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."
TFS states that it's only a TEMPORARY halt to filing any charges on the teens
People Talking in Movie shows.. people smoking in bed.. people voting republican.. GIVE THEM A BOOT TO THE HEAD!
This is about girls, 'sex', and on slashdot.
Think about it.
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
TFA:
Judge Munley ruled Mr. Walczak successfully met the standards necessary to issue a temporary order blocking Mr. Skumanick from filing charges against the three teens, including that they have demonstrated "a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claims." He also believed "no harm would come to (Mr. Skumanick) by delaying prosecution on this matter."
often, the reason for a decision is just as (if not more than) important than the decision itself. I'm skeptical of whether or not this is a good thing in this case. While the judge does mention the first amendment, this little gem is in TFA:
"Mr. Walczak has said it was clear the three girls were victims; they did not take or distribute the photos in question."
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.
This could get very ugly in the future. Lets just hope people REALLY think of the children, instead of using that as a political sound bite.
Think Deeply.
TFA:
He also believed "no harm would come to (Mr. Skumanick) by delaying prosecution on this matter."
I have to say, I don't agree with the judge's assessment. With all the press coverage and a successful temporary injunction(?), I can't imagine this guy is looking forward to the campaign trail this year.
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.
In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.
Why?
hey, this is slashdot. you're not supposed to read the article.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
"Atheists and liberal judges make child porn legal." Brit Hume reporting.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The next step is to take action against those who deemed it protective of his charges to:
1. access an electronic device without permission
2. view personal images whose intended audience was limited to a chosen few (maybe one, not staff in general)
3. fail to limit the negative impact on the life of his charges
First step would be to seize the personal/work computers of the people involved to ensure copies of said photos has not been taken.
At a minimum a transfer to a job where the people he responsibility for are only one pay grade below him, power trippers must be stopped and they hate that.
No, strike that - fucking overzealous DA.
He was willing to ruin the lives of these kids, and for what?
It's shit like this that makes the rest of the world shake their heads with pity at the US.
(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
It seems that a lot of people are suing/pressing charges for just about anything and everything these days. Its a shame when it comes to try and press charges on teenage girls for taking photographs of themselves. While I do not agree with what they were doing, it was in there power. They were not being forced against their will or doing anything sexually explicit. That is the definition of child pornography. Its good to see that the court has some sense.
These teens are in PA, not NJ.
And thus regardless of the actual ruling we can by deduction state that there are no "sexting" charges for nj teens, and the article title is correct!
The enemies of Democracy are
Just asking. I mean, the girls were dragged though court for a year now, publicly embarrassed and probably get a psychic damage for lifetime just because they dared to send some pictures of themselves. And now the court says: "OK, so you were right, sorry for the bother, have a good life."? So everything is fine now as justice is served? Am I the only one who finds this picture a bit awkward?
Now that's fair. Bad Slashdot poster! No donut. At least, not until everyone else has gotten one and you have to pick from the rejects.
witness the term "crotchfruit" and the way people who have kids are looked down upon
and the general trend among all developed nations, not just the west, to stop having children
they are just too messy, too much to bother
of course, they are also your replacement after you are dead, but i guess that's a minor detail, somehow
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm so sick of this myth that naked pictures cause problems. The shame associated with nudity (and even sex) says more about those viewing the picture than those who are in it.
Seriously, has anyone ever known someone whose life was ruined because of a naked picture?
Anyone?
The shame that our society attaches to nudity and sex is an attempt at prohibition. By making it taboo, it becomes enticing. Just like with alcohol, drugs, and prostitution, this forces it underground. Poor debaters will also use the taboo nature of the subject to stifle honest discussion by suggesting that supporters engage in the prohibited acts (i.e. those who defend these children are pedophiles who want easy access to CP, those who defend drug users are junkies, etc).
If it weren't for that prosecutor, none of you would have ever known anything about this. Isn't it ironic that the response taken to teach these kids about "potentially permanent burdens" has done more to create those exact burdens than the act itself would have?
When will we learn that over-protecting our children is hurting them by stunting their social growth? When they turn 18 and go off to college, an over-protected teenager will not be equipped with the proper skills necessary to navigate a world full of people who want to take advantage of them.
As for the fear that there will be an explosion of new child porn if it's legal for minors to take pictures of themselves...further application of this logic leads to support for banning bullets because their existence leads to an "explosion" of homicides involving guns.
Also, consider that teenagers are already doing this, and in a quantity deserving of its own slang description.
:(){
As I understand the argument put forward by our more reactionary friends, 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?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
I call Godwin!
*rolls d%*
Double Zero! A rift in space-time opens and Godwin steps out. "What do you want? I'm a busy man. This had better not be about Nazis."
the point is, it was made possible by republican/conservative ideology: privatize and deregulate everything, even things that shouldn't be dergulated and privatized. like utilities, prisons, the stock market
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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.
Neither is the submitter or the editors, apparently.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
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.
Dont get me wrong, for the most part, I like what they do. I've marched with them, helped with fund-raising, signature drives, etc. I had the pleasure of a few long discussions with the state director where I lived before, and he was a really good guy, as well as a really sharp lawyer. That combination is sadly very rare, and I was really glad to have him as an ally in the fight for reproductive freedom at the time. They do a lot of good work.
