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?!
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.
... 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...
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.
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.'"
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.
So this girl in New Jersey forced herself to take pictures of herself? How insidious. I'm not sure how to combat this threat, but I think nuking New Jersey should be amongst the options.
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?!
You are a fucking idiot. The problem is not "people will pay for naked pictures of teen-age girls, teen-age girls are going to get their pictures taken". The problem is "people will pay for naked pictures of teen-age girls, teenage girls are being forced to have their pictures taken". Like I said, you are a fucking idiot.
Did you also take "A Modest Proposal" at face value?
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.
Jesus Christ...
Religion is a big part of the problem given its direct and indirect influence on so-called "morals" in the US and other countries.
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 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.
Actually, I thought the problem was that prosecutors get tunnel vision from the law and feel the need to exert their authority to the fullest extent of the letter of the law.
Or more to the point, that they like being able to say "look at all we did" and know they never have to give real facts that anybody with a voice is going to bother checking. So they have incentive to pretty much fuck over anyone they can get the littlest bit of dirt on.
They seem, to me, to be the epitome of "When you have a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail". Mixed with a misguided notion of doing good, by exercising the state sanctioned use of violence against everyone and anyone who steps out of line in their sight.
They are likewise not encouraged to make sense or logic.
I have seen statements by DAs that wantonly used logical fallacy after logical fallacy to make their case. (a high percentage of people incacerated for violent crimes test positive for marijuana on intake processing.... somehow proving that A implies B, means that B implies A.... it was wrong on the SATs, its wrong in public discourse.)
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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
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?
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"
I wasn't referring to this specific case, as should have been clear by the fact that I was referring to child porn, which this clearly isn't. I was shooting down the boneheaded comparison of the GP between music piracy and the consumers of kiddie porn. That comparison was utterly absurd.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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?
So this girl in New Jersey forced herself to take pictures of herself?
I suspect she was coerced into it by a boy. We generally, as a society, understand that children are easily manipulated and often have poor judgment, so we make it a crime to do so in ways that may be detrimental to them.
Had she been coerced by an adult, it would've been abusive. Coercion by another child - or even by the pressure of her peers - is not generally abusive, but it's not a reason to validate a given behavior. To paraphrase my mom, if her friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, it still wouldn't be a good idea for her to do so.
I think these photos should not be handled with the full brunt of child porn laws, but as poor choices by children. However, we should not consider the photography to be legal - to protect children from making choices they may well regret upon later maturity.
The best answer for the legal system to handle this IMO is to first educate kids (there's an effort going on now toward this), then enforce it fully but with a light hand, without bringing the full wrath of the justice system upon them. No jail time, no sex offender list, just destruction of the photos and mandatory counseling/education. This is pretty much what the prosecutor wanted to do, but he should have pushed for better laws rather than playing power games over it.
It may be useful to market a remote-access system for parents to view photos, messages, and such from their children's phones. If kids know that daddy might see their pics, it would probably inhibit them from photographing their hoo-hoos. Yes, there's an obvious criticism, but I think we need to have some presumption of trust for parents.
Why do you suspect that she was coerced into it by a boy? There was nothing to indicate that in the story. Why do you suspect that she was coerced at all?
Careful, your bias is showing.
Don't turn on the lights!
As a friend of mine has stated repeatedly: "The authorities claim that 60% of hard drug users first used marijuana, so marijuana need to be regulated as a 'gateway drug'. But ALL of them started out on milk."
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.
If an 18 year old takes a nude picture of himself in order to study on art technique, is that picture porn?
If a minor does either of those things, is it porn?
Personally, I believe that nude/sexual pictures or video taken for the intent of mass distribution and/or profit, should be considered porn or child porn.
When is it ok to have a picture of a nude child? When you were 3 months old being held by your mother in the sink? Is that ok? How about a picture of you bathing when you were 3 with your little brother? Is that ok? How about when you were in the back yard running through the sprinkler, yes nude, when you were 6?
And this is where people should stand up and go 'Wait a second, we are completely missing the point!'. The point of Child Pornography laws is to stop children getting exploited. If a child is doing it themselves, they need to be educated and helped.
It's just as crazy they are trying to make drawn items illegal - it may not be tasteful, but it's not actually harming children, so what is the reasoning there?
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
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."
Prosecutors always have some leeway in what charges they'll bring. If they charged everyone for every conceivable violation we'd all have criminal records. Just as no sane prosecutor would go after parents for sending pictures of their naked infants to relatives, no prosecutor who's not a publicity seeking, grade A ass hole would charge a teenager with distributing child porn in these circumstances.
Right, and that law is absurd and unconstitutional, which is why we are discussing it.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
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?
*sigh* Don't you know anything? It objectified and exploited her, and anyway she didn't really choose to do it because she had internalized patriarchal gender roles. Or was it that her virtue and chastity must be protected even from herself to keep her from sinning and ending up in Hell? Well, whatever it is, clearly she should spend the next few years in prison, and she should probably start wearing a burqa just to be safe. It's for her own good.
Note to mods: if I were being any more sarcastic than I am, I would overflow and wrap all the way around to sincerity.
Granted, IANAL, but my understanding is that part of the legal tradition in this country is that laws are not cut and dry. The spirit of the law is actually legally relevant, and as such should be taken into account in this case.
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.
I'm lactose intolerant, you insensitive clod!
Karnal
Why do you suspect that she was coerced into it by a boy?
Because I was a boy, once.
Why do you suspect that she was coerced at all?
