Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Sues Penn Prosecutor For Empty Threat of Child Porn
TechDirt is reporting that the ACLU has stepped in on behalf of several teens facing the threat of child pornography charges in Pennsylvania for sharing nude pics of themselves. Unfortunately for a girl in New Jersey, she is facing much more than just a threat, as she was arrested yesterday for posting almost 30 explicit pictures of herself on MySpace for her boyfriend to see. "...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."
Pics or it didn't happen.
What kind of world do we live in when the children won't think of the children?!
Are the pictures still up?
I want to judge for myself whether or not they qualify as child porn.
The girl yesterday was apart from her distribution charges was also charged with possession of child porn. So any child may not have pictures of themselves naked. Hope everyone has burned all their photo albums with the pictures of themselves or children in the tub as infants. Because if you have not, then you are next.
Why anyone should have a problem with this is beyond me. These teens can be making plenty of money with nude pictures, or they can benefit all of humankind with their generousity. Because anyone who saw them probably saved them and they are now for sale.
Face it, if people will pay for naked pictures of teen-age girls, teen-age girls are going to get their pictures taken. Trying to stop it is futile, like trying to stop music piracy.
You can call the consumers perverts, but who is to say their lifestyle choice is any less valid than any other? In an age of utter and complete moral relativism, who is there that can really judge anything.
... so you don't miss the part about the 14 year old girl in New Jersey who has been charged with possesion of pictures of herself.
.. what IS the best way to do it? Especially from the position of a district attorney or other government law enforcement agent.
Not defending the prosecutors or anything, but just honestly wondering how make sure the teens understand the consequences of what they're doing...
Jesus Christ this country's legal system is about as clusterfucked as our current administration.
IANAL, esp. a constitutional one: However, this seems to get into 5th Amendment territory. You can't be underage, post pictures of yourself on the internet, and be charged with child pornography distribution as a minor. The act of distributing lewd material inherently assumes that you are not a party in the material itself, or at LEAST, that you are not the ONLY party in the material. If anything, you could charge the minor with public nudity or something, but not a pornography charge. That's ludicrous.
Only today can someone be sent to jail and put on a sex offender's registry for sexually abusing themselves. Clearly, she is a danger to children and shouldn't be allowed to live within 2000 ft of a school building or daycare for the rest of her life. And certainly, every time she applies for a job this should come up on her background check. Oh, and don't forget to force her to notify her neighbors that she's a sex offender.
I am so tired of the "let's make an example of them" mentality that is used to justify this crap.
Not sure what a 'Web-sight' is, but that pretty much told me that you are a fucking moron.
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
Probation? That's still an admission that she did something illegal. If you don't own your own likeness, that's a problem. It would not be the first time the ACLU completely missed the point. (Yes, I'm still glad they exist, on the balance.) Counseling is only really an admission that she did something not socially acceptable... which is therefore an acceptable statement to make. But even probation is an obscene punishment for distribution of your own likeness.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
^Way OT but LOL'd anyway.
If minors can have sex legally with each other, which they can, why can't they take pictures of it like adults can? I would think that if they are legally allowed to have sex with each other then they should be legally allowed to share sexual pictures of each other, with each other. However it should still be illegal if they tried to distribute it to the public, or profit from it.
Maybe this is the exact sort of legal case we need to change the child porn laws to be more inline with consensual sex laws. In most states it's totally legal for minors to have sex if they are within a certain age range, and have consented.
This question is so obvious that I'm probably going to end up getting modded redundant but here goes anyway. My understanding is that something has to include sexual acts to be considered pornography. Nudity, by itself, is not pornography. Either the charges are baseless because of that or there is something more going on here than the story says. In other words, they weren't just nude pictures.
Why not allow this sort of behaivor? Many (most?) states already suspend alleged DUI offenders driver's license without a trial-by-jury on as little as the officer's suspision. Seems logical DAs would feel he is allowed to order the alleged to jump through hoops (submit to illegal questioning, attend required education programs, involuntary registrations, monitoring and forced denial of other rights like firearm ownership; were the accused has the burden of proof) without due process, because the <sarcasm>allegation is just the red-headed step child of a conviction</sarcasm>
While we're at it, lets make all men over 18 who watch cheerleading contests on ESPN register as sex offenders because they probably will at some point and finding evidence and going to trial is too hard, and this saves money.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
Yes, it is.
That too.
Yes, they are.
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Ditto
So, they have plenty of time to ensure it works well and to help you with your problems.
They save money on not having corporate headquarters and pass the savings on to you!
To reach level 5 dwarf, one needs an OS rating of (pinky to mouth) ONE MILLION.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Really? Teenagers having sex and taking naked pictures of themselves is now a nationwide problem?!
No. Millions of people losing their jobs is a nationwide problem. Teenagers taking naked pictures of themselves is a non-issue. These aren't exploited kids being molested or stripped against their will. And I guarantee you at least one of these prosecutors streaked, went skinny-dipping, etc. in their youth. This is just ridiculous. Don't we as a nation have better things to be worried about than a teenager getting naked for another teenager?!
Following this same logic, if a teenager masturbates they should be charged with sexually molesting a minor...
