Another Cop Treats Sexting Teens Like Child Pornographers
from the teen-would-have-been-better-off-engaging-in-sexual-activity dept
More sexting stupidity, this time in Michigan.
A Three Rivers, Michigan, teenager is both the victim and perpetrator of a sex crime. He might land on the sex offender registry, and face criminal charges, all because he took an inappropriate photo—of himself.Hopefully, the prosecutor will realize that pursuing the suggested charges could ruin a few teens' lives. The police detective working the case seems to want to destroy these kids' lives… for the good of other teens, or something.
The boy is unnamed in local news reporters, which note that he is under 15 years of age. He allegedly took a nude photo of himself on a girl’s cell phone. That girl sent the picture to another girl, who sent it to another. Preliminary charges are pending for all three—the boy was charged with manufacturing child porn, and the girls with distributing it. A prosecutor is still weighing whether to pursue the charges.
Police Detective Mike Mohney told WBST.com that sexting is a serious crime because it leads to “bullying,” and “real severe things like people committing suicide or violent crimes against others because they're so embarrassed about it.”As Reason's Robby Soave points out, Detective Mohney is a walking contradiction. Apparently, it's never occurred to him that bringing child porn charges against these young teens might result in bullying and suicide. Nothing makes the future look dim and hopeless like a long stint on the sex offender registry. Nothing destroys someone's reputation faster than being listed alongside criminals who manufactured actual child porn, rather than just took a photo of their own adolescent body.
For that matter, the preliminary charges make this teen's decision to photograph his own body and send it to another teen a far worse crime than if he'd simply showed up at the girl's house, stripped off his clothes and proceeded to engage in sexual activity with her.
Taking off his clothes at her house would have been nothing more than indecent exposure, a misdemeanor. More importantly, unless the person has been convicted for other sexual-related crimes, there's no sex offender registration tied to the charge.
Even if he'd pursued sexual contact with the other teen, it still would have been a better outcome than being branded a child pornographer. Michigan has no "Romeo and Juliet" law, so any contact between teens -- no matter their closeness in age -- could trigger statutory rape charges. (Obviously, if the sexual activity was not consensual, this would be actual rape, but there's no reason to believe a [possibly] unsolicited naked photo rises to the level of aggravated sexual assault.)
If the activity was consensual, the worst charge would be statutory rape, which does not require sex offender registration for teens.
[P]eople who are convicted of criminal sexual conduct based on consensual sexual conduct with children over the age of 13 who are not more than four years older than their victims are not required to register.And, if the sexual contact contained no penetration, no criminal charges would be brought at all.
[A] 17-year-old who engages in consensual petting with a 14-year-old could not be prosecuted for a crime. However, if the parties engaged in oral sex, the 17-year-old could face prosecution.So, this so-very-concerned detective has taken a digital photo -- taken by a teen of his own body -- and turned it into something worse than actual in-person nudity and/or sexual contact. That's a pretty fucked up way to show concern for sexting teens. Treating photos taken by minors and distributed to other minors as child porn is the worst possible way to handle a situation that, in all reality, should be left to the discretion of the teens' parents.
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: child porn, michigan, mike mohney, police, sexting, teens, three rivers
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The law's the law.
You've confused "the law" with "law enforcement agents." Law is written by lawmakers. Police only enforce laws.
Distinguishing one from the other is important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The law's the law.
Not unintended at all. If lawmakers want to make exceptions they can do so. It's the cops job to enforce the law equally, not to pick choose who he thinks should be above the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
If they think to do so. They might think no one would prosecute self-pornographer children under the bill and thus not put in such an exception.
It's not the cops' job to enforce the law "equally." They are supposed to use human judgment. If laws were enforced equally, we'd all be in jail and bankrupt from paying fees because we all break laws everyday.
Arresting a child for making "child porn" of themselves isn't equal with arresting a 35 year old with making child porn with a child.
For another thing, if a child isn't legally capable of providing consent to have sex with an adult and thus would be the victim of statutory rape if they had sex with an adult, then a child isn't capable of providing consent to the creation of child porn and thus can't be convicted of making their own child porn of themselves. You can't be a victim of your own offense when the spirit of the law is meant to protect you, not to prosecute you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
How could anyone *not* consider it? It's an obvious case.
They might think no one would prosecute self-pornographer children under the bill and thus not put in such an exception.
And they *might* be unicorns too. But I doubt it.
It's not the cops' job to enforce the law "equally."
