Prosecutor Who Threatened Teens With Child Porn Charges For Taking Pics Of Themselves Gets Sued
from the back-at-ya dept
Back in January, we got a tremendous response in the comments to a post about some teens in Pennsylvania who were facing the potential of child porn charges from an overzealous local prosecutor. Three girls had snapped nude and semi-nude pictures of themselves, and and faced charges of manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography; the two boys they sent the photos faced possession raps. Now, the ACLU has sued the prosecutor on the girls' behalf, saying he shouldn't have threatened them with baseless charges -- which haven't yet been filed -- if they wouldn't agree to probation and a counseling program. The prosecutor says he was being "proactive" in offering them a choice, but the ACLU says he shouldn't be using "heavy artillery" to make the threats. As its attorney points out, teaching kids that this sort of behavior can bring all sorts of unwanted and unforeseen ramifications is a good idea, but threatening them with child-porn charges isn't the best way to do it. Of course, in neighboring New Jersey, it seems like prosecutors didn't just stick to threats of such charges: a 14-year-old girl has now been arrested for child porn possession and distribution for posting nude photos of herself on MySpace for her boyfriend to see. At least in that case, they say they won't charge friends who viewed the photos as well.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: pennsylvania
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If you believe there is some sort of exception, please cite to that portion of the statute. I won't be holding my breath.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do think it's a little silly to arrest someone for taking a picture of themselves, but I'm not sure where I stand on if that should be legal or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Quoted from the MillerComplaintFinal.pdf that is linked to in the linked to article.
I seem to remember a part in the child pornography law about it having to be a sexual act to be considered child porn. This is why nudists sites don't always get arrested for child porn.
One of the photos was even described as the two girls "from the waist up, lying side by side in their bras, with one talking on a telephone and the other making a peace sign." This is not even a gray area since their is no nudity or sexual context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm firmly in Chrono & erichweiss' camp. I would further add to something Chrono touched on; is it possible that this is simply a power trip being the authoritative figure (the cop) is leaving on? I just this morning saw a Fox News story about a Dallas cop who stopped a Pro football player who got stopped because he was racing to the hospital to get to his dying mother in law. The guy is screaming at the cop that his mother in law is dying and the cop is going on about writing him a ticket unless he produces proof of insurance. Didn't help that the foot ball guy (forget the name) is black either. We're living in a police state, don't fool yourselves people. Common sense has no place in such a state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
These people also think that taking pics of your young kids in the bath and streaking through your house is kiddie porn.
Mr DA, Just because these things may inspire dirty thoughts in the minds of the maladjusted and the adolescent, does not mean they are all bad. Sometimes you just have to take them at face value... just pictures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Charging someone with child porn-related charges puts a black spot on their record for life. Even if we decide taking a picture of oneself should be prevented, it's counterproductive to ruin a child's adult life for the ostensible purpose of protecting them from themselves...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
CP is a serious issue, and regardless of source, action needs to be taken to stop it. The kids doing this crap need to understand the implications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're stretching for an excuse where there isn't one. You're also blaming the 13yo for the actions of the molester. The molester is the one getting their jollies on the non-porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only real protection from stupidity is education. Sheltering your kids DOES NOT PROTECT THEM, it just makes them uninformed, vulnerable, and in great position to make a bad choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You must not quite understand how the law works in the US. If a 13 year old takes a picture of herself and her boyfriend shows someone else, he is then in trouble for distributing photos without the user's consent. Nude photos DO NOT necessarily mean pornography.
Do some reading and get educated before you decide to post your opinion around on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is no difference made in law between production and self production. While it may sound silly in the abstract, taking images of yourself nude while underage is potentially a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And in a similar vein, there are also laws that make it a crime to engage in sexual activity with a person under a certain age, period. Even if that person is themselves. So basically, it is a felony sex crime for a person under a certain age to masturbate. That's the law.
Of course, catching the little buggers at it can be difficult for the cops. That's why people like the Houston Chief of Police have said that they need to have surveillance cameras in private homes. To detect crime in the home and protect the children (from themselves).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
by Anonymous Coward - Mar 27th, 2009 @ 8:41am
>>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's been pretty widely reported. Here are a couple of links.