'Cause that's what the law says. Let them out on bail, and set their trials as far into the future as possible. Then, once there's plenty of ammo for the media, pressure the government to amend the patently absurd law to retroactively legalize the childrens' photo-sharing. Once such photo-sharing is no longer illegal, drop the charges and reverse any convictions that have been obtained.
No, it's not very nice to use the kids as pawns in this manner. But laws should not be selectively enforced, and the public outrage that this could generate might be the only way to persuade those in power to fix this absurdity. Besides, it might actually make the politicians think before criminalizing more victimless actions in the future.
I love it when middle-aged people make up words for what those darned kids are getting up to nowadays. I haven't been a teenager for a good long while now, but I can pretty much guarantee you that none of them are using the word "sexting" without irony.
What is the leading cause of child pornography?
Sexy children
Toodles! I am off to hell now.
don't care, then the governmental "authorities" will continue to do this kind of nonsense. Frankly anyone living in those states should be sitting on the front steps of the local courthouses in an effort to bring sanity back to the system.
The laws are supposed to protect abuse of children, not get in the way of the progress of normal sexual development.
Does teen masturbation now count as a sex act with a minor? Even if it's yourself?? Holy s&^*! we'd have to give every teen out there a criminal record!
Oh, wait, these are the same people that think telling kids not to have sex will stop teen pregnancy (shhhhhhhhhhhh, let's not educate them, let's just tell them to not experience normal sexual development!) If these people had their way, our entire country would endup like a bunch of 20-30 something mormons, uptight and clueless about their own sexuality!
I digress, the point was that if the local leadership is prosecuting "crimes" and the local population supports their actions, then I guess it's what the people want. . . . by the people, for the people. Personally, if it were in my town, it would jumpstart my own political activity.
*sigh*
--
get guns, stockpile food, wait for world to end. . . . . . and they say I'M the lunatic.
You'll get agreements from all sides on that comment.
It's been that way for quite some time and shows no sign of getting any better.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
In other news new legislation is being proposed to ban teens from looking in the mirror. Teens are also being advised that burkas should be worn at all times to avoid unwittingly distributing "live action child pornography".
Charging a minor for possession of child porn for having nude pictures of themselves is only a partial measure towards cleaning up the whole unsavory mess in our efforts to save children from the perils of pleasure.
Consider the shocking fact that anytime one of these poor innocents is naked, they might be preyed on by anyone who is present, even if that predator is themselves. We are not talking about just pictures here people, we are talking about live underage nudie shows that are a perdator's banquet. Obviously this has to stop to save the children. Clearly any person who is in the presence of a naked person under the age of 18 should be immediately charged with sexual luring and inviting a minor to engage in sexual contact. So the next time some 14 year old girl sped too long drying off in front of the mirror, slap the cuffs on her and charge her.
Of course underage masturbation should is clearly the equivalent of child rape and should result in at least life imprisonment.
My god, are we going to just sit around and let this wave of perversion and filth sweep across the nation? Lets start charging and jailing these perverts to keep them children safe from themselves.
In my state, age of consent (with some exceptions) is 16, which is pretty realistic because they would just do it anyway. What isn't realistic is that they can do it... but they can't look at it.
This isn't the first case like this. There was A.H. v Florida, which made national headlines. Unfortunately, it ended badly for the teens in question.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
If a person under the age of 18 is taking and distributing sexual pictures of him or herself, he or she is committing a criminal act. He or she is creating and distributing child porn.
There is absolutely no exemption or exception under our child pornography laws for people who take and distribute pictures of themselves.
The law sees no distinction between a 40 year old man taking and distributing nude pictures of his 13 year old neighbor and the neighbor taking and distributing pictures of herself.
I'll just say this, I'm not arguing for or against the child porn laws we have in this country. All I'm saying is that as they currently exist, there is no exception under the law for creating your own child porn and distributing it yourself.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
What could go wrong with a kid's life after they're charged as kiddie porn peddlers?
Just obviously, so much better than letting something like this slide. I guess. I mean, how do you get inside these people's minds?
Pics or GTFO!!!!
Well, as you know, sex offenders are very likely to reoffend. Sex offenders who offend against children are extremely dangerous today. This prosecuror is doing his part to change that.
By making these girls sex offenders abusing themselves, well... soon they will be too old to reoffend! Thus drastically lowering the recidivism rate for sex offenders!
Don't you think it would be great if we could lower the number of sex offenders who reoffend later? Shit, measures like this could result in a 90% drop in reoffence rates!
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
When I was a child and growing up, seems like everybody had pictures of the kids in the tub or whatever, and it was fairly common to see a neighbor's 2-year-old running around naked. There was absolutely nothing sexual about it and nobody even thought twice about it.
I think the real perverts are the people who have turned this into something naughty and sick.
Its like explaining to a narcotics officer the problems with prohibition. He will tell you about the dangers of drugs, the way they have no quality control, the dangerous ways they are produced, house fires, stuff thats too pure killing people, stuff thats adulturated killing people....
I saw something in the news earlier on this, the tide may be turning: "New York to ease its landmark tough drug laws".
