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."
the students and their parents could be prosecuted if they did not participate in an after-school 'education program.'
I love the fucking hypocrisy around sex in USA. Sure, violence and killing people is all okay, but when it's about natural human function like sex it's all bad and must be hidden. It's a great irony that just an hour ago I read news that you can't even say tampon on US TV commercial about tampon products . Women bleed once a month. Accept it and get on with your lifes.
When I was a teen we sent back and forth nude pictures of ourself with my girlfriend, and I suspect many others did too. Hell, we even had sex like every other teenager does. 15-16 year old is perfectly capable to understand sex. Age of consent is 14-16 in most of the world and 17-18 in more liberal US states. It makes absolutely no sense that you can have sex but not send a dirty picture of yourself to your boy/girlfriend, and if you do you will be taken to some kind of "education program".
The fact that parents can block some "sexting" prosecution is a stupid point. If I was a parent I wouldn't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life, and I sure as hell didn't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age.
It would likely depend on how these pics were found. If they were found on a phone confiscated at school, where's the search warrant?
Free Martian Whores!
Why do people tie themselves and others down with such rough-hewn principles? Of course, you need principles, as the human mind can't analyze every detail of every situation and thing all the time, but is that really the limits of their psyches? People around me, normal seemingly functional people that aren't considered mentally challenged by society in any way, burden themselves with crude approximations, in situations where i just improvise a detailed solution on a whim, without any effort whatsoever. It feels like hubris to think that it's a matter of "intelligence", maybe some people just have a psychological need to think and live like that? Reflexively, I find out that many many people think that I'm some sort of ultra-principled saint/boring rules-submissive stiff... when in fact, I'm quite the opposite. So do they then feel they would be crazed hellraisers, or at least incapable of functioning, if they approached problems like I do?
Emotions! In your brain!
IANAL, but I believe most District Attorneys that file these sorts of charges are claiming that their hands are tied and they HAVE to because laws regarding child pornography are so strict. The laws don't make any allowances for something like sexting, even if it's a picture involving somebody who is 17.999 years old. Any sexy picture involving somebody under the age of 18 is considered child porn in the eyes of "the law" according to those idiotic DA's.
On the face of it, it sounds good - it's unlikely parents will agree to child pornography prosecutions against their own child. But looking closer at it, this is just batshit-insanity dressed up with a legal fig-leaf. "Appearing in a photograph provides no evidence as to whether that person possessed or transmitted the photo" sounds to me like they judges are merely arguing that childporn charges do no apply because images themselves do not provide much evidence of who took the picture. It still completely neglects the issue that the current childporn laws apply to people under the age of consent who took naked pictures of themselves! Yes, I know, then there could be a loophole that pedophiles just force their victims to take their own pictures. Honestly - I don't care. The current laws not only make criminals out of people who really didn't do anything wrong, but also terminally fuck someone for the rest of their lives just because they took a picture of themselves.
Yes, yes, pedophilia is the root password to the Constitution, etc. But apathy and fatalism isn't gonna cut it. Write to your congress critters, and interrupt people who blather on about the danger of random strangers taking pictures. Tell them that they ought to look up the weird uncle first.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So the school staff stole the phones from the students and then found pictures on them... I think there are multiple grounds to get these cases thrown out of court.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
So this sexting thing is labeled as child porn yet this isn't: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:0ifyxqq5ld6e
C'mon people! I continue to be amazed at our country's puritanical stance on sex overall. Yes, child porn and abuse is a VERY bad thing and should be punished by the extreme measures of the law (yes Catholic Church...I'm talking to you) but this kind of stupidity is not acceptable. And as a parent of three, you better believe that I will be on them about sending ANY kind of picture least of all a nude one to their friends. Trust me, I'm not the one that's going to be embarrassed in public about it. If they need to learn the hard way, so be it.
"Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash
can result in fatal or permanently life-altering disease
and, of course, pregnancy. duh
combine this with the fact that teenagers are universally fucking retarded (they're green, they're psychologically immature), and it makes a hell of a lot of sense to bind sex up in taboos and rules
sex is immensely pleasurable. its also an emotional minefield. there is no such thing, nor will there ever be, a successful human society with a cavalier attitude towards sex. sex is extremely powerful. as such, it is treated, and should be treated, extremely carefully, and always will be
deal with it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the most rigidly constructed building is the most fragile
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Why isn't it illegal for the school officials to be in possession of nude pictures of underage children?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It doesn't help society.
For most of human history teenagers were already adults.
Many 12 year olds are capable of having kids. That's how it has been for thousands and hundreds of thousands of years.
That's how it will be for thousands of years to come.
It's just our society that puts 'artificial' boundaries on behavior, sometimes resulting in people in their 20's still behaving like kids.