Houston police chief wants cameras on homes, streets
Houston Police Chief Wants Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
CP are serious business, because preditors are sneaky people. Give them a hole like this, and they will suddenly claim that every picture they have was sent to them by a 13 year old that took the pictures herself, somehow making it okay.
Would you feel different if her boyfriend was 19? Or that she accidentily sent them to her church pastor instead of her boyfriend (next number in speed dial)?
SHe did what she did, and there is a law against it. What more needs to be said?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is true, but it also means that they are too young to have their lives ruined for a mistake that they didn't fully understand. Just like underage children do not get punished for theft and the like the same way an adult does, we shouldn't be punishing them this way either. Illegal or not, make them understand what they did and why it was wrong, don't ruin their lives, they're too young for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In regards to child pron debate? No would feel no different, especially towards the girl.
Would have some opinions about the boy though
"Give them a hole like this, and they will suddenly claim that every picture they have was sent to them by a 13 year old that took the pictures herself, somehow making it okay."
Once again you are totally missing the point, this is not about protecting the pedo's, this is about the state saying the children are their own victims. It's like arresting someone assault and battery...because they beat themselves up
"SHe did what she did, and there is a law against it. What more needs to be said?"
The law was designed to protect children, not to make criminals out of them. As some people are using it those ends a lot more need to be said
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You ought to rent the movie "Fight Club" sometime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Law
> the word of law, but the intent.
Actually, that's exactly the opposite. The written statute is controlling. Legislative intent can be taken into consideration but if it conflicts with the actual code section, then the code controls.
> Somehow I doubt you're an attorney
Whether he is an attorney or not, I am and you're mistaken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Bob, seriously, if there is one topic I am VERY VERY well versed in... pleae very carefully read usc 18 sections 2252, 2256, and 2257 to get a slightly better understanding."
What I want to know is why is WH "VERY VERY well versed" in CP laws? Considering that he appears to run a few porn sites himself... then it would appear that perhaps are friendly local troll is involved in the CP world himself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? Where did you get that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong Jurisdiction
> 2257 to get a slightly better understanding.
All well and good but those federal statutes have NOTHING to do with this case.
These girls are being charged under Pennsylvania law, not federal law. And Pennsylvania does require either depiction of the genitals or some overt sexual display. The pictures in question do not meet that standard. One is of two girls fully clothed. The other only shows bare breasts in a non-sexual setting.
Perhaps you should pay a little more attention to detail before condescendingly telling others they have no understanding of what's going on here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong Jurisdiction
Umm, no. According to the article, they haven't been charged at all.
Perhaps you should pay a little more attention...
Perhaps you should too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong Jurisdiction
> > Pennsylvania law, not federal law.
> Umm, no. According to the article, they
> haven't been charged at all.
Umm, no. According to the Pennsylvania DA, they've been offered a plea in lieu of prosecution. They've rejected the plea, hence prosecution. The fact that formal charging documents haven't been served yet is irrelevant. The process of prosecution has started.
> > Perhaps you should pay a little more
> > attention...
> Perhaps you should too?
Nope. No need. I wasn't wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong Jurisdiction
Just can't admit it, eh? I think a lot of people are laughing at you right about now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong Jurisdiction
> at you right about now.
Since you apparently have no actual rebuttal, you're resorting to ad hominem attacks. Of the two of us, I'm not the one being laughed at, Sally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bob, seriously, if there is one topic I am VERY VERY well versed in...
Weird Harold being very very well versed in kiddie porn laws. Now there's a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All the education in the world is not going to make me believe that prosecution of children who send nude pix of themselves to their friends was the intent of this law when drafted. Even so, the purpose of prosecutors and judges should be to JUDICIOUSLY apply and interpret laws, not be robotic dispensers & enforcers of the state's will. We're supposed to have a blind justice system The defendants at Nuremberg blamed their actions and lack of reason to an all-seeing state system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which would apply the law equally to everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Invalid and stupid fear mongering, could just as easily say
"Best ban mining, because those metals might be cast into bullets, which might be then put into guns, which might then be used by terrorists...miners are supporting terrorists, ban mining and lock up all miners!!"
