Court Says Parents Can Block PA "Sexting" Prosecutions 383
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."
Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [wordpress.com]. 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.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Funny)
When I was a teen we sent back and forth nude pictures of ourself with my girlfriend,
So she really got around, eh?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, we do. Your friends and a ton of other people were taking shots of themselves with your naked girlfriend. That's what? Sloppy hundredths?
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Funny)
Hell, we even had sex like every other teenager does.
I never had sex as a teen, you insensitive clod!
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So you're saying he's one of the odd ones? It all makes sense now.
Do it while you CAN!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting." It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So maybe they should raise their child correctly then?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
But most of the tools to raise children correctly are considered 'old fashioned' or even unacceptable. Martial punishment when young, strong leadership from the father and a nurturing mother (which is, of course, 'sexist' because men and women are the same), and actually following through with punishments (the horror!). The only proper method of parenting is found in an after-school program.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Funny)
Martial punishment when young,
Did you mean corporal punishment, or do you really kung-fu roundhouse kick your kids, a la Chuck Norris?
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Funny)
Nope, martial as in martial law. I call in the army and use sandbags and razor wire to prevent them from leaving the house.
Yes, corporal punishment ;)
So beatings and forced sodomy in the barracks?! (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, the homo-eroticism of military life is not the way I want to raise my son.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only sexist part comes when you assume that women can't provide strong leadership or that men can't provide nurturing.
You're right that there's nothing excluding a man from being nurturing or a woman a leader.
No, the issue comes when you assume that a woman can provide the same kind and quality of leadership as a man, or a man the same kind and quality of nurturing as a woman. There's a reason why single-parent households are more likely to fail in raising children, and this is it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does Occam's Razor apply here? Neither of our explanations seem particularly more complex. Sure, if income were the only determining factor you would be right, though.
The relationship [between single-parent families and crime] is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature. The nation's mayors, as well as police officers, social workers, probation officers, and court officials, consistently point to family break up as the most important source of rising rates of crime. Source [cato.org]
Oops, looks like it's not.
As for some 'magical quality', look around. Men and women think different, they act different, they are different. To expect that one parent can perform as well across all parenting tasks as well as two parents of different genders is laughable. I'm not saying there aren't men who are terrible leader/mentors
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting." It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.
All about appearance? Not quite, those parents don't want to parent, instead they want the nanny state to parent. And soft on crime? What crimes? Victimless crimes? They s
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting."
So the solution is to have their own children branded as sex offenders after they've committed the act?!?!?!
Yeah, you've thought that out well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's never about branding their own children. It's about the parents of 'perfect angel' Girl A demanding something be done to 'that pervert' Boy B, until Boy B's parents demand the same in reverse hoping that Girl A's parents will back down. Then the DA's office goes ahead and charges everybody they possibly can because:
A. They don't want to look soft on crime.
B. They have decided the parents are all damned idiots and deserve all the consequences.
C. It gets the damned idiots to finally shut up.
D. There's ju
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So the solution is to have their own children branded as sex offenders after they've committed the act?!?!?!
Yeah, you've thought that out well.
... Nooooo.... the solution is to have other people's children branded as sex offenders as scapegoats to put the fear of god in your own.
Keep in mind, to a conservative, throwing other people under the bus is the most effective means of propulsion available. What leaves me truly transfixed from one day to the next is how imaginatively they invent new buses out of thin air for the purpose of conveniently throwing people under them. :D
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
The sex thing is driven by the Christian Taliban. Christianity, like the other desert superstitions, seeks to control and ration sex.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Funny)
Well sure.
It wastes water. Didn't you watch Dune?
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up!
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Funny)
And yet, they tell us to be fruitful and multiply. I didn't realize they were talking about diet and math.
And yet, they tell us to be fruitful and multiply. (Score:3, Informative)
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 [onelook.com] not polygamy [onelook.com]. Now if they allowed females to have more than one spouse as well as males then it would be polygamy.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
it's not exactly a surprise that the same religious sect has the most teen pregnancies and such, either. However, don't throw judaism in with the christians. The christians are on their own on this one.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It has nothing to do with writings in the bible.
