New Mexico Attorney General Would Rather See Sexting Teens Treated As Sex Offenders Than See His Funding 'Jeopardized'

from the christ,-what-an-asshole dept

Wed, Mar 9th 2016 2:03pm — Tim Cushing

Teens sexting can't be addressed by existing laws. Law enforcement -- which far too often chooses to involve itself in matters best left to parents -- bends child pornography laws to "fit" the crime. They often state they're only doing this to save kids from the harm that might result by further distribution of explicit photos. How exactly turning a teen into a child pornographer who must add his or herself to the sex offender registries is less harmful than the imagined outcomes cited by law enforcement is never explained.

Over in New Mexico, legislators are making an honest attempt to keep sexting teens from being treated like sex offenders. And it's law enforcement that's leading the opposition to the proposed changes. The bill would continue to uphold harsh penalties for actual child pornographers while decriminalizing sexting between teens.

The New Mexico Attorney General is having none of it, as Reason's Robby Soave reports:

"I cannot support an amendment that weakens protections for teenagers from predatory activity, creates a dangerous new child exploitation loophole, and places New Mexico's federal Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force funding in jeopardy,” said Attorney General Hector Balderas in a statement, according to the Alamogordo Daily News.

This statement is not only ridiculous, but it shows the AG is more interested in budget lines than the future of teens who do the sort of things teens are inevitably going to do. Balderas is explicitly stating that he's willing to sacrifice young lives in order to secure his task force's funding. That's just sickening. In Balderas' world, sexting teens are nothing more than a revenue stream.

As Soave points out, the legislation still contains harsh punishments for child pornographers and does nothing to create a "loophole" for accused offenders. What it would do is keep teens from being charged for exchanging explicit photos with their peers by carving out an exception for photos exchanged by teens ages 14-17.

There's nothing logical about applying sexual predator/child pornography laws in this way. But Balderas has helpfully explained why many law enforcement officials are more than happy to do exactly that. There's good money in chasing down child pornographers -- a criminal act reviled by a majority of their constituents. Anything that might jeopardize these funds -- like treating sexting teens as a disciplinary/educational problem rather than a criminal one -- is to be rejected out of hand.

Soave notes Balderas was so incensed by this threat to his funding that he and his staff walked out of the hearing in a show of outrageously stupid, callously self-centered solidarity. Balderas may want to play hardball with child pornographers, but he's also shown he's more than willing to fuck a few kids himself when there's money on the line.

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: funding, hector balderas, law enforcement, new mexico, sex offenders, sexting

40 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

S. T. Stone (profile), 9 Mar 2016 @ 2:10pm

Balderas may want to play hardball with child pornographers, but he's also shown he's more than willing to fuck a few kids himself when there's money on the line.

WOW. That…that isn’t something you read on Techdirt every day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Barn25, 9 Mar 2016 @ 2:37pm
  
  Response to: S. T. Stone on Mar 9th, 2016 @ 2:10pm
  Wow you aren't lying thays some string language there.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sigalrm (profile), 9 Mar 2016 @ 3:10pm
  
  Re:
  Don't hold back...tell us how you really feel...
  
  It'll be interesting to read the cease & desist/take down demand when it (inevitably) gets sent to Techdirt and is subsequently posted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wendy Cockcroft, 11 Mar 2016 @ 5:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    I look forward to the inevitable "screw you!" response from TD and the Streisanding that's sure to follow.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2016 @ 3:16pm
  
  Re:
  But this is exactly the kind of stuff that needs to be said!!!
  
  Far to often the elected elite cause more trouble than is solved with all of their new laws!
  
  Fuck this Balderas guy!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  rather appropriate given the context
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
tracyanne, 9 Mar 2016 @ 2:28pm

Hey Tim
Tell us what you really think of these arseholes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2016 @ 2:28pm

I've got 20 bucks that says one day Balderas will be busted for pedophilia and child rape. Sociopaths like this who make a big deal out of insignificant issues often turn out to be some of the most vicious serial abusers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2016 @ 4:14pm
  
  Re:
  Just like the police officer that insisted on obtaining a pornographic picture of the teenager accused of sending pictures of himself. I'm sure he doesn't see how much harm he is doing to everyone involved. I think it might be best to do a computer scan of all electronics he has access too to ensure that he isn't abusing his position for immoral purposes directly. Oh yeah that first guy I mentioned, had tons of Child Porn on his home computer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Oblate (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 5:50am
    
    Re: Re:
    it might be best to do a computer scan of all electronics he has access too to ensure that he isn't abusing his position for immoral purposes directly
    
    This is how you make a law enforcement official stop complaining about how evil encryption is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2016 @ 7:55pm
  
  Re:
  Go read policemisconduct.net/
  
  Pretty much every single day there's a police officer or bureaucrat found to have child porn or have assaulted a child
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David (profile), 9 Mar 2016 @ 4:12pm

Screwing kids to save the cash flow.
Well said, well said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 9 Mar 2016 @ 4:20pm

well..
It's not like kids that age can vote, So whats the harm right?