It most certainly is.
They are supposed to use human judgment. If laws were enforced equally, we'd all be in jail and bankrupt from paying fees because we all break laws everyday.
Then, gee, let's just make breathing illegal and let cops just use their judgement as to when to enforce it. We can pretty much get rid of all the other laws then.
Arresting a child for making "child porn" of themselves isn't equal with arresting a 35 year old with making child porn with a child.
So, you think it's OK up to age 35, eh? Yeah, I don't think so.
For another thing, if a child isn't legally capable of providing consent to have sex with an adult and thus would be the victim of statutory rape if they had sex with an adult, then a child isn't capable of providing consent to the creation of child porn and thus can't be convicted of making their own child porn of themselves.
Citation, please, or you're just making crap up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
There isn't an IQ test for getting elected. There are plenty of people who wouldn't consider it.
And they *might* be unicorns too. But I doubt it.
You have a lot of faith in legislators. Their track record doesn't support your faith.
It most certainly is.
It really isn't.
Then, gee, let's just make breathing illegal and let cops just use their judgement as to when to enforce it. We can pretty much get rid of all the other laws then.
Slippery slope much?
So, you think it's OK up to age 35, eh? Yeah, I don't think so.
I didn't say that at all. You're fighting a strawman. I arbitrarily picked out 35 so there wouldn't be confusion that I was referring to the difference between an adult and a minor. 35 is definitely an adult. Under 18 is definitely a minor. You seem to have difficulty understanding nuance.
Citation, please, or you're just making crap up.
How do you suppose I cite an opinion? Here, I'll try:
Me. (2016). What I Just Said. The Internet: Techdirt.com. Retrieved Feb. 6, 2016.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
A whole legislature, huh? Wow.
Slippery slope much?
Nice job of not answering the question you apparently wanted to avoid.
Under 18 is definitely a minor. You seem to have difficulty understanding nuance.
There is nothing all nuanced about declaring a specific number, as you did. Perhaps you should actually look up the word before using it so that *you* can understand it.
How do you suppose I cite an opinion?
Hint: Statements of claimed facts, such as "can't be convicted" are not opinions. So, yeah, you seem to be making crap up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
If you think the whole legislature considers every angle of every proposed bill put before them, much less actually reads the full text of every proposed bill, you are severely naive and need to watch a depressingly great amount of C-Span.
Nice job of not answering the question you apparently wanted to avoid.
There was no question, just an absurd suggestion of outlawing everything. Try again.
There is nothing all nuanced about declaring a specific number, as you did. Perhaps you should actually look up the word before using it so that *you* can understand it.
The nuance was not in the specific number but in the distinction between an adult and a minor. The fact that you didn't get that indicates that you did not understand the nuance. Since I was the one making the nuanced distinction, it's not possible for me to have misunderstood the nuance of what I meant, so your response is absurd.
Hint: Statements of claimed facts, such as "can't be convicted" are not opinions. So, yeah, you seem to be making crap up.
Nope. The assertion that minors can't be convicted of a crime they are not capable of committing is an opinion. You cannot tell me that my opinions are statements of fact. I stated them as opinions. I'm sorry you misunderstood them as statements of facts.
Is there anything else you want to tell me about what I meant? You seem to know me pretty well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
Is there anything else you want to tell me about what I meant? You seem to know me pretty well.
You are a convicted pedophile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law's the law.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/manassas-city-police-detective-in-teen -sexting-case-commits-suicide/2015/12/15/de88f7c4-a356-11e5-9c4e-be37f66848bb_story.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The law's the law.
It's the only legal way to consume pornographic material without getting a 'legal system' dick rammed in your ass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law's the law.
> Frank Zappa
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law's the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The law's the law.
Laws are intended to feed the criminal justice system.
Mission accomplished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
*Our* intent for the criminal justice system is to deter, and force compensation for, bad (predatory) behavior.
*Governments* pervert that intent into feeding that system. There's money and power to be gained from it which is all governments ever need and want. This is why governments must be closely monitored and constrained from running wildly out of control, because left alone, they will. It's a fact of reality.
Fire can be a very good thing for (eg.) converting raw material into edible food or keeping you warm, but it can also burn down your house, city, forests, ... Governments are no different. We need to develop something like the fire department to keep our governments from burning out of our control. Revolutions can do that, but they're hardly an ideal solution to the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The law's the law.
