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.
... 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.
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.
What if they do it by their own will?
Then you charge them anyway, generate some publicity about how you are "cracking down on child porn" and ride the name recognition into re-election. Anybody who took District Attorney School 101 knows this....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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?!
Umm... Do nothing?
Taking naked pictures of yourself and distributing them is, arguably, stupid; and kids are hardly renowned for their wisdom; but that doesn't mean that the state needs to become involved.
Coercive power is all well and good when dealing with crime; but it is a lousy tool for teaching responsibility. "Hey, kid, the consequences of your actions are so severe that, in order to teach you that actions have consequences, I've had to impose a bunch of synthetic consequences on you. Enjoy life on the sex offender registry."
If, in fact, their actions have consequences, then I suspect that the kids will learn about them soon enough, no need to impose artificial ones. If they don't turn out to, then there is no need(or ethical reason) to impose any. Their parents should definitely have the "doing stupid things is a bad idea" talk with them; but the DA can GTFO.
Following this same logic, if a teenager masturbates they should be charged with sexually molesting a minor...
Boy are you in for a sad realization....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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.
Here's the thing, if I can get arrested for looking at it, she should be charged.
Theoretical scenario, I'm a priest. Decide to reach out through my flock via myspace. Through some click-click-clicking, I end up on that damn myspace page and immediately hit the back button. I'm not a techie, so I don't clear the cache. Someone down the road with a grudge accuses me of molesting them as a child. The police swoop in and examine my computer. 30 instances of child porn! I'm going to jail. Even if I'm ultimately exonerated, a quick google search of my name by any parishoner in the world will see "Priest charged with 30 counts of child porn" about twenty times.
Scenario two. Student is pissed off because she got a B+. That should be an A-. So she gets my cellphone number somehow and sends me topless pictures. Then claims I molested her. Even if the molestion charges don't stick, the child porn charges could.
So until the day that fourteen year-old can take pictures of herself, publish them, sell them, and I can't get into a shitstorm for possessing them (not that I want to, accidents happen), hell yeah she should be charged.
My children will not and would not do such a thing with their phone or facebook because I monitor what they are doing daily as well as other parents and kids. Any real parent would not let this happen.
Teens have been having sex since time immemorial, it's built into us as a species and it's why we are all here. Parents have only been trying to stop it since the onslaught of religion. The parents will inevitably lose in the long run. The sex drive is second only the hunger drive so if the teen has a full stomach then what do you think the next priority is?
Of course children need to be protected but they also need to be respected as fellow humans. Teach your kids birth control and responsibility but also realize that when they mature sexually they are sexual creatures just like everyone else. Let them grow up for chrissake.
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
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.
All I can say is good luck with that. I commend you for trying and I'm sure doing a very good job, but there can/will always be things your children are doing that you will not be aware of. I had two very involved parents who did a fabulous job of raising me; they were very involved with my life, knew all of my friends, attended the same church, knew many of my teachers, I was excited to share my life with them, etc.
However, there were still many things that I did that they never found out about that would have gotten me in MAJOR trouble had they discovered them. And it wasn't that they were bad parents or I was a bad kid; rather, I was a kid and needed time grow up. Part of that maturation process is doing stupid things and discovering exactly who you are. Hopefully along the way you also discover that you are not a stupid person who enjoys doing stupid things, which I definitely discovered about myself. But if you never have the opportunity to do stupid things, you might not be able to discover that you don't like them until you are out of the developmental period and you are expected to not do stupid things.
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.
Essentially your point boils down to "the law is broken, so lets make an example out of people being charged under it unfairly so hopefully it gets changed". Much as I agree with part of your sentiment I can't honestly condone ruining the life of innocent children in the hope that it encourages the laws to be changed.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
so if the teen has a full stomach then what do you think the next priority is
Linux?
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
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
Ever read Starship Troopers? No, not watched, but read the book. One of the themes of the book is similar to what you say. The author explains using a dog metaphor.
"Did you housebreak him?"
"Err . . . yes, sir. Eventually." It was my slowness in this that caused my mother to rule that dogs must stay out of the house.
"Ah, yes. When your puppy made mistakes, were you angry?"
"What? Why, he didn't know any better; he was just a puppy.
"What did you do?"
"Why, I scolded him and rubbed his nose in it and paddled him."
"Surely he could not understand your words?"
"No, but he could tell I was sore at him!"
"But you just said that you were not angry."
Mr. Dubois had an infuriating way of getting a person mixed up. "No, but I had to make him think I was. He had to learn, didn't he?"
"Conceded. But, having made it clear to him that you disapproved, how could you be so cruel as to spank him as well? You said the poor beastie didn't know that he was doing wrong. Yet you indicted pain. Justify yourself! Or are you a sadist?"
I didn't then know what a sadist was â" but I knew pups. "Mr. Dubois, you have to! You scold him so that he knows he's in trouble, you rub his nose in it so that he will know what trouble you mean, you paddle him so that he darn well won't do it again â" and you have to do it right away! It doesn't do a bit of good to punish him later; you'll just confuse him. Even so, he won't learn from one lesson, so you watch and catch him again and paddle him still harder. Pretty soon he learns. But it's a waste of breath just to scold him." Then I added, "I guess you've never raised pups."
"Many. I'm raising a dachshund now â" by your methods. Let's get back to those juvenile criminals. The most vicious averaged somewhat younger than you here in this class . . . and they often started their lawless careers much younger. Let us never forget that puppy. These children were often caught; police arrested batches each day. Were they scolded? Yes, often scathingly. Were their noses rubbed in it? Rarely. News organs and officials usually kept their names secret â" in many places the law so required for criminals under eighteen. Were they spanked? Indeed not! Many had never been spanked even as small children; there was a widespread belief that spanking, or any punishment involving pain, did a child permanent psychic damage. ...
They probably were not spanked as babies; they certainly were not flogged for their crimes. The usual sequence was: for a first offense, a warning â" a scolding, often without trial. After several offenses a sentence of confinement but with sentence suspended and the youngster placed on probation. A boy might be arrested many times and convicted several times before he was punished â" and then it would be merely confinement, with others like him from whom he learned still more criminal habits. If he kept out of major trouble while confined, he could usually evade most of even that mild punishment, be given probation â" 'paroled' in the jargon of the times.
"This incredible sequence could go on for years while his crimes increased in frequency and viciousness, with no punishment whatever save rare dull-but-comfortable confinements. Then suddenly, usually by law on his eighteenth birthday, this so-called 'juvenile delinquent' becomes an adult criminal â" and sometimes wound up in only weeks or months in a death cell awaiting execution for murder. You â" "
He had singled me out again. "Suppose you merely scolded your puppy, never punished him, let him go on making messes in the house . . . and occasionally locked him up in an outbuilding but soon let him back into the house with a warning not to do it again. Then one day you notice that he is now a grown dog and still not housebroken â" whereupon you whip out a gun and shoot him dead. ...
Mr. Dubois then turned to me. "I told you tha
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
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