When a law is banning people from taking pictures of themselves one of the following has happened
*The law is very badly written
*There is something messed up with those in charge of interpreting the law
*All of the above
In these cases it seems problem lies with the prosecutors, who are threatening to and/or attempting to lock up children for taking pictures of themselves and have them labelled for life as sex offenders in what is clearly a self promotion exercise by the prosecutors.
Adults harming children for their own self promotion? Now there is something that should be illegal…won't someone think of the children?!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The mining example is a total crock. Can you provide me a list of good uses for pictures of naked 13 year olds? Next to it, make me list of good used for mined metals.
Call me when it starts to make sense to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Even if these girls had been nude and touching themselves and had sent the photos to their boyfriends to arouse them it should not be considered child pornography, because child pornography involves victimization or exploitation.
What this should be considered I don't know. A sad, depressing, statement on society and parenting at the least. In the end though, this is merely a combination of ignorance, immaturity and exploration and should be treated as such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The law basically holds that underage persons are not capable of consenting to sex. Some people claim that's just a legal fiction, but fiction or not it's still the law. So according to the law, these kids are victimizing and exploiting themselves and so they need to be protected from themselves. The law does this, supposedly, by threatening them with punishment. Basically, our society has decided that it would be better for an underage person to be convicted and punished as a sex offender than allowed to engage in sexual behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Does this mean this child should be put on a sex offenders list and barred from being near public schools or babysitting other children?
How much jail time would be appropriate for taking pictures of yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now that does not make sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now that does not make sense.
There are lots of to keep people from harming themselves. The drug laws are one example. Some people claim that those don't make sense either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Flawed Logic
> exception, please cite to that portion of
> the statute. I won't be holding my breath.
The exception is called common sense. To interpret this law in this manner results in a legal paradox whereby the both the perpetrator and the victim of the crime are the same person.
If this girl had been caught masturbating, would it also be appropriate to charge her with sexual assault on a minor? After all, the law that crminializes sexual assault makes no exception for self-assault, so according to your logic, every teen who does it should be a felon and a sex offender.
And more to the point, all these laws were supposedly passed to "protect the children". The hysteria has now reached the point where we're prosecuting the children and marking them as felons and sex offenders for life in order to protect them. How much sense does that make?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Flawed Logic
Legally, yes. The problem is catching them.
Not much to me, but I seem to be in the politically incorrect minority these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Flawed Logic
No, that's not the way the drug laws work. When a person is arrested for selling drugs, the victim is not himself. When a person is arrested for possessing/using drugs, the victim is not himself.
However, the victims of child porn-- as defined by both statute and Supreme Court precedent-- are the children depicted in the images in question.
> Legally, yes.
Actually, legally no. To suggest otherwise is a legal absurdity and the only reason I brought it up was to illustrate it as such. The idea that any teenager who touches (or even looks at) his/her own body is a sex predator is nonsense of the purest ray serene, both legally and sociologically.
> The problem is catching them.
Not a problem at all. Parents catch their kids doing it all the time. It's so common as to have become the staple of dozens of comedies (American Pie, Porkys, etc.). And since adults are legally required to report child abuse upon pain of being charged with a felony themselves... if your view of the law were true, it seems like we ouught to be educating parents on their responsibility to turn in their children should they be caught looking at themselves in the shower or staying in that bathroom too long. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Flawed Logic
Then perhaps the law is absurd but it is still the law. Sometimes lawyers seem to have a difficult time admitting that the very law they practice can be absurd. I guess I can understand that.
I was actually thinking about law enforcement when I wrote that.
Oh brother, there you go giving them more ideas for prosecution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flawed Logic
No, it's not the way they work.
> A person can manufacture and posses certain drugs (even
> alcohol) without the involvement of any other person and
> still be convicted of a crime.