Yet never once can you expect acknowledgement that if it was legal and regulated, then phizer, phillip morris, and glaxco-smith-kline would produce standard product, at known purity, at reasonable prices.... and solve ALL of those problems, leaving behind the medical issue of addiction, thats really one for the doctors.
CNN has been going on about the War on Drugs and what's happening along the Texas border with Mexico. Every tyme I see something about it I think it wouldn't be a problem if drugs were not made illegal. Legalizing drugs would cut down on crime. And practically empty the prisons in the US, the US has the largest prison population in the world and half of the prisoners are there for drug offenses. Setting free those who were convicted of non-violent drug offenses then many will become tax paying employees and would help with the budget deficit. As would taxing drugs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Don't turn on the lights!
"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 [...]"
Depends on who's doing that teaching.
Seriously, if what someone does is illegal, the prosecutor should bring charges - that's his/her job. And if it isn't, well, then they should stay the fuck out of people's lives, no matter whether they're 18 yet or not.
in my country it is illegal for a government to hold someone guilty because of the color of their skin, or the existence of their skin.
If minors can have sex legally with each other, which they can...
Actually, I wish I could find the link to the story that contradicts this.
A girl, 14, did the deed with her boyfriend, 13. Due to the state's laws, the girl was classified as a victim of sexual abuse. However, as she was the one who initiated the act with another minor, she was also classified as a sexual predator.
Still trying to figure out that one.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
One of the most sensible British judges, Pickles J, once commented in dismissing a case that there are many things that people do which are annoying, stupid etc., but so long as they do no harm to other people the law should never get involved. Unfortunately, the Labour Government in the UK tries to imitate the US system. (Which is one reason I hope we get rid of them next year.)
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
When I was a child and growing up, seems like everybody had pictures of the kids in the tub or whatever, and it was fairly common to see a neighbor's 2-year-old running around naked. There was absolutely nothing sexual about it and nobody even thought twice about it.
Not only did we run around naked when I was growing up but we also played Doctor. Even today, and I'm middle aged, I don't have a problem with naturalism.
I think the real perverts are the people who have turned this into something naughty and sick.
You hit the nail right on the head.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
At least half of all high schoolers are sexually active (along with a larger proportion of college students, some also teenagers). When I was in high school, I remember most of my sexually active peers had digital pictures of themselves or their partners. This was true of males and females, gay, hetero, and bisexual. The number has probably increased recently now that everyone (middle class and above) has a camera phone.
I think young people need to fight back for their right to love each other and express themselves. These should be basic human rights. In the west we decry female genital mutilation because we believe that it is a basic human right to experience pleasure and to have full control of our own bodies. We need to apply the same standard to all of our post-pubescent population. As someone in their mid twenties, I can tell you that plenty of my peers in high school were more responsible in their sexual activity than my peers now. Maturity has more to do with individual personality than age.
Sexual images are a form of expression like any other. There is no reason that free speech should not apply to it as much as anything else.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
OT but still worth a +1 Funny.
If they aren't going to be flexible on this then the public needs clear guidelines:
adult takes photos of a nude minor - illegal
nude adult takes photos of a nude minor - more illegal
adult takes photos of nude adult - sexy
minor takes photos of a nude minor - illegal
minor takes photos of nude self - illegal
nude minor takes photos of adult - ?
nude minor takes photos of nude adult - ?
parent takes photos of nude infant - generally legal
infant takes photos of nude parent - probably funny
stranger takes photos of nude infant - OK only if it's Ann Geddes
traffic camera, security camera, sporting event camera crew takes photos of nude minor streaking - ?
adult makes drawing of nude minor - probably from Japan
So we have a few spots that need clarification.
If you didn't come to party don't bother knocking on my door. Prince '1999'
Maybe child molestation or corruption of a minor would be better fits.
...is it still child pornography?
Man charged with 1st degree murder after planning and successfully committing suicide.
A girl, 14, did the deed with her boyfriend, 13. Due to the state's laws, the girl was classified as a victim of sexual abuse. However, as she was the one who initiated the act with another minor, she was also classified as a sexual predator.
There's nothing to figure out there: morons were writing the law. For one, having sex with within a few years of your age someone should't count (with consent of course).
Also, having a law that allows a girl to be classified as both victim and predator for the same act is seriously fucked up. Someone didn't think of the children.
Furthermore, no one here has been convicted of anything. Therefore, even naked pictures that at the end of the day are non-pornographic are likely subject to charges of pornography, so that it can be determined whether they are pornographic. And when it comes to playing hardball and offering unfair settlements on trumped up charges, just having a charge with some level of plausibility is probably enough to get most people to the table in order to talk settlement.
Best possible way to get this law stuck down - get a high school student to go nude in front of the city hall security camera, and then file child pornogrpahy charges against city hall, and a lawsuit.
They should arrest everyone under the age of 18... Surely they looked at themselves in the mirror at one point or another. Most even masturbated: which can be classified as doing it with a minor.
Is it not an election year? Is so, this DA is joyriding, trying to get more votes by playing havoc with a bunch of kids.