But they're still absolutely hypocrites because they dont just refuse to help in the very most critical class of civil liberties violation, they *actually* go so far as to take the totally insane position the GP quoted. It's not only a position fundmentally baneful to everything they do try to achieve, it's also one that's legally and historically indefensible (as several ACLU lawyers have admitted to me, in private) and so it really does reflect the essential hypocrisy of the leftist millieu so many ACLU supporters come from, and reflects I think a deeper line of hypocrisy in society in general, because it (hypocrisy in general that is) is certainly NOT limited to left or right but a commmon element across both.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Hmmm.. I can understand an argument as to why the right to bear arms is a fundamental civil right, but there are many very good arguments as to why it isn't. I can see how you might not be swayed by them; but to deny that they exist is a bit intellectually dishonest.
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? I can't imagine you think that... if you can accept that it is not a fundamental right to own that sort of weapon, it is only a matter of degree to argue that a fully automatic weapon, say, can be banned without violating civil rights.
You might disagree with the argument, but you have to at least see how someone could disagree with your assessment.
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.
It has nothing to do with belief, if I managed to practice enough ignorance and double-think to actually *believe* their position it would still be false. And as I mentioned, I know for a fact that many of these guys are very sharp and well read and know how hypocritical the organisational position is.
Liking peanut butter or not isnt even vaguely comparable - you're talking about personal taste on the one hand, and fundamental civil rights on the other, as if they were somehow comparable. They are not. Liking peanut butter is a personal preference, there is no one right answer there.
Whether looked at philosophically or legally and historically the same cannot be true for the second amendment. Philosophically speaking, if you are to have any true rights at all, you MUST have the right to defend yourself from aggressors. Without that, any purported right is, at best, converted into a privilege instead. If you are forcibly prevented from acquiring, possessing, using the tools necessary to defend yourself in a meaningful way from aggressors, your "rights" are nothing more than ink on paper. You have been effectively converted from a citizen to a subject, from a free man in a free society to a subject in a prison camp.
And historically/legally speaking, again, it's clear and irrefutable that the second amendment was intended and understood in just that fashion, and furthermore even without touching on "original intent" the words themselves clearly and plainly say this. The arguments used to try and twist the second amendment into something else are very often the same arguments that ACLU lawyers (rightly) demolish over and over again in the context of the other amendments. So there just is no word that fits this other than hypocrisy. Their mission is to defend the bill of rights and civil liberties, across the board. When they start picking and choosing which of our rights are worthy of defence and which are not, that is simply and plainly hypocritical.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The ACLU has joined the NRA on gun rights cases before. However, part of the reason they routinely ignore 2nd amendment cases is because the NRA already has it covered. I have always found it odd that conservatives revile the organization that supports 90% of the bill of rights while championing the one that supports only %10 instead. Oddly, they say they do it because the ACLU doesn't support the 2nd amendment, ignoring the fact that the NRA ignores 90% of the bill of rights altogether.
The problem isn't the shame associated with nudity. It's the reputation that's going to follow these girls throughout high school and college. When I was in middle school, one of the students found an issue of a certain men's magazine in which our illustrious teacher was baring all. She had posed during college because she needed the money, and yet, here, 15 or 20 years later, the centerfold was displayed on the chalkboard when she walked into the classroom. After everyone had been seated and seen it. She left the room in a fit of tears.
While the article doesn't give any details, it's probably very likely that these pictures would have shown up on the internet had the authorities not intervened. Where they would like occupy someone's MySpace page or other social networking site. Once on the web, it's almost impossible to get something permanently removed.
And this could easily have followed them the rest of their lives:
The relative long memory of the internet gives what were once excusable mistakes long and far reaching effects. No, they should probably not have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives, but they should at least have to be educated with respect to the gravity of what they've done.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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.
Hey! He was only one letter off!
That's closer to a bra than the average /.'er gets!!
Leave his geek card alone...it's wrapped in a braw, dammit!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
I just dont understand this paticularly American love of gun ownership. In my country, all the auto and semi auto guns were removed from society years ago.
And here is why you don't understand - in your society you probably never had a chance to shoot at targets or hunt. Hard to miss something that you never experienced...
Why are you so devoted to having weapons when it is obvious that you would never really use them to overthrow your government?
First, weapons are owned and used because they represent power over others (animals and people.) In the USA such power is often needed against burglars who don't mind killing you and your family so that they can clean your house. In rural areas a gun is a necessary tool (!) to protect your cattle or your crops from predators and many ranchers have guns with them all the time - you don't drive a few miles away from your house, unarmed, to face a pack of wolves, or a overprotective wild pig, or a rabid mountain lion, or a rattlesnake. In the wild these should be let alone, but on your property they are a serious danger to you and your family.
Secondly, ownership of weapons has historical roots. The USA is a young country, relatively, and much of its independence came out of bloody wars waged by armed people.