Yes.
> If no other person is involved then the only possible
> victim is the person himself.
No. The various legislatures have defined society as the victim in drug offenses. Drug trafficking increases crime, poverty, homelessness, violence, overdoses, etc. Therefore manufacturing, selling or possessing those substances contributes to the overall problem.
Now I don't necessarily agree with that reasoning-- the cities where drug use has been legalized seem to argue against it to a certain extent-- but that doesn't change the fact that the law does not consider the lone drug dealer cooking up crystal meth in his basement as the victim of his own crime when he gets busted.
However, the law (both statute and common law) *does* consider the minor depicted in the images in question to be the victim in a child porn prosecution.
> You don't seem like a very knowledgeable lawyer if you
> aren't aware of that.
Actually, I'm apparently more aware of the technical details of criminal law than you seem to be.
> Then perhaps the law is absurd but it is still the law.
The law itself does not require arresting a teenager for looking at him/herself in the mirror naked, nor does it require felony prosecution for masturbation. Period. If you think it does, cite me any compelling legal authority to support that notion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flawed Logic
Gee, that kind of involves more than one person, now doesn't it? What's the matter, couldn't think up any appropriate examples?
No, from what you've presented so far, I'd say apparently not.
I never said it did. Is a straw-man the best you can do?
Here you go, chief.
The very first place I looked, this is what I came up with:
==========================================================
Texas Penal Code, Section 22.011(e)
Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally or knowingly:
(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person's consent;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person's consent; or
(C) causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person's consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or
(2) intentionally or knowingly:
(A) causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of a child by any means;
(B) causes the penetration of the mouth of a child by the sexual organ of the actor;
(C) causes the sexual organ of a child to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;
(D) causes the anus of a child to contact the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor; or
(E) causes the mouth of a child to contact the anus or sexual organ of another person, including the actor.
.
.
.
(d) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the conduct consisted of medical care for the child and did not include any contact between the anus or sexual organ of the child and the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of the actor or a third party.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that:
(1) the actor was not more than three years older than the victim and at the time of the offense:
(A) was not required under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, to register for life as a sex offender; or
(B) was not a person who under Chapter 62, Code of Criminal Procedure, had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section; and
(2) the victim:
(A) was a child of 14 years of age or older; and
(B) was not a person whom the actor was prohibited from marrying or purporting to marry or with whom the actor was prohibited from living under the appearance of being married under Section 25.01.
(f) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree if the victim was a person whom the actor was prohibited from marrying or purporting to marry or with whom the actor was prohibited from living under the appearance of being married under Section 25.01.
===============================================================================
Notice that while the phrase "another person" is used in many places, this phrase is conspicuously absent in (a)(2)(A) so that it applies even if "another person" is not involved. Also notice that this would only apply to masturbation that involved some sort of penetration. Texas has a long history involving the criminalization of masturbation involving penetration and since 1973 it had been illegal to even sell dildos in Texas. (The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that statute on February 12, 2008. Texas may appeal.) Texas does not seem to be too concerned with little boys wanking thier willies though as long as they don't insert anything in their anus (that might be seen as homosexual and Texas "don't go for that stuff"). Likewise, little girls seem to be allowed to masturbate too these days (see how modern Texas has become with equal rights for boys and girls?) as long as they don't insert anything in their "anus or sexual organ". But if they insert something, it becomes a felony. Also note that under the listed defenses to prosecution it is NOT listed as a defense that the actor and the child are the same person.
Like I said, this is just what I quickly came up with the first place I looked. And you, claiming to be a lawyer, are acting like you couldn't find anything like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Flawed Logic
"The State of Texas argued that the state has the right to regulate morality: "The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate “morality based” reasons for the laws, which include “discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation.”"
I found that with a quick look on Wikipedia. It sure sounds to me like the state justifying its anti-masturbation laws. Are you sure that you're a lawyer, BTR1701? And you couldn't even find what I did? If so then you must be of the lousiest lawyers I have ever come across.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Stated simply, One's own body has long been a form of self expression.