Because peer pressure, as I noted, is a form of coercion. I'd even go so far as to say that the highly sexual popular media of today are a form of coercion. It may not be individual coercion, but it's nevertheless influence to make a poor choice by another person or people. While somebody, somewhere, may have had a totally original thought to do this and, through introspection, decided it was a good idea, I'm reasonably certain most did not do so.
Careful, your bias is showing.
Yes. I confess I have a bias in favor of trying to protect children from making bad decisions. I believe we, as a society, should work toward doing so.
I'll be the first to admit that I've seen underage girls who've made my pants go crazy. But I recognize that, in our society, children are not emotionally mature. Therefore, I favor protecting them where possible from actions they may later regret. I call this philosophy "being a human fucking being".
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.
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.
Because their lifestyle is based on something (child porn) that harms other human beings during production?
Who is harmed? The one taking the photos of themselves?
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The reason for jury nullification is that the decision for whether or not applying the law brings justice is not supposed to be entirely up to the prosecutor but to a jury as well.
Unfortunately a few racist pricks gave 'the man' the excuse it needed to have all jurors castrated by ruling judges didn't have to advise juries of their nullification rights. Since judges have twisted that to mean that they should lie to juries and tell them they aren't allowed to nullify and even declare mistrials if they think the jury might be exercising their rights.
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.
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.
Why is engaging in sexual activity a bad decision, exactly?
Yes, if you count peer pressure as coercion -- as we probably should -- then I can accept that assumption.
You know that nearly 100% of violent offenders consumed a drink containing at least 60% dihydrogen monoxide within the 24 hour period before their crimes?
In fact, 100% of those who are under the influence of alcohol at the time of their arrest also had dihydrogen monoxide in their blood stream.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
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.
Quibble: there's plenty of precedent that the nekkid infant pix aren't child porn. Not that that stops every prosecutor out there...
Are you adequate?
But I recognize that, in our society,people who are treated like children are not emotionally mature.
Fixed that for you
I've come across teenage girls, younger than these (the youngest was 14), who have quit school, got a job (don't ask me how), and shacked up with adult men. They were planning on starting a family soon, or already had started.
I didn't agree with their choices, and actually urged them to quit work and go back to school, but they wouldn't hear any of it. I'm only still in contact with one such couple, they have two kids now (she's like 21 now, I think), and are getting by OK - it's what they wanted.
The moral to this story is that every one of these girls was at least as emotionally mature as a woman twice her age. Emotional maturity has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with upbringing. The more you shelter your kids, the more immature they'll stay.
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.
I believe that educating children about making choices they may regret later is the responsibility of the parents, not the law. Part of growing up is making stupid mistakes - hell it is part of being human at any age. Trying to write laws that protect children (especially those nearing adulthood) from making decisions they MAY regret later is near impossible.
Should there be laws against minors climbing tall things, because they might fall, break their spine, and become paralyzed? They'd surely regret that when they can no longer walk. Such laws fall under the standard complaint of a "nanny state" and precludes people from making educated decisions for themselves. Will people sometimes make poor choices? Sure, but we have the ability to learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others.
Education, not legislation, is how we should help steer children in the right direction.
Support a true independent artist - Leila Lopez
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*
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?
Should there be laws against minors climbing tall things, because they might fall, break their spine, and become paralyzed? They'd surely regret that when they can no longer walk. Such laws fall under the standard complaint of a "nanny state" and precludes people from making educated decisions for themselves.
It's called "reckless endangerment of self" - I found that out when a cop caught me walking on top of a truss bridge.
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.
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.
Because I was a boy, once.
Were you ever a girl?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
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.
What if some 40 year old pervert convinces another girl online to take pictures of herself? Clearly the 40 year old is the offender and the 13 year old girl is the victim. Or do you honestly believe that the 13 year old is guilty too?
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
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. :/
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.
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.
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
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.
Because I was a boy, once.
Were you ever a girl?
Just the once, at Boy Scout cam -- uh, I mean, don't be silly.
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
yeah, so how would you know that it's never the girls who are aggressive and horny?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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.
--
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.
"That's arguing FOR the child porn laws"
God, you're a retard. There is a difference between explaining what the law is and what the law should be. I never commented on what the law should be. In fact I specifically stated I was not commenting on what the law should be.
What the law should be is completely irrelevant to what it is.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"Or do you honestly believe that the 13 year old is guilty too?"
God, are you guys really this ignorant? If the guy convinces the girl to do it, she's the victim. Duh, do you even have a functioning brain?
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"Right, and that law is absurd and unconstitutional, which is why we are discussing it."
I'm not responding to that. I'm responding to the completely erroneous suggestion that the threat of legal prosecution against the kids was "empty." It was not empty as the children did in fact violate the law and could be charged.
If you want to debate the utter absurdity of the law as it is currently written, that's great. Let's have that discussion.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"The point of Child Pornography laws is to stop children getting exploited."
Exactly. But that's not how the laws are written. Which is exactly why I explained how the kids did in fact commit a crime.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
"If you're a nudist and you take a picture of yourself, is that a portrait or porn?"
Well, was it distributed? If no one knows about it, you'll never be charged. But otherwise, and assuming "you're" underage, it'll probably be a question for the jury. And if that doesn't scare you, probably nothing would.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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.
Oh, Indeed. And I'm saying you are right, and the system isn't.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
Ah, but surely she broke the law, she did create child pornography after all.
Playing devils advocate here, your point of view is pretty terribly indefensible.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Because girls are innocent and sweet and would never, ever be willing participants. They must be coerced, every time.
Stupid medieval sexual attitudes are the bane of an enlightened society.
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."