Kick'em out and get someone more sensible in there.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Pics or it didn't happen?
This is probably the case you are referring to.
What really pisses me off about this whole situation is I can't seem to find the pictures anywhere.
I am so scared of the government abusing anti-sex laws to control the population and regulate the Internet, that I am starting to think it would be better "for the children" to form an alliance with the evil, hated pedos.
It's not that I approve of their sexual desires, but honestly - we are facing some of the most dangerous legislation in recent history - and using child exploitation as an excuse. The thing is, when I do have kids, I will be far more afraid of legislators and police assaulting/jailing them than run-of-the-mill child molesters.
In the interest of protecting freedom, perhaps its time to start scaling down the hate and anger towards this group of people. If we don't, we could all - including the kids (like those in this article) suffer terribly for it.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
This is probably the case you are referring to.
It appears to be, other than I was one year off on their ages. Thank you.
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
I saw these MySpace pics, and they are HOT HOT HOT HOT! This yound lady need to be introduced to stripper pole. And then MY POLE! HOOOOCHIE MAMMA!
This type of law is actually meant to prevent, for example, the girl's dad from reporting the boyfriend to the police. If he did, charges would automatically be filed against his daughter. Slightly less fucked up, but still fucked up.
That argument has been successfully used in lower courts, but that is not what the Constitution SAYS. IANAL, and as far as I know SCOTUS has never clearly ruled on this issue. But I don't buy the "one-directional" argument. There are lots of good reasons to not have ANY retroactive laws.
As for legalizing something that had been illegal, we already have a process for pardoning criminals. But that is different from passing a law.
Still trying to figure out that one.
Easy. Rule 1 of sex crime laws: the woman is always a victim.
the ACLU says [the prosecutor] shouldn't be using "heavy artillery" to make the threats. ...threatening them with child-porn charges isn't the best way to do it.
He should nuke them from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
We must regulate this nefarious substance immediately! I have also learned that dihydrogen monoxide can be synthesized from substances that are in the very air... so we must regulate access to that as well.
Thanks for asking the question. Most people just assume that child porn has always been illegal and never give a thought to the basis for those laws.
I'm old and I've viewed porn since long before videotape existed as a consumer product. I'm also from the U.S., so my experience is limited to the laws in my country. I'll take a stab at answering your question because it's a very important one.
For most of the history of the U.S., child porn was legal. (Some will argue that child porn has always been illegal because obscenity has always been illegal and child porn is obscene. They have a point but not a practical one. There was negligible prosecution for obscenity in child porn cases in the past because they were hard cases to make and you couldn't be sure of a conviction. Thus,) Until the 1970s, child porn magazines and 8mm films were easily available in any large adult book store in any large city.
This bothered people for good reason. In those days, there was no amateur child porn. Film photography (no digital back then, remember) is expensive and developing film isn't easy. Almost no one took pictures of child porn unless they were doing it as a business. Further, there was no (essentially) cost-free distribution medium in those pre-internet days.
The bottom line is that back in those days, child porn was a business. If you possessed child porn, you had to have bought it. If you bought it, you were giving money to adults who were in the business of molesting children.
That's not a good thing.
In fact, it's such a bad thing that when we started making child porn illegal, the few objections on free-speech grounds (and there were some) were easily dismissed. The value of free speech, in these narrow circumstances, is not enough to overcome the legitimate interest of the state in protecting children. Remember, in this case, we're talking about the REAL protection of children. The act of buying child porn back then was functionally equivalent to paying a group of adults to rape kids. No court had a problem with outlawing it.
From that perfectly reasonable beginning, weirdness soon began to grow.
Simple possession was outlawed and nobody raised a fuss because, well, who cares, really? The few pervs who collected large amounts of the stuff were also the people most likely to buy more, so making their lives more difficult wasn't seen as a problem.
Remember, at that time child porn laws came into existence because child porn consisted of adults being paid to rape children. Child porn prohibition had a positive effect on reducing that problem and everybody was happy - except the pedos. In the immediate pre-consumer-internet period, child porn had ceased to exist as a commercial product. Essentially no one in the U.S. was selling it except for the U.S. Postal Service as a part of sting operations. About the only place to get it was alt.sex.pedophilia (and related groups); most of what was available there was simply scans of old nudist magazines. Child porn, for a while, was essentially dead.
Then, the consumer-level internet and ubiquitous digital media technologies came into existence. EVERYTHING changed. Comparing then to now:
Then, child porn was expensive to produce. Now, it's cheap.
Then, child porn was a business. Now, it's amateur hour, all the time.
Then, child porn exclusively involved adults molesting kids. Now, the most common forms of child porn involve children molesting themselves.
Then, child porn only saw the light of day because an adult sold it. Now, most child porn involves no adults at any stage of production or distribution.
Then, child porn was rare because it was difficult to physically distribute the magazines and films in quanti
thats slightly MORE fucked up. Laws should not be made to encourage people to NOT report crimes.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Sorry, but the numbers say your claims are not accurate. Math doesn't lie, and a Linux geek should know this.
By law isn't it child porn?
The judge is about as smart as a fireman not stopping a fire in a burning building because of a "no trespassing" sign.