I highly doubt any case will hold up that prevents someone from taking pictures of them selfs for any reason. I will stipulate that some local courts or even Stat appellate courts may hold it up, but the case will eventually be won by the teen on appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The courts have already held, all the way up to the Supreme Court, that child pornography is not protected by any constitutional rights. You lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Precedent
> up to the Supreme Court, that child pornography
> is not protected by any constitutional rights.
> You lose.
The Supreme Court has also held that mere nudity does not qualify as pornography. Weird Harold's cited statutes to the contrary. If those statutes are ever challenged, it's unlikely they'd survive constitutional muster, given the precedent that's already on the books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Precedent
True. That's why I specified "child pornography". This was in response to a claim that "pictures of them selfs for any reason" would be protected by the constitution, which would include CP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But enough of the religious hoo-ha. This country needs to get over itself. Kids being foolish and harming no one - shrug it off. Will we be arresting skinny dippers at watering holes and making them register as sex offenders next - because someone drafted a law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"If you accept that child porn is illegal, (I'm not saying it should or should not be, that's simply irrelevant) than it simply does not matter who created the child porn. Whether it was a 40 year old guy taking pictures of his 13 year old daughter. Or the daughter taking pictures of herself. There is simply no exception under the law for self-created child porn."
If you truly believe what you just said(that taking nude pictures of ones self can be child pornography), then society is doomed. Children have the same right to their own body as adults. True, they should be discouraged from publishing photographs of themselves naked, but criminalising nudity for those underage is only feasibly possible if you also criminalise it for those over the age of consent. Otherwise, you are labeling as a sexual deviant someone merely based on the fact that they are by any normal measure NOT legally as responsible for their actions as the standard citizen. This is an absolute perversion of judicial standards in society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think Ima Fish was intending to make a statement there about the law, not of belief. If you don't believe it is true then I suggest that you actually go read the applicable laws. These are the laws that are passed by the representatives that society has chosen to represent it. Yeah, we have a screwy society driven more by notions of political-correctness than logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupidity Reigns Supreme
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All a lawyer has to say is, "this is your kid as well who's on the stand, your mother who took pictures of you as a baby when you were in the bathtub" While I admit, a few people might take this the wrong way, most people don't want a law that puts kids in jail for a vary long time on charges they took naked pictures of them self.
Now if a 40 year old guy gets a child to take self pictures you could argue that its the 40 year old who really did the crime as the child acted as a proxy for him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For most intents and purposes, Jury Nullification doesn't exist any more. Sure, it's still a legal right, but very few people know about it, and anyone who shows signs of being aware of it won't be picked to be on a jury. Once the actual trial gets inder way, the judge will blatantly LIE to the jury and tell them "If the prosecutor proves that the defendant did what they're accused of, you MUST find them guilty."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re Ima Fish
Hence the 'Baseless Charges' They are not saying that it is legal to create and disseminate child porn. they are saying that the teens did not create or disseminate child porn, and threatening to charge them if they did not agree to probation was a violation of their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re Ima Fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem is not the prosecutors
If you don’t like it, don’t vote for representatives who write stupid laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is not the prosecutors
That's why there are three branches to the government. Those that write the law, and those that enforce it are separated so that the writers don't put crap in there that can work to their advantage, because the enforcers would see that it's wrong and not follow it.
I do agree that we need to stop voting for reps who write stupid laws, that's a separate issue. You are completely wrong about the prosecutors not being the problem though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The problem is not the prosecutors
Agreed, which is why the county prosecutor is typically an elected official.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is not the prosecutors
Actually they do have a choice (just like the cops) and they make those types of choices ever day.
Their choice's might be called into question, and might even be called to task and fired over them but they do have a choice
Otherwise , they and the cops would be a load of Judge Dreads walking around going, "Littering? You are under arrest"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is not the prosecutors
I don't. Unfortunately, many of my fellow citizens do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is not the prosecutors
Apparently it doesn't, since the charges were baseless. If you actually bothered to read the article you would have seen that the images weren't nude or sexual, and didn't meet the state's definition of porn. Hence the lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The problem is not the prosecutors
> problem is the law, The law says these
> kids are child pornographers.
