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
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.
In the United States (and, more and more the UK and Australia), children are the enemy.
Why?
"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!
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
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.
:(){
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."
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.