Liars, telling them that all drugs are the same, and all drugs are dangerous.
"Predators" apparently seeking to rape them (according to the media, anyway).
Cops trying to assault and jail them for self expression, sex crimes against themselves, underage drinking, and curfew violation.
School administrators making them pass through metal detectors, move at the sound of a bell, search them and their lockers, and threaten them at every available moment.
Parents praying that they don't explore what nature tells them to explore.
TV telling them the world's about to end, and that they should drink Coke and eat McDonalds, that intellectual pursuits are lame, and that sports rule everything.
Bullies pushing them around, and occasionally shooting up schools.
Busybodies telling them to stop playing, and stay indoors, so they don't get hurt.
We are a truly screwed society in 20 years.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
If you don't come down hard on a teenage girls sending nude pictures of themselves to their boyfriend, they could possibly eventually hypothetically in the future end up having problems because of it, somehow.
Instead, let's throw them in jail and brand them as sex offenders.
Better not leave it to chance.
Read Stross's "Halting State" for an exploration of the consequences of kids being persecuted for looking at each other naked, ie inappropriate application of adult laws to kids.
(It's just a sideline, not the main plot, btw.)
when I masturbated as a teenager I was actually committing statutory rape?
*DrugCheese rants*
It simply comes down to this.
Prosecutor looks at pictures of 13 year olds in their underwear. Gets an erection. Girls must be punished for giving it to him.
Simple.
Isn't this a little like suing yourself for violating your own patent or copyright?
The feedback loop might open a long-lived black hole and swallow Earth.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
I thought we hated the ACLU because they're a bunch of fuzzy-headed liberals. Are we supposed to like them now just because they're against stupid laws?
Charging teenagers who have sex with statutory rape, corruption of a minor, and other pedophile laws?
The system is built to prevent nullification. I was called to jury duty last year. As soon as we were seated to answer the judge's questions, we were all first put under oath. Under oath, we were all asked a very specific question.
"Will you be able to render a verdict using only the judge's instructions on how the law is to be applied."
I was under oath, and obligated to raise my hand indicating that I might not be able to do this. When I was questioned about my response, I had to answer honestly to the point that I could not follow the Judge's instructions if I felt the law was being applied in an unfair way. I was immediately dismissed.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
One thought did occur to me, after my previous post - I have a hard time with the concept of charging them for posting their *own* pic. If they post a pic of any other kid, though, I suppose some sort of charges would be appropriate, and I can't think of what it would be other than child porn.
I couldn't find his name in the article. He definitely deserves a piece of my mind... You too should write him to educate him of his mouth breathing stupidity.
TFA: "When lawyers for the parents asked for a copy of the photos that would be used to charge their children, Skumanick reportedly refused on grounds that he would be committing a crime by sharing child porn."
Let's assume that this can be generalized -- the kid's lawyers in a child porn case can't have the pictures because that would still be distribution by the DA. Also, let's assume that we're going to be showing them to the jury, so that they can determine if the picture in question is actually child porn.
The 6th amendment, abridged for brevity's sake: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to...be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation"
In a case like this, the pictures are at the heart of both the nature and the cause of the accusation -- and actually seeing the pictures is necessary to determine if it is pornography.
Seems to me child porn laws are illegal, given at least one of the statements in the two posits above is true.
but IANAL.
Since that was 2006, I decided to see what they decided.. The Utah Supreme Court decision (pdf warning) wasn't nearly as imbecilic as the prosecutor, trial judge or appeals court.
Well, it's a bit harder than that because the consensus view is that people under 14 can't give consent. Personally, I don't think it makes sense to have a universal age limit for that, but most people disagree with me.
Sure, this is absurdly off-topic, but can't I respond? It seems like I've been reading this same exact post for years now, right down to the clever description of Linux users as living in their parent's basement. And they're still talking about Linux as if was Slackware 2 or something. "the average computer user isn't going to spend months learning how to use a CLI and then hours compiling packages so that they can get a workable graphic interface to check their mail with." Jesus. So how's the weather back there in 1995?
Well, it's a bit harder than that because the consensus view is that people under 14 can't give consent.
I have seen few 13 year old boys who didn't want to shove their penises into anything that looks vaguely female.
Tell me again, what's that magical thing that happens at their 14. birthday that gives them that ability? The Consent Fairy arrives at midnight and blesses them? Does the state bestow a soul upon them?
Or is it just that people start having sex at younger and younger ages, and the law doesn't follow either that fact, nor common sense.
No I agree with you, the current law is very unjust. Part of the problem nobody wants to deal with is that children become sexualized quite gradually starting at a very young age.
Having said that, wanting to have sex is not the same as being able to give valid consent to have sex. These are two separate issues. To give valid consent (so the theory goes) you have to be able to assess the likely consequences of an action in light of an understanding of your true desires and intentions. The orthodox view is that 13-year-olds don't know what's good for them.
The parents are to blame if a child does something illegal. When a parent gives them something that has legal ramifications (like a cell phone, internet access, or use of a car), the parent is automatically agreeing to UNLIMITED responsibility for their actions. The parents have to choice of allowing themselves to assume this responsibility be being able to deny their child access to these circumstances, etc.