While I don't approve of sexting, kids show each other their bits in real life, too. It's a kid thing to do. To punish kids for being kids seems stupid to me. They need better advice on how to stay safe on the internet and how to avoid the pitfalls that go with exposing themselves (in every way) online, not heavy-handed legal beat-downs like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pedophiles are born that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pedophiles are born that way.
I think most people would prefer we not manufacture them instead of just identify them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but... copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but... copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So instead of 'The Police' saving you from what this MIGHT LEAD TO, they will intentionally inflict the same to you through the legal system.
I can imagine someone considering suicide after being labeled a fucking sexual predator over a dick pic. If a rebellion starts... it will be impossible for me to feel sorry for law enforcement harmed in the progress of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't be prosecuted for just an information about something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, I didn't know that, because it's not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's for his own good, to protect the victim!
Don't worry people, while this punishment may seem harsh and extreme, it's really all for the victim's own good.
Once he's on the sex offender registry he'll be barred from making contact with himself, and barred from living within 5 miles of himself.
It'll also protect him from being victimized by a sexual predator such as himself again. The state will know exactly where he lives, and will take appropriate action to keep him apart from himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's for his own good, to protect the victim!
"Sex offender sentenced to 10 years for touching himself in an inappropriate place! Says 'I was just taking a shower!' Read more about this disturbed individual on page 3."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It appears on this issue the feminists don't seek equality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Second of all, incorrect, part of feminism is getting rid of the stereotypes that women don't have the power to make decisions regarding this kind of thing. It's the current system that goes "hay, dude is guilty cause he's a dude and he should have known better cause he's a dude."
Part of the reasons feminism states that it helps men as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Second of all, no, that is NOT the way femenists are framing it, for some examples see here, here, here, and here, where feminists are pushing the agenda that the male is at fault, always. Oh, and 'yes' today could mean 'no' a week or so down the road.
Then again, I, along with everybody else, was trained by society and society is still trying to get it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Second article, only way it would not beconsidered by a higher court is if it wasn't appealed. It notes one woman has a radical feminist theory, this does not mean feminism. Additionally for a victim to not have to face their attacker is a thing that happens in cases from stalking, abuse, all the way up to murder. Ultimately irrelevent. Additionally the unconstitutional actions of a school which has attempted to do such a things can be sued, and they have been in the fast. They aren't legal adjudicators and if they do something that harms the rights of students, the students can very easily sue the school. I believe there was an article a while back regarding this very thing with a false rape claim, and the student sued the school and won due to the school attempting to do something like that.
The third really has nothing to do with feminism except for the author screeching in his second last paragraph about neo-feminists. Additionally I addressed this before, a large reason a man is considered guilty is due to how society perceives men and women. I also can't find a direct referrel of the case he's talking about, so I can't read through all the legal documents to create an informed opinion on that particular case.
Got halfway through the foruth. Again, societal/cultural issues regarding male responsibility as men are seen as the "actor" while women are seen as passive.
None of them really have anything to do with any feminist agenda. Aside from occasionally making comments about how women are fickle and likes to destroy lives, the articles really don't say anything about feminists, and only makes note of a SINGLE woman who was a 'radical' feminist.
I can't say one way or the other regarding that woman as I don't care enough to look her up.
Read it, ultimately little to nothing to do with feminism or feminisms goals. Nothing in there about how "feminists" frame anything, but it does seem you want to blame feminism for the actions of some individual women who may or may not actually be doing anything related to feminism. There was no speech from a feminist organization, no rallies, no anything regarding feminists regarding any of those cases, and even if an individual woman is a feminist, it doesn't make an issue that they are pushing a feminist issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We are both male and female persons. Certain specific traits can often generally be ascribed to one or the other, but it's hardly something that's universal and guaranteed. A lot of it is learned behavior, not dependent upon the gender of the individual person.
It's also "reactionary" with the assumption that since women have been treated like property by males through history, it's high time we forced male dominated society to pay back. It's reverse discrimination.
When I was a kid, it was practically unheard of for a father to gain custody when a marriage broke up. Judges just assumed children were better off with their mother. That wasn't feminism that caused that. That was tradition and conservatism playing out, to the detriment of fathers and the benefit of mothers.
Inventing feminism to make up for the excesses of historical male dominance was never justified. It's a putrid sham foisted upon us by credulous psycho-babble and people who think nothing of stereotyping based on gender.
