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."

Comments

Re:Probation?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I think you parsed the sentence wrong. The DA said "Agree to probation and counseling, or I'll press charges"(incidentally, is that really what "rule of law" looks like?). The ACLU said "WTF? you shouldn't be threatening them at all."

It was the DA, not the ACLU, who proposed probation and counseling.

Children posting nude pictures of themselves

[Raul654]

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.

Re:Probation?

[drinkypoo]

I think you parsed the sentence wrong.

You are 100% correct. I realized sometime after I wrote it, and decided to just let it go rather than comment if nobody noticed. Unfortunately, somebody did, so here we are.

Now that I have RTFA... heh... I guess this is the relevant passage:

Skumanick told an assembly of students that possessing inappropriate images of minors could be prosecuted under state child porn laws. [...] Skumanick, who is running for re-election in May, also sent a letter to 20 students, including the three girls, who were found in possession of images. In a meeting with the students and their parents, he said he would file felony charges against the students unless they agreed to six months of probation, among other terms. He gave the parents 48 hours to agree. The parents of the three girls in the ACLU suit refused to sign.

This relates to the Tunkhannock School District case where phones containing pictures of semi-nude girls were confiscated; the letters followed. One could conceivably consider them blackmail letters; confess to a fairly serious crime and do probation for it (as noted, election time is coming up; looking tough on child porn is always good political capital) or we'll haul you into a real court. I think the question of whether he would actually have drug them into court at all is a good one to ask here. I think that charging your constituents' kids with serious crimes is not a great way to ingratiate yourself to them, though.

Walczak said that "sexting" is a problem that parents and educators need to address. But felony charges aren't the answer.

"Teens are stupid and impulsive and clueless," he said. "But that doesn't make them criminals."

No, bad laws make them criminals.