As our society became more complex, and our roles in it required more skill, people became more dependent on their parents while being educated into becoming a 'contributing' part of society.
For most of human history, that was not the case.
Then there are those sick f@ckers who 'like' looking at pictures of naked kids. There must be laws against that.
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.
Prosecutors aren't obliged to prosecute, and juries aren't obliged to convict. That they ignore this discretion and convict anyway is a reflect of the authoritarian streak in American culture.
That's Jewish though Christians say it too. However they add you can only multiply when granted a church license called marriage. Muslims along with some Christian sects also allow males to have more than one spouse, but females can only have one. Which is called polygyny not polygamy. Now if they allowed females to have more than one spouse as well as males then it would be polygamy.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
If the judge has ruled that this photo is not incriminating for the girls in them, because the DA cannot prove that they produced, or distributed the photos then doesn't that mean that the girls are the "victims" here? And if the girls are the victims here, then what does that say about a prosecutor that threatens victims with false charges unless they agree to terms set by him? It sounds to me like the prosecutor is used to badgering the victims in his cases to get the outcome or version of the truth that he desires. I wonder how many other victims this guy has berated or threatened with other charges in order to get them to say what he wants them to say. Might make good ammunition for defense attorneys to ask to have another look at the witnesses that this guy has used in the past. Either way, it's not right. (and yes, I'm new to this planet)
Burn the land and boil the sea........
does not result in happiness. it results in unintended pregnancy and disease. are you happy with herpes and unwanted kids?
of course, you will respond that people will use protection. and i agree 100%. but that's not the FREE AND OPEN attitude you referred to, now is it? monkeys humping are free and open. homo sapiens wrapping their pecker or taking a birth control pill meanwhile are being RESPONSIBLE, not free and open. i don't know why you see some uneducated morons humping and spreading dozens of oprhans and awful diseases as a definition of success
so until your half-monkey teenagers develop a little more heft in their prefrontal cortexes, you bind them up in rules and taboos, to save them and your society from disease and unwanted kids, so you, your society, and the physically developed but psychologically immature teenagers have happy lives
got it?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
the inability to perceive the difference between
1. being responsible about sex and teenagers, and
2. locking people up against their will
so you've given us a wonderful example of the kind of psychological immaturity that makes sex amongst half monkey teenagers a threat to society and their own lives
teenagers are lightweights in the prefrontal cortex. until they develop little more heft in their executive functions of responsibility and planning, you heavily monitor them, to save them, and you, and your society, from disease and unwanted pregnancy
physical maturity unfortunately does not equal psychological maturity
understand?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
if anything, the education here for teenagers should be "how to better protect your privacy/cover your tracks". Sex Ed classes in (most) schools cover the rest of the 'HIV-teen prego-STD-gifts that keep on giving' talk and all that.
From your yearbook, find a portrait pic. From the Interweb, find a semi-nude model. With Photoshop, or Gimp, or other graphic editor, place the head on the body. Put the image on your phone. Now go show it to the principle and have that person from the yearbook brought up on indecency charges.
Id say he presumes he has the responsability for what the child does because, hell, its the law.
Sure, parents are supposed to be responsible, but with laws being enforced like this the nanny state has taken over responsibility. It's the parents' responsibility to teach their children what's good and bad. Laws without unwilling victims are laws that should not exist. At least there are none I can think of that should exist.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
it's not pornography if you send a picture of yourself. this is commonsense. you own you.
of course, if who you sent it to sends it out to everyone else... i could see that being 'wrong'. they have no right to do that to you, especially if you're a minor...
i really don't get why what i just said isn't just the simple law...
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
Pictures of naked people aren't porn. Pictures of naked children are not porn. Porn is sexual. Nudity isn't. Just because 'someone' thinks it's porn does not make it so.
first up, Kansas, followed by Oklahoma and Texas
What, you mean the Texas board of education hasn't already required condom buyers to prove their 18? Actually because the only acceptable birth control is abstinence, using condoms is a sin, I'm surprised they haven't outlawed them.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
It would likely depend on how these pics were found. If they were found on a phone confiscated at school, where's the search warrant?
Students on campus don't have rights. That's how school are able to get away with forcing drug testing of students.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Except in OrwellWorld(TM), "obey or be prosecuted" is not "voluntary".
Not noted in the article was that Judge Ambro specifically credited Captain Obvious, Esq. for his amicus brief on this subject.
No, on it's bald face it sounds horrible. It only smells worse and worse the deeper you get.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
IANAL, but I believe most District Attorneys that file these sorts of charges are claiming that their hands are tied and they HAVE to because laws regarding child pornography are so strict.