Actually, the law at issue here (the Pennnsylvania Penal Code) says no such thing.
It requires that the picture be of a minor with genitals exposed (which is in none of the pictures in question) or feature nudity combined with a sexual setting or pose. (One picture has no nudity at all. The other has bare breasts but the setting is distinctly non-sexual, so it doesn't qualify either.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PROTECT THE CHILDREN! PROTECT THE CHILDREN!
Any of us could be a child exploiter!
Pass out the cool-aid!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: PROTECT THE CHILDREN! PROTECT THE CHILDREN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I thought "No" was pretty succinct. The poster asked about the existence of a law that, as far as I know, does not exist. If you would like to cite such a law then be my guest and I will learn something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Victims of child porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact of the matter is, most times people say "there ought to be law" there really oughtent. We have too many damn laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If he really is that overzealous, then he could probably use some common sense.
This is really a parental issue. The parents are the ones that need to step in a talk with their children about their actions...not the govt.
Children rarely have the vision to understand how their actions will impact themselves, others and their future. It is common for people to look back at their younger years and have some regrets about things they did. This will likely be one of those things for these girls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lock me up and throw away the key
I guess that makes me a kiddie fiddler?
Dammit - I blame my dad, he started me off down this dark road with all those photos he took of me in nappies
Do X-rays count as photos? If so I'm taking that bitch radiographer who helped set my daughters leg down with me
On another note, how about these girls streak in front of court CCTV? - presumably that would mean that the courts themselves would be producing and in possession of child porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lock me up and throw away the key
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
um...
this isnt an issue for the courts its for the parents to deal with
parents stop being lazy and hope that the system will do your job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe then we could move on to arresting assualt victims for disturbing the peace due to all the noise they make while being beat up.
I know they wouldn't charge murder victims on account of them being dead, but maybe they'd start filing suit against their estates for littering public areas with all that blood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I Propose
Of course the problem with that is there would be TONS of pictures taken of them and even worse the 13 - 17 year old boys might not be able to restrain themselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Propose
Yep. By the cops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Propose
You know, I remember reading the federal law outlawing possession of child porn many years ago and noting that not only did Congress exempt law enforcement but they exempted themselves as well. Interesting, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems that the law is being applied to state exactly that, which is idiotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm sorry, while i don't support CP, I think a 13/14 year old knows what sexual desire is, and wants to explore it. I see nothing wrong with that. Teens should be edjucated so they know all that is involed with sex, but you can't stop them from doing what they biologically want to do. Now if this girl was taking pics of herself with the intent of trying to lure older men into doing something they shouldn't, then there is a problem. Sending pics to her boyfriend to turn him on... come on. Teens have been doing this sort of thing in one form or another for a very long time. Big deal *rolls eyes*. This all boils down to the same thing that everything else seems to now adays... "protect the children," "what about the children,"
"SAVE THE CHILDREN!"
Face the facts, kids do what they want. Some get away with it and some are caught, but they still do it. Can you really call this girl a criminal or victem for taking pics of herself. How many of you guys out there what have saw anything wrong with your girlfriend sending you provocative photos of herself what you were teens? hmmmm?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typos typos everywhere, lol
"how many of you guys out there would have seen anything wrong with your girlfriend sending you provocative photos of herself when you were teens?"
sorry for the typos, last sentence should should read better now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, are you saying that people should be allowed to do whatever they "want"? I thought that was precisely what laws were intended to prevent.
you can't stop them from doing what they biologically want to do.
Maybe not, but you can try.
Now if this girl was taking pics of herself with the intent of trying to lure older men into doing something they shouldn't, then there is a problem.
What about younger boys?
Teens have been doing this sort of thing in one form or another for a very long time.
People have been doing all sorts of things for a very long time (murder, etc.), but that generally isn't an excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If they are not doing anything to harm others, then yes absolutely. If the people involved are sane and consenting (i.e. without improper influences, etc.) then they should be allowed to do whatever they please so long as they are not harming others.