I feel that children have no business on the internet at all, at least no without the RESPONSIBLE parent/guardian closely supervising. Similarly, if a child runs up a huge phone bill texting or whatever, that too is the parent's responsiblilty. And if a kid goes and crashes a car causing damage, harm, or death, again the parents assumed this responsibility.
I think that there is a culture of IRRESPONSIBILITY that is the real problem here. Either change the laws (so that children are responsible for themselves) or refuse to allow your children to be in situations where they can act in a way that you would not want to be responsible for. Or, if that doesn't work for you, be responsible enough to NOT HAVE CHILDREN.
>>> if they wouldn't agree to probation and a counseling program.
This is so stupid that I suppose they will send them in "Child porn counseling". Kids that send naked pictures of themselves with older guys who loves to receive them. Is this really "the right thing"?
This whole thing is seriously too stupid for words. I would personally file charges against everyone in the court...EVERYONE...for child molestation. 100:1 says that each and every one of the people in the room touched themselves in a sexual way before they were 18. Arrest them all, charge them with abuse, let them serve a few years, and then brand them for life as a sex offender.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
To give valid consent (so the theory goes) you have to be able to assess the likely consequences of an action in light of an understanding of your true desires and intentions.
My two basic desires and intentions are survival and reproduction. Everything else is just the framework to make that happen.
Part of the problem nobody wants to deal with is that children become sexualized quite gradually starting at a very young age.
I think the problem is more likely the adults. They're embarrassed about it. They think the TV will teach the kids. By the time they want to give The Speech about bees and flowers, they could very well ask them for advice.
Even if we say they can't consent (which is fine with me), it doesn't then make sense to prosecute them for that. I mean, if we say they can't comprehend the consequences of having sex (or taking photos), why do we then say they can comprehend it when it comes to criminalising them?
The argument for saying they can't consent is that they don't have the mental capacity to do so, but this also means they ought not be held criminally liable for it.
So that's one way to handle it - below a certain age, they can't consent to sex with all (even with someone of the same age), but they also aren't liable for their actions.
A girl, 14, did the deed with her boyfriend, 13. Due to the state's laws...
This is the significant part. Some states have exceptions for minors who are close in age, some don't. And frankly, I wouldn't want to live (or more precisely, wouldn't want to raise my kids or have my grandkids raised) in a state that didn't have such an exception.
I still have scars from some of Utah's state laws--when I was a kid, whenever we traveled through Utah, my parents would make a point of stopping a motel and breaking some laws, doing things that were perfectly legal at home. And even though I was in another room--motel walls are awfully thin. :/
I always wondered why prosecutors did not go to prison more often. Most of their "tactics" are tantamount to extortion. Which if I'm not mistaken, is a crime.
For one, having sex with within a few years of your age someone should't count (with consent of course).
Yes, but that's the rub. Legally, children can't consent, so by definition they must be victims.
Lemme guess, Arizona, right?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Depends on the state. I'm not aware of any US state that has 14 as the age of consent. Here in Arizona, it's 18, and you goddamned well BETTER ask for her ID and know how to spot a fake. She could turn 18 at midnight, but the cops will arrest you today.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Cases like this pose interesting and important Constitutional issues. Do teenagers have a first amendment right to take nude pictures of themselves? Or do these fall under the child pornography exception to the first amendment even when not for public display? This sort of thing gets threatened reasonably frequently, and I think that a court really should be forced to rule on it in the reasonably near future. Personally, I think that if you make a child a sex offender and a felon for behavior that would be constitutionally protected for an adult (taking nude photographs of oneself, and handing said photos to boy/girlfriend), there are serious 4th Amendment issues to consider as well.
Hopefully, the courts would accept an as-applied Constitutional challenge to the child pornography statutes. This wouldn't overrule the statutes but simply say that they could not be used to prosecute this sort of behavior.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Like from age/2+7 to (age-7)*2 ?
No existe.
Fair enough. But in that case, if the 13 year old does not have enough understanding to give consent, how can he possibly be considered capable of coercing someone into a nonconsensual act, which by definition requires that the attacker themselves understand what consent is?
Someone with no understanding of consent is about as capable of commiting rape as someone who has no understanding of finance is of commiting fraud.
The child porn exception has continued to be kept narrow by the Supreme Court. Artistic works, for example, cannot be prosecuted as child pornography (I don't think any of Mapplethorpe's works would qualify as child pornography for example).
Nor can baby pictures of the kids in the tub.
Nor can computer-generated images which appear to be kids (and in the process of creating, no kids were actually harmed).
Nor can images of adults pretending to be children.
The exception is still extremely narrow, and I am reasonably sure that the courts would throw out a prosecution such as this on an as-applied challenge as this sort of case meets none of the criteria in the child porn cases upholding the exception.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
NPR had some coverage of this story too (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102386952&ps=cprs). One lovely nugget from that: "It is not a crime to view the photos, [sheriff's spokesman Bill Maer] said, but it is illegal to download them".
Doesn't matter if its illegal under federal law.
{Chapter 117, 18 U.S.C. 2422(b)} forbids the use of the United States Postal Service or other interstate or foreign means of communication, such as telephone calls or use of the internet, to persuade or entice a minor (defined as under 18 throughout chapter) to be involved in a criminal sexual act. The act has to be illegal under state or federal law to be charged with a crime under 2422(b), and can even be applied to situations where both parties reside within the same state but use an instant messenger program whose servers are located in another state.[5]
So the law is actually illegal by being sexually discriminating. Golly gee-willikers.
We really need a good multi-politician lynching, something along the size of state legislatures, governors, and congress all at once.
Prosecutors are special case, game show, then lynch. These political freaks need a little fear put into them so common sense will actually have a chance, maybe a little direct old fashioned public response(lynchings) would work, so far, nothing else has.
I hope the girls don't kill themselves because the prosecutor blew the entire thing out of proportion and into the public eye. Damn idiot.
"Unfortunately for a girl in New Jersey, she is facing much more than just a threat, as she was arrested yesterday for posting almost 30 explicit pictures of herself on MySpace for her boyfriend to see."
Kids, if you want to show your boyfriends naughty pictures of yourselves, send them e-mails. It's a bit more private than publishing them on the Internets.
thats slightly MORE fucked up. Laws should not be made to encourage people to NOT report crimes.
You're right, but for the most part these aren't crimes. And actually, for a particularly aggressive father, a law like this may encourage him to report it for a harsher punishment. It's a terrible law.
What I don't understand is why sex between consenting kids is made illegal in our society, while it's basically mandatory and perverted for those above the age of consent, and yet stories like Romeo and Juliet(2 kids in love) is praised by it. The constant bombardment of sex in advertising, the increasing punishments as an attempt to control their desires, etc. It's no wonder they seem to be engaging in it more often when society's fed into those desires by putting them up on a pedestal.
It's probably why when I was in highschool, not too long ago, something like 50-75% of the girls were having consentual sex with males, usually older ones. I talked with a 13yo girl who told me she had a few boyfriends aged over 18 and couldn't wait to have sex with them. In fact, she felt pressured to(everyone else was rapidly losing their virginity). My ex confessed that she lost her virginity at age 12 to a guy in his 30's. She didn't seem to come away from it feeling abused or hurt, I still felt a bit disgusted, and I couldn't blame her when I'd have done the same in a second with a hot older woman at that age. For example, I remember fantasizing about my substitute teacher in the 5th grade, where me and the other guys took turns feigning frustration with our work so we could check out her amazing rack.
Maybe it's the pedestal, or maybe it's just natural. Either way, these laws need to be reworked or perhaps even dismantled if they serve to harm the children instead of protect them.
The argument for saying they can't consent is that they don't have the mental capacity to do so, but this also means they ought not be held criminally liable for it.
It was Columbine, in our hasty zeal to protect the little monsters from themselves, , many states routinely will prosecute minors as young as 13 as adults in cases that would be felony for adults. Now we know that if a prosecutor can do something eventually they will do it.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Lot's of opinions on this subject, and many others. If you don't like what elected officials are doing vote them out. If you don't like the laws vote for change.
In some societies, 12 used to be considered the age of maturity.
It makes sense - I knew the difference between good and bad and also what responsibility meant by the age of 12.
If you make the kids responsible for their actions by 12 years old and also prosecute them if they commit any crimes, then the society may actually benefit.
All children need to be thrown in jail for this offense!
All children need to be thrown in jail.
There, fixed it for you.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Sending nude pictures of yourself via a social website in the US is a known legal risk. Maturity means being able to do a risk/benefit analysis. A mature person would have decided against this and either send the pics in some other way that could NOT be traced or not even done it. Every part of her actions shows she is NOT mature.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
She is a minor. Minor's are protected by child porn laws because they cannot give their consent for sexual activity. So, how can she be accountable for posting what she is unaccountable for appearing in? Either she is a minor deserving protection, or she is an adult who can consent to being photographed. You can't have it both ways!
Depends on the state. I'm not aware of any US state that has 14 as the age of consent. Here in Arizona, it's 18, and you goddamned well BETTER ask for her ID and know how to spot a fake. She could turn 18 at midnight, but the cops will arrest you today.
I know I shouldn't be responding to these at 5am when I haven't gone to sleep yet, but... This is just a semantic difference... every state I know of has different categories of "sex with someone under the age of consent". Statutory rape, in most states, extends around the 14-17 age. Below that they're children who are being abused/raped because they really can't understand what's going on (in theory)... above that, they can't legally give consent, but there's an acknowledgment that they were at least somewhat aware of what was going on and actively participated.
This may sound weird, but if you don't believe me, go look up penalties for forcible, violent rape as they apply by age. You should find that the penalties for raping an 8 year old are comparable to the penalties for violently raping a teenager, but the penalties for "statutorily raping" a teenager are relatively low... The only difference is consent, we just don't call it that :)
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
There's more to the issue than the (contestable) facts you cite.