It has much to do with late-roman church fathers, influenced by mainly greek philosophers, creating dogma's that survive in Christianity to this day. Guys like Saint Augustin, who defined "sin" as currently interpreted by nearly all of the church. He basically argued that libido is the "the root of evil" (radix mali).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Christianity, like the other desert superstitions, seeks to control and ration sex
Oh, I thought marriage was designed to ration sex...
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
Grouping every person who ascribes to a belief into a single batch of crazy extremists is just what the Fundamentalist right does. If your goal is to act more like Glen Beck or for that matter, Joseph McCarthy, Stalin and the like, well then you are right on track. It is nothing short of blatant hate speech and un-educated bigotry.
Just like the majority of people, the majority of Christians are sane, reasonable people. Just like the majority of the left are sane reasonable people. Also note that the majority of the left ARE Christians as well (half of all US Citizens are Christian).
Every time a person stands up and says things like you have just done, it weakens the point of reasonable people. If you actually care about these issues, please spend some time doing some research. Then, after some contemplative time, say what your opinion is. If you really want something to change, also suggest a solution.
If however, your goal is to just spew FUD. Well then, by all means continue.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, if you want your daughter to pregnant or start having regular abortions at age 9 or whatever, great. I don't want my daughters to be fucked by any old dude with a penis, requiring her to get HPV vaccines and take hormone pills during the time of her puberty and maturation.
You sound too misinformed to be allowed to have children. You think laws keep kids from having sex, and if that do they start at 9?
I also don't want you telling me how to raise my kids any more than you want me telling you how to raise yours.
And as for "Christian Taliban" when was the last time any "christian" stopped you from raising your kid the way you wanted. HMMM?
Well lets see, there's no nudity on TV because of conservatives, which invariably are religous. Oh and there was the outrage from christain groups because some kids saw a nipple during the superbowl. Then there are the blue laws. I think you get the idea.
People who talk like you have never raised any kids or had to deal with the crap that results. I can't wait till you have a slutty daughter, who is pregnant at 13, by a 26 year old loser.
Ya anyone that disagrees OBVIOUSLY can't have raised kids, and OBVIOUSLY are bad parents. My wife didn't raise her kids like you, she never hid sex, she had appropriate conversations at appropriate ages. Her kids are fine.
But I also know a few girls with parents like you. Thank you, because girls raised by people like you are the real sluts with no limits, and its fun to watch them strip, fuck, and party.
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nothing about nudity that justifies a TV-MA rating. Why is this so difficult for people to understand?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As someone who actually has children and remembers well growing up himself, I tell you: No child will engage in sexual intercourse if there is something else interesting to do. So the best way to keep your child away from teenage pregnancy is
1) support your child if it starts to show interest in some hobby, get it interested, keep it occupied with something it has fun doing.
2) don't make the impression sex would be something overly interesting, by being completely normal and honest about it. Children notice
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So the best way to keep your child away from teenage pregnancy is
1) support your child if it starts to show interest in some hobby, get it interested, keep it occupied with something it has fun doing.
Oh. That explains why Mom and Dad supported my teen-age computer nerdery. From the perspective of keeping me from getting laid too young, it certainly worked.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You sure as hell *better* interfere with your 16-17 year old's sex life. Teenagers are stupid fuckers, and can get HIV or become pregnant as easily as 30-somethings.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but prosecuting them for transmitting child pornography? That's fucking ridiculous.
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Informative)
(* liberal meaning "free", not "leftie" though for some those two meanings are the same).
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
You presume that you will always make better choices than your children will? Interesting...
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
An adult at least has experience to draw on. A "don't make the same mistakes I did" kind of thing, if nothing else.
I remember how stupid I was at 16. So yeah, I -do- think odds are more in favor of the parents when it comes to such choices.
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
So, you're arguing in favor of letting them make the decision then?
Seriously, where do you get off arguing against it even as you begin with " An adult at least has experience to draw on "
Where do you think they're going to get experience? Look, you let people make *little* mistakes while you watch, so they don't make huge ones later on when you're not there. Let the girl take a picture of herself pulling the bikini a bit low and showing some pink--even if it ends up all over the damned net, at least it isn't a damned video of her b/f pegging her--which would also end up on the net. Yeah, the lesson will hurt--but not as much as the later one.