Third, an unarmed person is a subject; an armed person is a citizen. There is a difference. It is true that a healthy modern government can't be overthrown by a bunch of rebels with muzzleloaders. However if the government becomes sick, the army will not fight [much] and the citizens will be first of all free, and also they will have to protect themselves. You don't want to defend yourself with a pillow if, during street riots, a gang of thugs breaks into your house. And those riots are not a fiction - they happen here on a regular basis.
Fourth, shooting a weapon accurately is not easy, so it is a sport and a skill that can be learned. If you are ever in a survival situation then your ability to shoot food (or defend yourself) may be essential. The USA is very vulnerable, actually - high gas prices can destroy the economy in no time because there are almost no railways, so if trucks stop bringing goods into cities the cities will become, let's say, a bad place to be at. If the dollar falls the same will happen as well, since so few goods are now made within the USA. I can't say what are the chances of some calamity, but they are not zero.
I have never seen a gun in the possesion of anyone other than the police, or at a shooting range. I have never needed a gun for self defence either.
It's understandable that you never saw a gun in someone's home if it is nearly illegal. I haven't yet needed a gun for self-defense either, but the trick is that you'd better have it when you do need it.
Since the guns were removed there has not been one mass shooting here.
I bet if the government chops hands of all citizens off then there will be no stabbings either. Seriously, this is a political issue because many US citizens do not see the government as being above them - and armed police is clearly in the commanding position over unarmed populace. By the way, a crossbow is a weapon worse than many guns, and a typical longbow can be made by anyone, anywhere, out of many materials, and it's silent too. UK can give you many examples on knife crimes, now that the guns are out of the picture - and the bad part is that knife is seen as an a casual weapon, with lesser "use threshold" than a gun. Anyway, if there is a criminal mind there will be a crime.
One line seems to be that if guns are banned only criminals would have guns, but it simply does not make sense, lees guns in general means less guns available to criminals, our experience is certainly that is the case.
The case of Mexico is a shining counter-example - ownership of most guns is prohibited but the drug cartels have and use military weapons. The reason is that criminals are not concerned about those l
And we're agreed on that.
Sure, that's a reasonable argument in form, though your paraphrase is significantly and critically off so far as the amendment itself goes. But keep in mind that even if granted it's an implication as to the reasoning and not actually part of the operative section of the Constitution. Courts can and have taken cognizance of it in exactly that sense, in fact - it cannot change the operative clause but it can inform interpretations as long as those interpretations steer clear of actually contradicting the operative clause of the amendment. This was, in fact, precisely the reasoning when the Supreme Court upheld the ban on short-barreled shotguns, holding that they were not suitable for military use and hence their prohibition did not infringe the right to bear arms.
But the consequences of that line of thought is diametrically opposed to the prevailing current of firearm legislation in the US - it means that, for instance, a law banning (or at least heavily "regulate") bolt action hunting rifles might stand a chance of passing constitutional muster but a similar law regarding fully automatic assault rifles is clearly unconstitutional.
It is very similar. And what you wrote very narrowly construed is true. This is in fact just what we do with freedom of speech for instance - there are narrowly defined cases where the state can regulate speech without infringing on freedom of speech, but only in very limited ways. The state can prevent you from holding a political rally at a particular time and place, for instance. In and of itself this does not infringe on your freedom of speech, assuming it passes a number of tests with a fairly high bar on them - they cant be acting partially, letting your opponent give his speeches but prohibiting yours, for instance. Show that the effect of their edict is to prevent your speech entirely, rather than simply to insist that you follow reasonable rules in regards to scheduling that everyone else is also held to, and you've made your case that they are infringing on your rights.
So with your morphine example, you might come up with some odd corner cases out of it, but they would also have to pass rather strict tests - you couldnt actually make morphine illegal (that would violate the operative clause full stop) and you couldnt do anything that would reasonably be expected to interfere with the ability of a citizen experiencing pain to get their morphine. And if better pain relievers became available the next day, that wouldnt invalidate the law - it would only give you a good argument in favour of changing it.
An unsupported assertion with zero argument presented for it. The books analogy in the link is *precisely isomorphic* to the second amendment.
More accurate than what? I think you lost the thread for a moment there. But the question you ask is clearly and unambiguously answered - if that language was in one of our constitutional amendments then the answer would be no,
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
One way to make a point, why not just have all your friends sexting to each other, make a facebook page, make it a facebook group, twitter about it, chose a day, and everyone participate in an act of civil disobedience. What are they going to do? Prosecute every single teenager that has a cell phone? This forces the law to react because clearly the law has been applied incorrectly because someone decided that it was easier to punish the few but the will of the masses to demand common sense will prove just in the end.
So my question is, when is the National Sexting Day going to take place?
As a funny aside, in Massacheussets, there is an attempt to amend child pornography laws to also include disabled persons and persons over 60 years old.
If that one gets passed, I really want to watch hearings on its Constitutionality, especially if it gets to the Supreme Court. I want to see how the justices will respond to being told that consent is irrelevent for folks over 60 years old, given that Roberts is 54, Alito is 58, and everyone else on the court is over 60.
Finally, a law SO blatantly Unconstitutional that the Supreme Court would have to declare themselves legally incompetent NOT to strike it down.....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP