Slashdot Mirror


Court Says Parents Can Block PA "Sexting" Prosecutions

mikesd81 writes "In the first federal appeals court opinion dealing with 'sexting,' a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that parents could block the prosecution of their children on child pornography charges for appearing in photographs found on some classmates' cellphones. Miller vs. Mitchell (PDF) began in 2008 when school officials in Tunkhannock, Pa., discovered seminude and nude photographs of some female students on other student's phones. George Skumanick Jr., the DA at the time, said the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program.' The unanimous ruling of the judges, Thomas L. Ambro, Michael A. Chagares and Walter K. Stapleton, criticized the district attorney's reliance on the girls' presence in the photographs as a basis for the potential charges. 'Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo,' said the opinion, by Judge Ambro."

3 of 383 comments (clear)

  1. Background on the ideas by ThousandStars · · Score: 1, Troll

    For those seeking more background on the general insanity of this story and "sexting" in general, see Slate.com's Textual Misconduct and the Economist on America's unjust sex laws: An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world. The latter is tangentially related to the main issue but nonetheless useful.

  2. Re:Insanity by CorporateSuit · · Score: 0, Troll

    You presume that you will always make better choices than your children will? Interesting...

    You are NOT a parent, I see. Well, keep telling other people how to raise theirs! You seem to know what kids are like and what their needs are better than the people who spend 24 hours a day around them! Don't let practice get in the way of your theoretical revolution.

    --
    I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
  3. this would be the psychological immaturity by circletimessquare · · Score: 0, Troll

    i am referring to

    in which a completely unrelated fear of yours is projected onto my words and what i am communicating

    me: "sex should be curtailed by teenagers because of disease and pregnancy"

    you: "so you're trying to make me feel guilty?"

    wtf?

    seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

    are 14 yo?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it