You know who the most screwed up girls were back in school? The *real* catholic schoolgirls raised by Nuns. And while having three of them go down on me at once in a dark dorm room is a *wonderful* memory--they weren't ready for it--and I regret sharing that with them. And with their screwed up perception of what physical relationships should be, I'm not sure they ever were.
People need to screw up to learn--give them some room to fail gracefully and learn how to pick themselves back up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to be stupid as a teenager to be wise as an adult and learn from things.
That is a widespread, incorrect assumption. You will learn more by NOT doing dumb things. The only positive you get from being stupid is the ability to sympathize with others who are in the middle of doing stupid things.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Id say he presumes he has the responsability for what the child does because, hell, its the law.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Not always, just 99% of the time when there is a disagreement.
Or have you not learned a damn thing since you last technically qualified as a child, assuming you're not one right now?
More kids need their parents to be parents. We've got enough undisciplined little hellions running around as it is, because their parents won't enforce rules, boundaries, or limitations.
The natural state of mankind is savagery. Overcoming that is the duty of the parent.
If you're bent out of shape after 'suffering under the oppressive thumb' of your father, it's probably because he understands things you don't, but lacks the articulation to explain it to you, or you lack the capacity to listen.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Informative)
You presume that you will always make better choices than your children will?
Spoken like a true teenager [pbs.org].
How old are you? In almost all cases, an adult WILL make better choices than a teenager will.
I've been a teenager, and I'm the father of two former teenagers. I think I know what I'm talking about here.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
How old are you? In almost all cases, an adult WILL make better choices than a teenager will.
Beyond fMRI studies, there are lots of other formal studies and semi-formal observations (look at actuarial data on auto accidents, for example) that show that the cognitive ability we call "judgement", the ability to weigh multiple competing factors with a fair degree of accuracy and arrive at a sensible conclusion, is something that isn't fully-developed until the mid-20s.
Now, I'm not saying that every adult old enough to have teenaged children always exercises good judgement, or that teenagers never do, but overall adults are much better equipped to make difficult choices than kids are. When it comes to sex, the problem of poor judgment is exacerbated by powerful new emotions and sexual feelings that the teenager has only recently begun to experience.
Really, you'd have to be crazy to expect teenagers to make good choices about sex. Hell, lots of adults make really bad choices about sex, and that's after a few decades of getting used to the issues, and with as much judgement as they're ever going to develop! Kids don't have either of those advantages, and are at correspondingly greater risk.
Of course, many of them make bad choices and escape unscathed. But some of them don't. STDs and unwanted pregnancies can really screw with a young person's future. And if they show really poor judgment, especially when coupled with what are normally relatively minor cognitive disorders like poor impulse control (a common characteristic of ADHD), they can end up with criminal charges, and for far worse than "sexting".
Yes, parents of teenagers find sex more than a little bit scary. Not because they're prudes who don't want their kids to have any fun. Because they see how their kids often make bad decisions -- which is a perfectly normal, healthy and even necessary part of growing up -- and they recognize that bad decisions in this area can have severe and long-lasting consequences. And parents don't want their kids to have to suffer those consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Such interpretations assume that "judgement" is an ability -- something inherent -- rather than a skill acquired and improved through u
Re: (Score:2)
At that point you should had taught your kid to behave correctly and know about HIV and pregnant stuff. Hell, they even teach those things in school here. It's too late when they're already 16-17.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should have taught them about the risks, absolutely. Teenagers are still horribly irresponsible, and repeated reminders at appropriate intervals are sensible (and needed).
All MHO, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Funny)
My parents still interfere. However, their interference has evolved into "so when are you going to have another child?" To which I respond "Two kids is enough! That's all we're having!"
Of course, back in college, my father's idea of "interfering" with my sex life was walking with me on campus eyeing the women (and by eyeing I mean turning his head so fast I worried he'd get whiplash) and telling me I should walk up to them and ask them to sleep with me. My response then was "If they said yes to a random guy walking up to them asking for sex, then I sure as hell *DON'T* want to sleep with them!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they're "abstainers". Me and my girlfriend have sex. But we use Condoms & Birth Control, not saying it can't statistically happen, but we cover all the bases.
