Slashdot Mirror
ACLU Wins, No Sexting Charges For NJ Teens
Following up on the "sexting" case we've discussed in recent days, oliphaunt sends word from the Times-Tribune that a New Jersey federal judge has ordered the prosecutor not to file charges in the cases of three teenage girls whose cell phones were confiscated. "Wyoming [NJ] County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. cannot charge three teenage girls who appeared in photographs seminude traded by classmates last year, a judge ruled Monday. US District Judge James M. Munley granted a request by the American Civil Liberties Union to temporarily stop Mr. Skumanick from filing felony charges against the Tunkhannock Area School District students."
These teens are in PA, not NJ.
There is no Wyoming County in NJ.
The judge may be in NJ (since federal jurisdictions often overlap individual states).
Also note that there is no such thing as a "New Jersey federal judge". Submitter should be a little more careful... that judge has a specific title which wolud disambiguate which court we're talking about.
That summary was atrocious. Blech.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Well that'd explain the other two comments pointing out that this isn't even permanent. It basically means nothing. It's all still temporary. I'm glad I took the time to read the comments before I got all excited about the possibility of sanity returning to American courts.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Would you be referring to good old Rule 34? :)
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self. Which is kind of unfortunate.
Not everybody considers this unfortunate. I doubt he "ignored" the issue; rather, he opted that the defense of a person willingly committing a sex crime against oneself is invalid. That decision makes a lot of sense in my book.
Well, sure, the ACLU only filed its complaint like, what, three or four days ago? It's ridonkulous to think a court would issue a final ruling in five days. But it's not unusual to get a temporary order this fast, that will hold while the court takes its time to figure out whether to make the order permanent or give this nutjob prosecutor a chance to back down.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
The ACLU lawsuit argues the photographs in which the girls appear are not pornographic and should be protected under the First Amendment.
It's exactly that. Thank you First Amendment, once again.
Which means that this decision decided to ignore the issue of rather or not one can commit sex crimes against one's self. Which is kind of unfortunate.
I don't think the decision does any such thing. (The full text of the judge's order may be found here.)
This is only a temporary restraining order. It doesn't really get into the underlying issues of the prosecution itself. It's just a preliminary finding that the girls do seem to have a good First Amendment case, and that allowing the prosecution to proceed without some more argument into the free speech question might cause irreparable harm. The judge expressly notes that even a temporary infringement of First Amendment rights is a legally cognizable harm. Good for him.
The judge also takes note of the argument that the girls here are victims, not perpetrators. That question isn't decided (though it certainly isn't ignored), because again, this is only a temporary restraining order that doesn't reach that far into the substance of the case.
right. first you get a temporary order. Then the court looks at the briefs, and maybe even asks for oral arguments. Then the judge decides if he needs to make the order permanent.
That's how the process works.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
(btw, it happened in PENNSYLVANIA, not new jersey):
http://prisonpost.com/blog/2009/02/20/pennsylvania-judges-plead-guilty-in-juvenile-center-kickback-scheme_227.html
why was the judge so harsh?
because he was getting kickbacks from the privately run prison
let me repeat that: in the usa, children, who did not deserve to be sent to prison, were being sent to prison for minor offenses. why? because the prisons were being run PRIVATELY, there was a PROFIT MOTIVE. enter: one crooked judge eager to line his pockets, and you have a cash machine
how evil is that? i mean really, how utterly shameful on us as americans that this took place? how shameful on us that we allowed the fiscal and legal environment in which PRIVATE PRISONS even fucking exist!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/14/us/14judge.html?fta=y
ok, so we have enron, we have this gem, we have the recent stock market crash
dear fiscal conservatives and republitards: why exactly do you want to privatize and deregulate everything?
i await your stunning insight as to how its all the democrats fault, when this private prison debacle and something like enron and the recent stock market meltdown are clear and obvious indications as to why, no, some things in this world you actually do not want to privatize and deregulate, that you actually want to keep utlities and prisons in the hands of the government, and you want to regulate the markets, for their own good. i now await your usual regurgitated kneejerk drivel about tax and spend democrats and socialism. well yes, actually, democrats are tax and spend. as opposed to republicans, who are just spend (all deficits climb sky high under republicans and are reduced under democrats: study past administrations). and as for socialism: yes, democrats actually do care enough to say gee, maybe its wrong middle class hardworking folks have to declare bankruptcy when they get a serious illness
"bloated government bureaucracy... blah blah blah... welfar
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.