A teen taking a picture of themself and sending it to another who is open to receiving that image (or who has the choice to delete before being exposed to it) is harming NO ONE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Well, you might be the kind of parent that would let your little kids have sex each other (or even you), get drunk, shoot heroin, or whatever, but I can assure you that society as a whole disagrees with you. You are a very good example of why we have laws, even for parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously?
And, seriously, if we didn't have laws against most street drugs, then we'd likely have far FEWER problems around the drug industry. Yes, there will be addicts; there will ALWAYS be addicts. But if it wasn't criminalized, we wouldn't have the street gang violence. This is the REAL problem with the war on drugs: rather than helping the addicts, it makes way more individuals victims (exploitation of young, unsafe neighbourhoods, etc.)
I don't think that two adolescence following where their natural hormonal instincts are taking them is inline with organized crime. But you can still have your say at the polling booth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously?
You did by saying that kids should be able to do whatever they want. You keep making these outrageous statements that you then try to back away from. That tells me that you don't even believe the crap you're spouting off. If you won't even stick by your words, then why should anyone give a rat's ass what you have to say. In other words, it's obvious that you're just a troll willing to say anything to get a reaction. Well, I think it's time to quit feeding you now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
First, I said that there is no place for "society" (specifically the government, though I'd throw in any body that claims to have authority over my community such as a religious organization) to restrict behaviours on individuals that do not cause any harm to others.
Second I am saying that when it comes to younger individuals, punitive laws are not the way to bring about desired behaviour when it comes to actions that cause no harm to others.
You seem to have a hang up on the term "sex". Why do you think that the government has any role in my affairs (or that of my children) when it comes to sex? What is so unnatural about "sex" that we need to be policing such affairs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2009/03/26/ws032609sexting. html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few explanatory notes
1. The naughty pics were discovered by school officials last October during a search of personal property which in itself might be violate the 4th Amendment.
2. Within a couple of weeks, the DA involved, George Skumanick Jr., announced at a public meeting that the minors involved could be prosecuted for "sexual abuse of children" and "criminal use of a communication facility", felonies worth 7 years and sex offender registration. He repeated these threats to reporters and tv interviewers at every opportunity.
3. In February, he wrote to the parents stating that their child "has been identified in a police investigation involving the possession and/or dissemination of child pornography", telling them about the rehab program, and stating that any that did not attend would be prosecuted.
attend. When the parents objected, he told them "these are the rules, if you don't like them, too bad." All but three of the families caved to the threats.
4. It is the mothers of the three holdouts who brought the case, not the ACLU. It claims that what the girls did was in no way participating in child pornography and that the photos are protected by the First Amendment. Finally it claims that "Skumanick's insistence that the plaintiff parents force their children to attend a re-education course interferes with the parents’ right to direct and control their childrens upbringing."
5. Skumanick is up for re-election next November in rural Wyoming County.
Weird Harold, what is your problem, and how come you know so much about Child Pornography?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burn em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can I get a Reality Check?
I'm so sick of this myth that naked pictures cause problems. The shame associated with nudity (and even sex) says more about the those viewing the picture than those who are in it.
Seriously, has anyone ever known someone whose life was ruined because of a naked picture?
Anyone?
If it weren't for that prosecutor, none of you would have ever known anything about this. Isn't it ironic that the response taken to teach these kids about "unintended consequences" has done more to create those exact unintended consequences than the act itself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the Parents?
Take the cell phone w/camera away and replace (1 to 2 months later) with a non photo taking cell that can only call 911, mom, dad, grandma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I support this idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few comments
Most states have laws against suicide, wouldn't that be the same thing?
If the pictures are not illegal, why doesn't the ACLU post them on their web site?
You don't really have 4th amendment rights in school
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few comments
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A few comments
But I simply do not understand the practicality of having laws stopping people who have been properly counseled and still decide they want to commit suicide (with their affairs in order).
Are we making it illegal to stop non-sane people from killing themselves? That makes no sense.
