Prosecutors Still Want To Charge Girl Who Sent Naked Photo Of Herself For Child Porn
from the crime-and-punishment dept
You may recall last year that prosecutors in Pennsylvania wanted to charge some girls who had taken either nude or partially unclothed photos of themselves, and then sent them via their mobile phones, with "child porn" charges. This seems pretty ridiculous no matter how you look at it, and it was good that a judge temporarily blocked the prosecutor from moving forward. You would hope that this would give the prosecutor a chance to rethink this idea, and perhaps realize that it's beyond extreme.Instead? The prosecutor is appealing the ruling and still wants to charge at least one girl with child porn charges. The ACLU is fighting back, not just for this particular girl, but apparently over the threats of felony charges on 16-girls, who were then forced to participate in a "re-education" class to avoid charges. I have no problem with children being educated about why such things are really bad ideas, but to threaten them with felony charges, especially when even the mothers of one of the girls says that photos were just some girls goofing around, and in most cases no worse than what you'd find it a typical Victoria's Secret catalog? That seems like a prosecutor going too far.
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, sexting
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Lets start with Texas, then.... well I think that about covers them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
eliminate the socialist threat
then we can talk about Texas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
yes, because thinking about the well being of your fellow man is evil and against the pursuit of profit while drowning in your enemies blood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In that case, all of the models are over 18.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court ruled a while back that mere nudity (even of a minor) is neither obscene nor pornography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow, some 2000+ years of culture disagree. Last I checked the image of a nude "child" doesn't instantaneously turn everyone into a sexual rape frenzy.
Nor does something magical happen between the last second of being 17 and the first second of being 18.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There people today who seem to think otherwise.
Nor does something magical happen between the last second of being 17 and the first second of being 18.
According to the (magical) law, it does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
prosecutors...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: prosecutors...
Of course not. That would go against the "common sense" selective enforcement some here are promoting. See, that's the thing about selective enforcement: it makes it much easier to have bad laws on the books because they won't be applied to "important" people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some people are histerical.
Now the funny part is that the law is to protect children from exploitation but probably those childs are being exploited for political gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Some people are histerical.
To be culpable of a felony implies the knowledge that something sinister is being done. If that's the case, it sort of takes the 'child' out of 'child pornography.' What fun to have a felony attached to your name because you technically fell beneath an arbitrary number.
Once you strip away the scary buzzword, the prosecutor is either going after girls who didn't truly do anything wrong or children who didn't know any better.
You're right, the lawyer is exploiting them more than they ever could have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Child pornography laws do not differentiate between who produces the porn. Whether a 50 year old father is taking sexual pictures of his daughter or whether the daughter is taking sexual pictures of herself. Under the law, the guy and the daughter are both criminals.
You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault. If the law is wrong, the burden is on the state's legislature to change it. The prosecutor is sworn to prosecute criminals who violate the laws of his state, not to sweep them under the rug and pretend they don't exist when you disagree with them.
Everyone who thinks the girls should not be prosecuted should write their local state's legislator and demand their child pornography laws should be changed. Only then will this problem be fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So you think the real solution is to leave this stupid law on the books as it is? That's your solution? Wow. Great plan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The term you're looking for is 'prosecutoral discression.'
This is a case that could use some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is a case that could use some.
That's exactly what's happening in this case. You just don't so happen to like the prosecutor's discretion. Too bad. When you get to be the prosecutor there, you can use your own discretion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um yeah. The entire term implies that actual prosecutor could be an insane jackass.
Because that's his discretion.
So, it worked as well as you'd expect, if you were George Orwell. I think he's a basket case. He's basking in his glory. The system works as expected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, ain't "prosecutorial discretion" beautiful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, it's called selective enforcement. So how about we just make everything illegal and then use selective enforcement?
Of course then you'd have to rely on the prosecutor's discretion and isn't that discretion what you're complaining here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not at all. Maybe you should look that term up before using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ima Fish
This is a case where the PARENTS should discipline. The girls were being kids. Forcing the stigma of child pornagraphers on them and their permanent record for this is textbook hateful.
We should step back and consider the real picture here. The girls weren't trying to harm anyone, they have already been punished beyond the extent of their crime. They are kids. They WILL do stupid things, and I can gaurantee that you and I had done far worse as young people. Stop looking to hurt others and look to protect them, guide them and care for them. If you won't do that, then who is the bad person here.
Peace to all with an open mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ima Fish
Sure, let's assume your judgment as prosecutor is good and you decide not to prosecute these girls. But what about the next prosecutor, what if he's a religious nut? Or the one after that, she's trying to prove she's tough on crime?
The only real solution is to change the law. That will solve the problem, not just bury it for someone else to dig up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish
The police, the prosecutor and the legislature all seem to disagree with you. Let's see what the court says now. Of course, you're so much smarter than all of them, aren't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ima Fish
That does seem fairly likely if the summary of this story is accurate. There's nothing about being cops, prosecutors, or legislators that necessitates genius, and wisdom is definitely not a prerequisite. What do you suggest, I just turn off my critical thinking and assume these guys must be on the ball, because they're getting paid to do this stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't believe she is. She's being prosecuted as a minor who committed a crime. Minors are not immune from the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court ruled a while back that mere nudity (even of a minor) is neither obscene nor pornography.
> You're blaming the prosecutor for this. It's not his or her fault.
> The prosecutor is sworn to prosecute criminals who violate the
> laws of his state
Baloney. Prosecutors plea out cases and drop charges all the time. Prosecutors have wide discretion in both who and what to prosecute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. I still find it odd that a picture of something that isn't a crime is a crime.
No. Prosecutors have quite a bit of leeway.
Yes. The laws do need to be made sensible, and without this, this situation will happen again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: prosecutors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> arrested for viewing child porn?