Because it's the only way to protect them!
Imagine what harm could come to these poor girls if they weren't sent to prison for ten years and disallowed from coming anywhere near a school and having to notify all their neighbors of their crimes for the rest of their life?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
The enemies of Democracy are
Common misconception, naked pictures do not constitute child porn. The images need to be sexual as well. This is why the nude pics of me in the bath when I was 3 are not illegal. And no I will not email you them.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
Libby Hoeler maybe, as far as I know the video's have been floating round the net for 6-9 years now and chances are will always be around.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
they would like the ACLU more if they also duplicated the work of the NRA. Presumably that organisation doesn't fulfill its remit to their satisfaction, and they'd like the ACLU to lend a hand?
I don't want them to duplicate the work of the NRA, I just want them to acknowledge that the 2nd amendment protects a civil liberty that's every bit as important as the rest. Instead they claim that "In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue." One doubts they would make the same claim about the regulation of free speech, hence they are hypocrites. Because of that, most people who care about gun rights can not bring themselves to donate money/join the ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union, eh?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Bolding the part you like doesn't make the part that says "the right of the people" go away.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Do you think it is a fundamental right that I can possess, for example, a bomb large enough to destroy the city I live in?
Historically the right to keep and bear arms originated in the Common Law concept of self-defense. It has also been required at varying points throughout history so that the people could serve the state in times of need. I don't think even the hardest core 2nd amendment supporter could make the case that you need a nuclear weapon for self-defense or service of your state in times of need.
it is only a matter of degree to argue that a fully automatic weapon, say, can be banned without violating civil rights.
If it was only automatic weapons they wanted to ban you wouldn't have as many people complaining about it. Instead they want to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles" (which are no more powerful than the typical semi-automatic hunting rifle and whose main difference seems to be that they look scary), handguns, high capacity magazines, etc, etc. Every single one of those items has a legitimate purpose for self-defense, service to the state and other (hunting/target shooting/etc) purposes. Hell, one could make the argument that fully automatic weapons have legitimate purposes too and it's a bit of a stretch between a fully automatic MP-5 and your nuclear weapon example.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Correction: They work against what you believe is the foundational civil liberty. They don't agree with you. The fact that your opinion and their opinion differ is not hypocrisy
You don't see the hypocrisy in fighting for as broad of a reading of the Constitution as possible except for one part? They fight for rights that aren't even mentioned in the document (the right to privacy) under this theory but the one part of the document that they don't like doesn't get the same treatment? That doesn't seem just a little bit hypocritical to you?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
First no one said the Constitution prohibits all "regulation" of firearms. That's not true. It simply sets a very high bar for this, just as it sets a very high bar for "regulating" speech. (I keep putting quotes around "regulate" because the word has come to be used today in a way it was certainly not used in the 18th century - the word just meant "to make regular." A common procedure for a gunsmith in those days was to "regulate" a bore that had deteriorated, for instance, which just meant eliminating the irregularities in it. When the federal government was supposed to "regulate" interstate commerce this meant to eliminate irregularities such as one state charging protectionist tarrifs on the produce of another state. It's been twisted and expanded beyond all recognition to where today anytime congress sticks its nose into something it is said to be "regulating" it even when there is no other connection at all with the root meaning of the word, but I digress.)
Now that said, the militia clause absolutely does NOT in ANY way make it "reasonable" to interpret the amendment away. This is one of the most frustrating myths to deal with because it's so easily and thoroughly debunked by a simple grammatical analysis a normal 6th grader should have no trouble with, and keeps getting spread by people who clearly should know better - more evidence of that general hypocrisy I mentioned earlier. It really holds no water at all. A subordinate clause just doesnt function that way in English, and certainly didnt function that way in 18th century English. See here if you really dont understand what I'm talking about.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.