Teach kids that sex will (hopefully) happen and show them where to buy condoms. Planned parenthood gives them out for free, same with birth control. I don't think you have to be 18+ to buy condoms at any Walmart or pharmacy.
So yes, "interfere" by educating them not ignoring that it's a possibility.
Re: (Score:2)
Not yet, anyway. That day will come, I'm sure. Especially in abstinence-only education states.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By "interfere" you mean "buy them condoms", right?
Re: (Score:2)
If a teenager is too stupid to use a condom, they won't use a condom when they're 30.
I knew I wasn't stupid enough bareback because my parents didn't interfere with my sex life, aside from stressing the important of a condom. Had they forbidden it (in the process neglecting to discuss condoms), I would've done it ungloved.
Why do people think that 16-17 year olds get a whole lot smarter when they turn 18? Or hell, even 30. You don't mature all that much from 16; if you're immature at 16 you'll be immature at
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
You sure as hell *better* interfere with your 16-17 year old's sex life. Teenagers are stupid fuckers, and can get HIV or become pregnant as easily as 30-somethings.
Then teach them safe sex. Many teens have sex yet their lives don't fall apart after that. And abstinence only does not work.
Falcon
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
Car analogy? Sure. Abstinence is 100% effective at preventing pregnancies and STDs in the same manner that walking everywhere is 100% effective at preventing car accidents.
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait, are you saying that not getting "pregnant or worse" from having sex as a teen is as likely as winning the lottery? I've always been under the impression that most teens have sex (I don't know any who didn't) and I'm fairly certain that most people alive weren't pregnant as teens and those who weren't could be described as emotionally scarred by their experiences. What a bizarre reality you live in.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
>>>I love the fucking hypocrisy around sex in USA.
What sex? These are just pictures of a naked human, and no more harmful than pics of a naked pig or naked bird. In fact the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that nudity is protected speech. It's why you can find images of naked children/teens in your local Barnes & Noble.
Underage sex photos should be restricted (because someone was raped), but not photos of homo sapiens in his natural state.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Informative)
Underage sex photos should be restricted (because someone was raped)
Not all under age sex is rape. Even if you accept the legal fiction that people under a certain age are incapable of consent, the age of consent differs from the age of majority in many places. In fact, people have been prosecuted for child pornography after taking pictures of perfectly legal sex acts. Hell, in my state a few years ago a man was sent to prison for having sex with his wife who he legally married in another state.
Re:Insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
So many girls are raped because a guy says, "do it for me" or other pressures.
That's not rape. Rape is when the guy says "do it for me", she says "no", and he does it anyway.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
Underage sex photos should be restricted (because someone was raped),
It's this kind of inflexible logic that leads to situations where if 15 year old girl sends sex photos to her 16 year old boyfriend, they run the risk of being charged and prosecuted, him as a child molester and her as a child pornographer! Two lives potentially destroyed because 'someone must have been raped'. The only one doing the raping here is the state.
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you hit the mark perfectly.
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".
No sane person would call teens sending their teenage boy/girlfriends a dirty picture of themselves pedophiles or bring them up on child porn charges.
But obviously just mentioning the words "child porn" makes a lot of people loose their sanity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
I sure as hell didn't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age.
That's because you were a teenager, and thus an idiot. I know, I was a teenager once. Know several now. Teens are much more likely to act without thinking than adults. Much more likely to think "A condom reduces my pleasure, so I won't wear one, because I won't become a father|catch an STD|both" and act upon that.
As adults we (should) know better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Teenagers, having fewer preconceptions are more likely to apply rationality to their decisions. Adults are set in their ways and less open to new ideas, even if they are better. I don't think either group has a monopoly on being irrational.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because their brains are different doesn't mean they're defective. I've read that article, and in fact was thinking of it when I made that post. This quote in particular is key:
Teenagers actually think. Adults just react.
I like how you assume that I'm a child
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was always assured a lot of things when I was a kid, and the same thing here.
Sometimes, looking back, I can see what adults might have thought I was doing, and why they acted the way they did...
And if they'd told me, I could have corrected their misunderstandings.