Or if she masturbates, can she be charged with sexual assault on a minor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Some states might say "yes". They view it as their duty to protect their citizens from committing immoral acts (such as masturbation or other non-reproductive sex acts) on themselves. Accordingly, some states have decided that it is better to send people to prison than to let them masturbate. I can well imagine that they would consider masturbation by a child to be a felony.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of them if they take pictures and send them to people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Texas passed a law against selling and possessing dildos because they didn't even want *adults* masturbating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, because no image is being recorded. But, if she takes a picture of herself naked in a mirror then yes, she can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Legal Insanity
That only means they're blocked from technically charging her with child porn. Using the prosecutor's (dubious) logic in this case, a minor looking at herself naked in a mirror could still be charged with felony indecency with a child and/or voyeurism, which are both offenses which result in sex offender status upon conviction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legal Insanity
Citation, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Legal Insanity
> > charged with felony indecency with a child
> Citation, please.
Citation to what? It's a legal analysis based on the prosecutor's theory of the case at issue. If a minor can be charged with manufacturing child porn merely for taking pictures of herself, then other sex crimes would also apply to minors similarly situated:
-- If she masturbates, then sexual assault on a minor would apply.
--If she looks at herself naked, then voyeurism and felony indecency would apply.
If turning the victim of the crime into the perpetrator is valid for child porn, then it's logically valid for other sex crimes as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
this has happened
this one might be a bit iffy but i just saw a similar, but even more innocent incidence on the news. can't find the article on the net though... same deal as this. The problem is the retarded prosecutor, yes change the law too, but if laws must be so exact and followed to the letter that there is no room for discretion, like imafish suggests, you wouldn't need the prosecutors, attorneys, etc. You would just follow what was written to the letter. Doesn't seem like a wise way to do things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Age of consent?
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm
So she can say yes but not show her body?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Age of consent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These laws are intended to protect minors from being exploited, not to punish children for making bad choices. How doesn't destroying the minors life over a stupid decision that will already haunt them for a very long time, make any sense? Punishment for stupid decisions that do not impact others should be left to the minors parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
their real crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
missing the point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicely put.
The quote was "NO worse than what you'd find in a typical Victoria's secret catalog". Nudity, even underage nudity, does not automatically equal pornography in the eyes of the law. A case must be made for that distinction. Perhaps the pictures do qualify, but probably not if they're being compared to a lingerie catalog that's handed out like flyers in malls across the country ever day...
There have been a number of mainstream films shown in theaters throughout the years that feature underage nudity and I'm not aware of a single one of them experiencing any legal fallout as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
think of the children!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: think of the children!
Wyoming County PA DA George Skumanick Jr is the prosecutor in question and thoroughly lacking in common sense and decency. I think an old fashioned stoning is a proper response to idiots like this. At least firing him in the next election is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: think of the children!
Well that's going a bit far - but clearly he is the one in need of re-education.
Here is a book that he ought to read:
http://www.watersidepress.co.uk/acatalog/info_9781872870717.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So you want to ruin the girls' lives in order to teach the parents a lesson?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No but apparently the parents do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Come on - this is ridiculous.
The law is ridiculous and should be changed. This however doesn't excuse the prosecutor. The excuse you are making for him is the "only following orders" excuse which does not hold water. The re-education program is also a ridiculous and the parents are quite right to refuse to co-operate with it.
Anyone who defends the law or the prosecutor, or blames the parents or the kids is desperately in need of "common sense re-education" and needs to read this book:
http://www.watersidepress.co.uk/acatalog/info_9781872870717.html
or go on one of the courses that are run based on it.
To repeat:
yes of course the law should be changed.
BUT no it should not be enforced in the meantime.
The law will never be perfect.
The prosecutor will never be perfect.
BUT between them we ought to be able to get to a better state than either on their own could manage. That is why we have both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
child porn
we try to teach our childern how to be good adults..now it seems we have to teach the adults how not to be childish
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look at the numbers....
None of this would happen in a direct democracy, except that just isnt feasible. But common sense should still prevail.
Of course they shouldnt be prosecuted, what on earth does this guy think he is doing.
Hmmmmmmm id love to put minors in jail with felony charges when they really did nothing wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"
Consider the case in the UK where two policewomen were prevented from arranging reciprocal childcare because someone in OFSTED thought that the law required such arrangements to be regulated like paid for nurseries.
There was an outcry (and a petition) and the government slapped ofsted down as follows:
"However, the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families announced on 12 October that it was never the Government’s intention to intervene in the arrangements parents make with friends to look after each other’s children, where there are no payments between them and the motivation is one of mutual aid. He has asked Ofsted to treat, with immediate effect, all these types of reciprocal childcare arrangements as beyond the scope of the childcare arrangements regulated under the Childcare Act 2006. He also announced that he is setting in train the process required to clarify the relevant legislation to exempt from registration these reciprocal childcare arrangements between friends. "
More details here: http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20902
Seems like you need a senior person to say "That was never the intention of the law"
Unfortunately in the US it seems to be a little too easy for tinpot dictators like this prosecutor to set themselves up with no-one able to slap them down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"
In the US the person with the "authority" to say what the law means is called a "judge". That's what US courts are for.
Unfortunately in the US it seems to be a little too easy for tinpot dictators like this prosecutor to set themselves up with no-one able to slap them down.
Courts and judges. I don't know what you have in the UK if not that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"
Yes we have those too - and juries as well - and I suppose the judge in this case will eventually fix this problem - but sometimes it helps if there is someone else in the system who can fix theproblem a bit quicker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Your problem is that the prosecutor has no "boss"
If basic common sense can be used before resorting to the courts then it should be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let the whores burn for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]