Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ACLU Wins, No Sexting Charges For NJ Teens

Posted by kdawson on from the know-it-when-i-see-it dept.

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."

2 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Let's clarify something... by Copid · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    No. They're hypocrites because they call themselves the American Civil Liberties Union but then turn around and work AGAINST the foundational civil liberty itself.

    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. It's a reflection of the fact that you and the ACLU are not the same being. If I hate peanut butter and my sister eats a peanut butter sandwich, she is not a hypocrite. She just likes peanut butter.

    As much as I tend to side closer to you than the ACLU on the gun rights issue, I hardly see the fact that the ACLU disagrees as hypocrisy. You can argue that they're wrong and that it would be a good thing for them to duplicate the NRA's work, but that's about as far as I'd take it.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  2. Re:Let's clarify something... by Copid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    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?

    No, it really doesn't. If you read the words and decide, based on a reasonable interpretation (which the militia clause certainly gives you), that the Constitution explicitly allows the government some regulation over guns, it seems perfectly reasonable to say so, even if you believe that it doesn't explicitly allow regulation of some other things. They're different clauses with different wording and different meaning.

    I'm not suggesting that I agree with the interpretation, but I'm having a very hard time with accusations of hypocrisy being thrown around simply because they're confusing their perfectly legitimate political views with objective realities.

    --
    An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"