Neither am I but I know what's right from wrong and using "it's the laws" as an excuse should not work. It didn't in Nuremberg and shouldn't here. Bad laws are to be opposed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
it makes a hell of a lot of sense to bind sex up in taboos
Are not taboos intended to produce guilt?
See Wikipedia:
My inference is entirely appropriate based on the words you used.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
DAs are politicians and as a result are full of shit.
soft on "crime" either way it is using the state's power to enforce some politician's personal morality on others.
Correction, it's easier on the politician but harder on those who disagree.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The judges are asserting that there is a likelihood that the prosecutor was retaliating by threatening to prosecute because the Does were seeking to exercise their rights under the law. Isn't this barratry?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Can NONE of you remember what it was like as a teen and sex?
Hell, I'd say to young people...sure, be responsible, protect yourself, but get out there and FUCK!! These are you best fuck years, particularly males!!
Lordy, when you're that age, you can fuck, blow a wad...and keep it hard and start right back up again. Take advantage of stamina and libido while you have it.
It won't last forever...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
They can legally participate in sexual activity including, at the least, seeing each other nude but having pictures of the same is illegal. Yeah I just can't see that curious logic being repeated too much until someone with the ability to do something about it "gets the picture"...
Sigh...
The DAs aren't idiotic, they're corrupt. Former Governor and now federal prisoner George Ryan stopped executions in Illinois because the Innocence Project proved that half of the inmates on death row were innocent, and crooked cops and DAs put them there.
This isn't much different. They don't care about justice, they care about convictions.
Free Martian Whores!
Unless the children are adopted, I see no way to become a parent without fucking.
Are these "education programs" anything like the ones in China?
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
Sorry, the homo-eroticism of military life is not the way I want to raise my son.
Blar.
Prosecutors aren't obliged to prosecute, and juries aren't obliged to convict. That they ignore this discretion and convict anyway is a reflect of the authoritarian streak in American culture.
I had to sit through a jury-duty session last year or face being caged like a wild animal by the State of NH. We had to watch a video which explicitly says that the jury has to follow all directions of the judge. I was dismissed from each case because I told the judge that I would not follow his orders if they were in conflict with the NH Bill of Rights. I offered a handful of US Supreme Court decisions lauding jury nullification as my rationale.
Potential jurors will want to visit the Fully Informed Jury Association website before their conscription.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
If minors can be charged with child pornography for taking pictures of themselves, can they also be charged with rape for masturbating? After all, having sex with someone under the age of consent is statutory rape, isn't it?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It's like saying that your microwave oven is broken because a can of tomato soup sitting on the counter isn't getting hot. You have to open the can of soup and put it in the microwave, and then turn the microwave on, before you can expect the soup to get hot.
There's a big, huge, massive difference between them. You have to put the can in the oven, then watch it explode. Teens on the other hand have to agree to abstinence, which most will not. Even those who sign an abstinence pledge don't keep the pledge. Studies support this:
Final Nail in the Coffin
"In the most recent study, researchers compared teens who had taken the virginity pledge to those who had not taken a pledge. The researchers found results similar to the aforementioned studies.'
"First, the rate of the teens taking part in sex was the same. Those taking the virginity pledge were just as likely to have intercourse. The only positive, statistically small, was that those taking the pledge had 0.1 fewer sex partners over the five year study than did those who did not take such a pledge. "
Here are more:
"...The problem is that even when these sex ed programs are effective in encouraging teens to remain virginal, "effective" may only mean that the programs have convinced teenagers to avoid vaginal intercourse. But vaginal intercourse is not the only sexual activity that can be hazardous to a person's physical and emotional health; oral and anal sex may not lead to pregnancy, but they can spread sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as gonorrhea, herpes, and HIV."
"Although they were once the sole province of religious organizations, many secular groups and schools now host events where students sign "virginity pledges" as a way to promote pre-marital abstinence. Today, virginity pledges are also part of most abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula and programs. Research has found that under certain conditions these pledges may help some adolescents delay sexual intercourse. When they work, pledges help this select group of adolescents delay the onset of sexual intercourse for an average of 18 months--far short of marriage. However, the studies also found that those young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged. These teens are therefore more vulnerable to the risks of unprotected sexual activity such as unintended pregnancy and STDs, including HIV/AIDS. Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers are more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among "virgins," male and female pledgers are six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers are four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged. And, the research has confirmed that, although some students who take pledges delay intercourse, ultimately they are equally as likely to contract an STD as their non-pledging peers. In fact, researchers found that the STD rates were higher in communities where a significant proportion (over 20%) of the young people had taken virginity pledges. Clearly, virginity pledges are not an effective strategy for keeping young people healthy."
There's plent
Should there be a Law?