Now, adults still need to 'interfere' in their kids life. But the thing is, teenagers aren't stupid...they're ignorant and poor judges of risk in a specific way. Teenage
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, I take issue with the notion that 14-16 year olds are capable of understanding sex. In this country they are d
Re: (Score:2)
For some very reasonable definitions of "parent", being a good parent often has little to do with what a parent wants to do, or what their kids want. And that's no less true for teenagers than for toddlers.
this "natural human function" (Score:3, Insightful)
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, a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Insanity (Score:5, Insightful)
The court did not rule that sexting was illegal. Nor did the court rule that is/is not considered child pornography. Nor did the court rule that parents can block any and all sexting charges. In this case the court ruled that being the subject of a photo is not grounds for child pornography charges.
After some provocative photos were found of some teenage girls, the DA wanted them to attend a class. The girls were not nude but shown in underwear or wearing a towel. The class was optional only if the girls wanted to avoid being prosecuted for felony child pornography. The parents sued to block the prosecutions. The court unanimously agreed with the parents because being the subject of a photo does not violate child pornography laws. Possesion of the photo is where charges may occur but the DA could not prove the girls ever had possession of any photos, merely that they were subjects of them.
Had the DA won, it would have led to some crazy interpretations. If someone installed a spy camera in a dressing/changing area, then any teenage girls secretly caught on camera could be prosecuted for child pornography.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The court did not rule that sexting was illegal. Nor did the court rule that is/is not considered child pornography. Nor did the court rule that parents can block any and all sexting charges. In this case the court ruled that being the subject of a photo is not grounds for child pornography charges.
After some provocative photos were found of some teenage girls, the DA wanted them to attend a class. The girls were not nude but shown in underwear or wearing a towel. The class was optional only if the girls wanted to avoid being prosecuted for felony child pornography. The parents sued to block the prosecutions. The court unanimously agreed with the parents because being the subject of a photo does not violate child pornography laws. Possesion of the photo is where charges may occur but the DA could not prove the girls ever had possession of any photos, merely that they were subjects of them.
Had the DA won, it would have led to some crazy interpretations. If someone installed a spy camera in a dressing/changing area, then any teenage girls secretly caught on camera could be prosecuted for child pornography.
So they DA, without giving some people their due processes, told them to attend this class or we are going to press charges against you?
Isn't that illegal? The DA can't tell you what to do. At the very least, it's a big step out of his job duties.
I understand a DA can decide to charge you or not charge you for a crime, but for him/her to tell you to go to a class or get taken to court is just a bit much. Abuse of power, imo
Re: (Score:2)
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
When I was just learning to read there was a family get together, and my mom sent me to the store to buy napkins and paper plates. I bought the best napkins -- the sanitary ones. I couldn't figure out why my mom and my aunts thought it was so funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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".
I certainly agree with the general argument here. If you can have sex legally, you should legally be able to send dirty pictures.
On the other hand, "can" and "should" are two different things.
15-16 year old is perfectly capable to understand sex.
Teenagers are perfectly capable of understanding what sex is, and they can certainly figure out how it works. But are they capable of considering repercussions of those actions? Millions of unplanned teenage pregnancies (many of them followed by abortions or people dropping out of school, etc.) say otherwise.
Sho
IANAL, but (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Wait a second.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
No warrant == stolen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The school can likely make a strong argument using in loco parentis [wikipedia.org] depending upon the circumstances around the confiscation of the phone.
Waitaminute (Score:2)
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 [allmusic.com]
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude...that made no sense whatsoever. Lay off the drugs already. You'll be happier.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 na
Stupid question time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It ought to be illegal to even SEE nude pictures of underage children. Everybody involved should be in jail! If we don't keep the children safe, how will they ever grow up to enjoy the dystopic world we're building for them by keeping them safe?
Background on the ideas (Score:2, Troll)
Aren't we forgetting something? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Aren't we forgetting something? (Score:4, Insightful)
It shouldn't even matter. In a sane world, no-one should ever be prosecuted for making and distributing a picture or video of themselves, even if it is extreme porn.
Voluntary? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
That's what the judges said (Score:3, Informative)
The judges are asserting that there is a likelihood that the prosecutor was retaliating by threatening to prosecute
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)