having sex does not make it ‘child porn,’ that’s absurd. Every time the Indian papers refer to it that way, it seems prurient and provincial.
Why was the girl expelled from school?
The same definition of child porn applies to the US as well, if you’re 17, it’s illegal.
The fact that she didn’t know she was being recordeded at all, let alone consent to the distribution of the video, is quite salient.
Honestly, I think the shit would hit the fan if Ebay took 2 days to remove a similar recording from their site. Maybe not quite as bad, but Ebay would end up getting sued …
That’s mutual statutory rape, not child porn, and a year away from legal adulthood is a technicality. The layman’s definition of child porn is an older man and a young girl.
It’s certainly a crime, but it’s not child porn.
The DMCA copyright act specifies at least 48 hours, if memory serves.