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.
foolish ninja, schoolchildren don't have the same rights as real people, something I railed against when I was one
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
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.
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.
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?
A healthy understanding of sex includes an understanding of the risks, and the necessary precautions. What it does not involve, in any way whatsoever, is guilt. That's what you seem to be arguing for though. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
By the same argument that insists 3-D CGI of underage sex is unlawful, and even depictions of cartoon characters (e.g. Lisa and Bart Simpson) having sex is child port, that picture of a naked 10-year old is unlawful, even if the photographer/model consents to it's release upon reaching legal age.
Needless to say, I disagree with these legal principles. People that exploit children should be put in jail. People that paint nude cherubs in the Sistine Chapel should not. People that photograph their newborn naked on a bear-skin rug should not. (Almost every family has photographs or videos of "baby's first bath". It ain't porn.)
That doesn't change the fact that sending ANYBODY nude pictures of yourself is a very, very stupid thing to do, regardless of your age. On the internet, once it's out there, it's out there forever, and likely to come back to haunt you 40 years later when you're running for public office!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
You can get condoms in Texas at any age provided you explain they're for keeping dust out of your rifle barrel. You've got to fast-talk them about metallurgical nonsense to get the ones with spermicide, though.
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.........
Sorry, the homo-eroticism of military life is not the way I want to raise my son.
Blar.