I'm a person first, and so should you be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, feminism is about bringing equality between genders due to historic inequalities having impacts on how we view male/female interactions and positions in society. Black and white people are just persons with different skin color, but they had a long (and are still having a movement) regarding racial prejudice and intolerance simply due to their skin color.
There is no "reverse discrination", I have yet to see what "extra rights" feminists are fighting for that are above and beyond the rights men get. This is just one dynamic, there's many others of course, and different movements to address each of them.
I'm a person first, and I believe in equal rights for all, and I believe progress towards a utopia where we are not judged based on gender or skin color will only be obtained by bringing light on the injustices and inequalities and correcting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree, and men too! That male dominated society hasn't been all that much of a bed of roses either for a lot of males, forever just like for women. Feminists just feel they're oppressed by men. Aren't we all? Some men, yeah, but not all.
Keep on keepin' on; don't let the bastards grind you down. Build alliances, and stampede grind every predator any of you see into the dust (think herd of wildebeest :-). "Pooh: Oh bother. Lock phasers on the Heffalump. Piglet, meet me in transporter room three. ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some people have difficulty dealing with other people who are not like themselves. Society teaches that, at least the microcosm that an individual grows up in. Others are more broad minded, inquisitive, interested, accepting, willing to and relishing change. Unfortunately that does not include all of, or even a majority of society (which is where our laws come from and why there are many, many, many more males than females on the sex offenders lists).
But, you've convinced me. You are a dyed in the wool, true blue, never to be dissuaded feminist. Or would that be feminazi? I understand that people will believe whatever confirms their prejudice, no matter how ridiculous, and you have your prejudice. No matter what anyone else says, you are right. So, enjoy being right. The rest of us, or at least a lot of us, will enjoy ignoring you. Me...I'm looking for some changes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, they're both guilty of raping each other because a person under 18 cannot consent to sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law
We just allow them to fool the shit out of you and make you believe it is not!
We technically have the most straightforward government in the world, but you like most others cannot be bothers to leave your concerts and Superbowl seats to do much more than vote on the turd fucks that your party tells you to vote for.
100% of the problems with the US Governments is because the citizens give just exactly zero fucks unless it is news du jour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wooow!
http://i.imgur.com/5auhuVi.png
That escalated quickly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wooow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wooow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plenty of stupidity to go around
nude picture of person (regardless of age) != pornography
Therefore, no law was broken to start with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Plenty of stupidity to go around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law
The problem here is that the law makes now difference between a let's say 40 years old person, no offense against 40 year olds, and a minor who takes a selfie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law
none of it is straight forward and all if it is formed of pure corruption and fear tactics.
Everyone in the US has at one time or another been witness of or a party to child pornography according to how the law is written and that is just exactly what they fucking want it to be so they can shit right on your life the moment they decide they want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Law
All those individuals have been lucky so far but they can be prosecuted at any time now! That is the law!
If you don't get it... I agree with what you say but just to be sure let me add
/s
And about everyone sometime... that's how you get rid of people you don't like. Google "pinke rosa listen NSDAP" to understand what I mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They just need to clarify the law to make it so that brief, unintentional possession is not prosecuted the same as intentional possession. Otherwise getting sent child porn via email would be enough to convict innocent people of possession and would become a weapon for revenge, kind of like swatting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I hate to break this to you, but that already happens now...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The boy wasn't engaged in child pornography. A nude picture is not necessarily pornography.
The girls *were* engaged in distributing child pornography. There actions were done out of prurient interest. They took a picture that might not have been pornography, and changed it into child pornography. (As absurd as that sounds, it's the viewpoint used to prosecute people with collections of pictures of naked children.)
If there were a consistent approach approach to justice, the boy would be the innocent, offended party and the girls would be given long prison term and punished for life, just like other child pornographers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Try telling that to the Americans, and British... and Australians...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It sounds absurd because it is. Which makes any legal system that practices it absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where did you think you were? A country where you have rights and laws protecting yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Obviously I would never actually advocate this, just pointing out the hypocrisy.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bully decries bullying! Film at eleven.
Wake the !@#$ up, moran!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bully decries bullying! Film at eleven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: STATE SANCTIONED SEXUAL ABUSE OF JUVENILES - HAVENWYCK HOSPITAL - AUBURN HILLS, MICHIGAN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: STATE SANCTIONED SEXUAL ABUSE OF JUVENILES - HAVENWYCK HOSPITAL - AUBURN HILLS, MICHIGAN
Isn't the internet fun...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope, he was just enforcing the law, and the same law says he's exempt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]