Besides, it is only those that fail who can be charged...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another comment
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
People are sent to jail for their own good all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How they do things in PA
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html?ref=us
I wonder whether a private company provided the counseling service the teens in this case were coerced into. I think we should be told.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CP is a serious issue, and regardless of source, action needs to be taken to stop it. The kids doing this crap need to understand the implications."
-WH
And at the end of the day who is the victim of the crime? How can you have a crime without a victim? The whole point of CP laws are that they are meant to protect children not prosecute them. Again, it is not the immorality of the nude body that is the motivation of the law. CP laws are to prevent exploitation. They were not exploited here.
I agree, they must be taught that their actions will have serious repercussions, if not legal ones. Prosecution is not the way to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-WH
I'm picking on your cause you're the most fun to debate with :)
That's not the point. Who is saying that pictures of naked 13yos are useful? The point is, the defendant=the plaintiff. Two seats in the court room, one person. You don't prosecute the person who the law is made to protect. These sort of twisted interpretations of the law make sense only in places like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where, for example, victims of rape are found guilty of adultery and two women are the legal equivalent of one man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
IMO.. Minors who consensually take/share it with another minor should not face ANY type of criminal charges. Do you really think a girl who is 14 who takes a picture of herself for her BF to see, who doesn't know it is illegal, should be branded a sex offender for her life? That is pure insanity.
Now.. Any adults who possess the pictures should face charges. And any adult who is somehow involved in the picture taking or forcing of the picture taking should be dealt with very severely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
There is a lower age at which that is illegal in most states.
Some people are always clamoring for more and stricter laws. For example, here in Texas it used to be legal for 14 year olds to get married. I even went to school with a guy who married a 14 yo girl when he was 15. But due to popular sentiment they changed the law a few years ago and that would now be illegal. I think the minimum age is now 16 and some want to raise it to 18 or 21. The argument is that getting married and raising kids entails at least as much responsibility as drinking a beer. So if you're too young to have a beer then you're certainly too young to have kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Control
children are wards of the state and gov now,
people need to wake up!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think the prosecutor would consider this illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is it?
I'm reminded of the following. Every few years a headlining rape case will come up and feminists galore will appear on tv extoling the horrors of rape and highlighting that rape isn't a crime of sex, but of violence. Then, two days or two weeks later, you'll hear some of those same feminists giving speaches where they call all women victims or potential victims because they have vaginas and all men rapists or potential rapists because they have penises.
Somehow these feminists "forget" that rape is a crime of violence and they ignore that many rapes don't involve penises or even men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is it?
Ever notice how you never hear these feminists complaining about all the men getting raped in prison? All they ever seem to want to do is put more men there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I submit
http://xkcd.com/194/
This could apply to the other gender just as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I submit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I submit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I submit
you ISP probably does have a record of the image going to your house, but they can't prove who accessed it. So the state won't be able to charge anyone with a crime because they can prove who is actually guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bra is porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our Elected Representatives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unaccountable responsibility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silliness
These young people are just teens doing what they have always done. ...Being teens! Why brand them for life with fucked up airhead religious bullshit morals charges.
It's always about lawyers getting involved, I prefer GUNS!
You will get NO justice in America, go out and make your own!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law of unintended consequences: Charges may be filed?
He may not get a conviction, but that will moot any lawsuit that claims the charges were an empty threat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, porn laws need to be reformed
When a minor gives pictures of himself to another minor close in age, the only "victim" is the recipient, the same as if an 18-year-old gives pictures of himself to 17-year-old. If you are close enough in age to have sexual relations, you are close enough in age to show each other nude photos of yourself.
Sending nude photos of other people that haven't been widely circulated without their permission is a violation of privacy and should be treated as such by the law. This applies regardless of the age of the person in the picture.
People should be labeled as sex offenders NOT based ONLY on the crimes they committed, but on the crimes they committed plus the likelihood of committing sex crimes in the future. For most teenagers, once they get the fear of God knocked into them, they won't repeat their mistake.
The law needs to change to address this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]