Not really. Without going into cases (much), "lascivious exhibition" and "intended to arouse" are the practical criteria involved. It is possible (not necessarily reasonable, but possible) to prosecute anyone for possession of child porn if they possess any picture of a young-looking person. All you need is an overzealous official willing to stupidly overexert his authority.
Yes, they can. It depends on who possesses them and why.
The guy sitting in jail in Virginia for possession of anime would disagree.
Paul Little (aka Max Hardcore) would disagree. He's been prosecuted for exactly that. The fact that the California case against him failed doesn't really matter, does it, when said failure makes you a marked man who will be repeatedly prosecuted for everything under the sun until something sticks? He's finally headed to jail now, convicted in a case where any geek with a cursory understanding of both the law and communications technology would have acquitted him in a heartbeat.
I've met and talked with Paul/Max; I think he's an unlikable bozo. But he's going to (or is he already there?) jail for making porn and he would have never been prosecuted if he hadn't beaten the child porn rap when he made a video of a clearly older actress pretending to be young.
But don't just look at porn. Sally Mann no longer does her incredible portraits of young girls. She was accused of child porn, investigated, hounded. This great artist was forced to give up her first love and now does mostly landscapes. Jock Sturges (if I'm remembering my artists correctly) was run out of the country after having his studio repeatedly ransacked by the police pursuant to bogus search warrants.
You don't have to be convicted of producing child porn to be a victim of child porn laws. In practical terms, the fight against child porn can ruin lives without ever chalking up a single prosecutorial win.
In this particular case, you may be right. But take those same photos, sell them to pervs with a promise that they will provide sexual arousal, and they become child porn.
In the Pierson case, as a lead-in to prosecuting the Webe Webb case, Pierson took a plea bargain convicting him of two counts even though everyone involved agreed that there was no sex, no sexual activity, no nudity at all in any of the tens of thousands of photos he made.
Hell, if you can find a pedophile who gets off on pictures of little kids in winter clothes and you sell said pedophile pictures you took of fully clothed children bundled up in bulky coats with the understanding that those pictures will get him off, then you are guilty of producing and distributing child porn under U.S. law.
Y'see, it's not the content of the pictures that make them child porn. The way the law works, it's the thoughts that are in the head of the seller and buyer, the producer and possessor, that make certain pictures illegal. The exact same picture that's legal for one person to possess may be illegal for someone else, depending on their states of mind. The ambiguity tha
Try this on for size. In New York it is legal to have consensual sex with anyone 17 years of age or older. Now if someone were to take pics/vid of that act they would be prosecuted. Go figure.
--
George was always like that, bullying, overcharging people (unless of course you were one of the wealthier families...) It was about time that someone stood up to him.
I really hope this brings to light all of the frivolous crap he has pulled (or any kickbacks he had received...)and gets him out of the office.
You'd prefer a level5 monkeyboy providing your OS? These fucking Microsoft shills.
Educate thyself: Various ages of consent.
14 is legal (possibly with some restrictions) in Iowa, Missouri, and South Carolina. 15 in Colorado. 16 in many states. The page states that it hasn't been updated in some time so the laws may have changed in the past few years; if you are considering visiting a high school, you should ask a DA, police officer, or the high school's principal for clarification and/or incarceration.
This page seems more up-to-date. Several foreign countries are as low as age 12, which is frankly a little creepy (although a female ancestor, 5 generations away I believe, was married at age 12).
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
I say, if the prosecutor wants to charge these girls for showing off nude pictures of themselves. Someone needs to take a hard look into getting this guy disbarred/fired/whatever you call it because he is obviously too biased, bet he never got a single valentine from his girlfriend containing a nude Polaroid of herself.
You bring up some great issues, but it's late and I'm only going to take time to correct one little mistake in your post. To wit:
No.
According to the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, child porn is legal in most countries. (See their report here.) Only five countries specifically and completely outlaw child porn. Add in the countries that partially outlaw it and those that don't specifically address child porn but essentially outlaw all porn (like, iirc, China and most strongly Muslim countries) and it's probably true to say that child porn is illegal for the majority of the worlds population.
However, the fact remains that child porn is more or less legal in most countries.
What you're forgetting, however, is that the people who control the media and upper echelons of government are not the recipients of this new money. They are the recipients of drug trade money.
It's not just media, government, and the others you mention that would be against drug legalization. Those gangs and organized crime syndicates that profit from illegal drugs would be against it as well. Legal drugs would mean almost anyone could get into the act, of making and or selling drugs. And at lower prices. Take hemp, er marijuana, it is real easy to grow. While the THC content wouldn't be as high as professionally grown marijuana many people could still grow it with higher THC levels.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Oh, there it is. So, we can reduce the number of murderers in prison by making murder no longer illegal.
Yeap, the above certainly is a straw man.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
this is
I didn't say how common it was, or that it was common. I only said it happens.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You get no argument from me on any of that. I'm a teetotaler who thinks the only thing dumber than doing drugs recreationally is criminalizing them. I never followed the logic that we're going to ruin someone's life to keep them from ruining their life. Twisting hemp into rope is good. Weaving it is great. Smoking it is stupid, but pursuing a multi-trillion dollar drug war like you've never heard the name Carrie Nation is ... words just fail.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."