(Screamin fuckin eagles protecting children)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert, 9 Mar 2016 @ 4:21pm

Dangerous Territory
Got to be careful about giving some children too much power. How long does a questionable photo have to exist on an adults phone for that adult to be charge with a major crime.
Any student could bring down any adult by the simply act of that child sending that adult a photo.
Most children would not but there are definitely some that would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Kal Zekdor (profile), 9 Mar 2016 @ 5:12pm
  
  Re: Dangerous Territory
  The bar would likely be whether there was any solicitation on the part of the adult. Mens rea and all that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - sigalrm (profile), 9 Mar 2016 @ 6:22pm
    
    Re: Re: Dangerous Territory
    Legally speaking, yes, probably.
    
    But if that individual is associated with, say, education or works with kids in any way, an accusation/investigation is often sufficient to destroy the individual's career, family life, etc.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 1:03pm
  
  Re: Dangerous Territory
  "Any student could bring down any adult by the simply act of that child sending that adult a photo.
  Most children would not but there are definitely some that would."
  
  Let's hope one that would reads this...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lois M (profile), 11 Mar 2016 @ 6:10am
  
  Re: Dangerous Territory
  As I see it, the bill exempts 14 to 17 year-olds from sending such pictures to EACH OTHER, not setting up older teens and adults for prosecution. However, it would make sense to exempt anyone who could legally have sex with these teens from prosecution for receiving pictures of the younger teens, and the crime should not be a sex crime, requiring registration, under any circumstances. Perhaps setting up an older adult could be prosecuted as false accusation or something similar.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2016 @ 4:29pm

At least he is being honest with his motivations. So will the state go up in arms over a blatant admission of being more interested in money then service soon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2016 @ 5:33pm

Justice: Serving the truth
When it comes to justice, the truth always comes out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2016 @ 6:07pm

Once it becomes the norm, it will mean nothing
When every teen becomes a sex offender, we will see a whole generation growing up to not think of a sex offence as a big deal. This is what they are doing by busting anyone and everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2016 @ 7:24pm

Silly rabbit...
Kiddy porn is for kids!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 12:15am

Balderas fucks kids?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 3:41am

So we destroy the children... for the children! And budget increments. So the question is actually what is worse: destroying the kids lives through sexual abuse or insane law enforcement?

I'd say both are equally hideous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David, 10 Mar 2016 @ 7:17am
  
  Re:
  Why choose if you can have both? Isn't that what the U.S. prison system is about?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 9:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    imprisoning innocent people for profit, since just sending the guilty to jail does not provide enough of a cash flow.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 10:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      imprisoning innocent people for profit
      
      They're not innocent if they broke the law.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 10:30am
  
  Re:
  So we destroy the children... for the children!
  
  Sometimes you have to destroy the village in order to save it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re:
  "So the question is actually what is worse: destroying the kids lives through sexual abuse or insane law enforcement?"
  
  There is no equivalence in this case. Sexting is not "sexual abuse" and the potential for long-term harm to minors from sexting is far less than the harm from being forcefully dragged through the legal system and coming out the other side as a registered sex offender.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 7:04am

Hector Balderas is a fucking scumbag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 7:24am

I heard about this on the radio in Albuquerque a couple of weeks ago. Balderas' specific gripe with the issue is he thinks the law can be construed to say that if someone is caught with child porn, but a minor actually created it, then the person in possession of it can't be charged and the creation of the image/video can't be legally investigated. I haven't read the text of the amended law in detail so I can't say if he's right or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  Balderas' specific gripe with the issue is he thinks the law can be construed to say that if someone is caught with child porn, but a minor actually created it, then the person in possession of it can't be charged and the creation of the image/video can't be legally investigated.
  
  So, he's saying someone can't be charged with creating something they didn't create? That sounds reasonable to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 11:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    So, he's saying someone can't be charged with creating something they didn't create?
    
    No, he's saying they can't be charged with anything, including possession.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 10 Mar 2016 @ 8:30am

Go figure
My opinion is sex crime is big business for the USA government that's why its going international now. I am willing to bet the states make more off the child porn then the pornographers through the giant system they set up to punish them and to also satisfy the public's hunger for vengeance. Its not like they actually care about kids they made it legal to kill them after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 9:38am

though of course when it comes down to those same officers and officials being charged fro breaking those very same laws they are exempted from any charges or repurcussions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nasch (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 10:07am

Age limit
What it would do is keep teens from being charged for exchanging explicit photos with their peers by carving out an exception for photos exchanged by teens ages 14-17.

Kids younger than 14 should still be charged as sex offenders? Or are they already exempt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
edincleve (profile), 10 Mar 2016 @ 10:33am

I knew after reading this article that Mr Balderas is a Democrat.

The reason of course, is because his political party was not mentioned. Party affiliation is only mentioned when the politician criticized is a Republican.

That is no different than most other journalist, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wendy Cockcroft, 11 Mar 2016 @ 5:51am
  
  Re:
  That doesn't matter a damn. You'll be saying all Dems are liberal socialists next; that's not the case. Many are actually right wing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2016 @ 10:42am

Huh?
What it would do is keep teens from being charged for exchanging explicit photos with their peers by carving out an exception for photos exchanged by teens ages 14-17.

Let me get this straight. It would be illegal for someone under 14 to distribute kiddy porn. Then, for a period of 4 years of their life (age 14 - 17), it would suddenly become legal for them to do so. Then, upon turning 18, it would just as suddenly become illegal again.

Sounds pretty screwy to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2016 @ 8:07pm

"Balderas may want to play hardball with child pornographers, but he's also shown he's more than willing to fuck a few kids himself when there's money on the line."

Best sentence of the week award, definitely. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]