More proof that (more of) those in government, and especially in law, in the US have had their heads up their asses so long as to have suffered irreparable brain damage:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25250127-663,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25249702-663,00.html

Charging someone with breaking child pornography laws for posting pictures of THEMSELVES? Umm, are the laws that ambiguous and poorly crafted or does the stupidity and idiocy of the prosecutors diminish even their comprehension of the laws it's their job to work with?

Many child pornography laws are intended not only to prevent the exploitation of children, but to reduce the market for such exploitation.

You can make a perfectly legitimate argument that restricting a product only makes the demand intensify and not decrease, but that's the thought behind the law.

This isn't the first time a minor has been charged with this exact same crime, either. I'm too lazy to search for prior cases, though.

Yes, Americans are, in general, idiots.

Yes, child pornography laws are very generalized. They have to be in order to reduce loopholes, to make sure that those who genuinely abuse children can be prosecuted.

Careful about throwing stones in glass houses, though. It wouldn't surprise me if Canadian child pornography laws were very similar.

Fortunately, there are judges and juries who can interpret the laws and decide on sentencing. I'm guessing the kids won't be prosecuted for that thing in particular. I don't think any judge in their right mind would actually do that.

Key words, here.
As Tony said- it's up to the court's discretion for conviction and sentencing.
Many charges are sensational and meant to gain attention in the media.

But, yah- mostly idiots.

I understand that the laws have to be broad to help prevent loopholes, but the two links I posted are pretty clear-cut. Neither of them is a case of child pornography at all. Perhaps indecent exposure, but thats really the extent of it. If it can be found that the images were posted on behalf of someone other than the subjects, then charge those people.

Obviously a can of worms can be opened here due to the actions of those minors. People who would be in potential violation of child pornography laws would be the recipients of those images. For example, adults downloading them on MySpace. BUt there's a difference between chancing upon something and making/keeping/distributing/promoting a collection.

There's also the fact that crime of child pornography is a pretty serious offense and could irreparably damage the minors involved. Having your name on a national sex offenders list is probably not going to look very good in the future and there's not likely going to be an opportunity to explain the circumstances to potential employers.



The laws between the US and Canada are generally pretty different. I assume child porn laws are similar enough though, and i know they're quite strict globally, not just in Canada and the US. But let's assume they're identical on this subject. It's not the law that's really the problem here, but the actions of those who are supposed to be interpreting and upholding it. Some dumb-ass stuff happens here all the time. Our prime minster is a complete and utter joke. But I don't recall something as unbelievable as what I'm reading now in recent times.

Might as well start charging the minors on their way in and out of school based on how they dress.

One of those quotes from the story said this was a wake up cal to parents. Yeah, I think most parents know that society and children are pretty racy right now. But the wake-up call is an alarm saying that the prosecutors in your municipality is completely out to lunch.

To be fair, there is also a countersuit filed by the ACLU against the prosecutor in this particular case. The law is rather obtuse anyway. For a while I could have charged my girlfriend for having sex with me. She was a legal adult, while I was not (six months apart). Two 14 year olds can have all the sex they want, but when the hit that magic 18 year mark they'd better be careful. The now legal adult can get in trouble for having sex with their s/o until they both turn 18. Statutory rape doesn't care what the difference in age or maturity is, only that one partner crossed a magic invisible line.

Not to add fuel to the fire, but several years ago there was a case involving sex between a 13 year old girl and a 12 year old boy. The girl was, in the same lawsuit, both a victim of sexual abuse and in the same act a sexual predator. It was eventually thrown out, but it took 3 courts to do so.

Link Here

Depends on what the jurisdiction is. I don't know how it works in Louisiana, but here the law says that if the difference in age is less than four years, there is no crime.

Also, our age of consent is 16. Meaning, if both parties are 16 or older, there is no crime.

Its painfully obvious that some of the definitions weren't that well thought out. Or more likely, weren't thought out by terribly bright people.

Who pays the fine when both parties are 15 in the states that make that a crime (who's the "actor" in this instance)?

Some of the penalties are crazy harsh and it's scary how some of the definitions can be interpreted. Some definitions are obviously pretty clear-cut though.

Even first degree murder here in Canada carries a maximum sentence of 25 years. Multiple victims equals multiple concurrent convictions which is what I find messed up about the system up here.

But when you start to compare different crimes, it does seem like the penalty system in the US is a little messed up in terms of proportions. I wonder if things will ever be balanced out. That whole punishment fitting the crime thing doesn't seem to play too well in many cases.

Not likely. We're a nation of extremists. Coke is a great example, either super saturated with sugar, or none at all. No option for some reasonable amount in-between. We do this in everything...

We're not the only ones. I remember reading of an event 20 years ago (or thereabouts) when a fellow who bought a used pickup truck tried to cross the border from Alaska into Yukon Territory, Canada. Apparently the original owner of the truck had smoked marijuana in the truck, and apparently the border guards, either out of boredom or out of super-zealousness, decided that the new owner was some kind of drug runner or something. For whatever reason, they went over the truck with a fine tooth comb, and boy, call out the Mounties, they found two tiny, cauterized marijuana seeds mixed in with the cigarette ashes in the ashtray. They arrested the man, and confiscated his truck (he never got it back). Now, that is extremist. Ironically, today there seems to be some question about whether marijuana is now illegal in Canada - opinion seems to be divided on the issue.

tanstaafl.

You can always move to Amsterdam. Marijuana is no prob, but don't try owning a garage...

??

Sounds like an interesting story. Can you elucidate?

tanstaafl.

Sigh... I thought maybe I was the first one to use the word elucidate on this forum, no such luck. Seven previous posts used it, and wouldn't you know, four of the seven were by Bitt!

A seemingly sensible judge has barred the district attorney in the recent Pennsylvania case from filing felony charges:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/judge-blocks-teen-sexting-charges.ars

If I were one of the parents I would be pursuing a case seeking steep financial reparations from the district and the prosecutor personally. I think I'd also be starting a campaign to pressure this prosecutor into resigning or the district into dismissing his employment.

I don't think a 1 million dollar award per family is too much here. The prosecutor should be responsible for a significant enough portion of that award so as to cause him meaningful financial impact.

Whatever the girls did, the acts of the district and prosecutor are the real crimes.

Most every law in the US differs based on the state. Federal laws tend to apply only when there is no superseding state law or when the crime happens in multiple states. There has been some encroachment on that in recent decades as the federal government expands what it thinks the Commerce Clause covers, but, generally speaking, most crimes are crimes against the state and not crimes against the country.

Agreed. It's good to see that they're fighting back and that at least one Judge is on their side. Clearly this is a group of Fundie adults who are deathly afraid of teen sexuality, and panic at the thought that their children might actually be sexual creatures. Oh, God forbid that teenagers would want to actually *do* something about their hormonal urges.

Seriously, show of hands, how many people on this board could easily have been prosecuted for statutory when they were teens, based on your state's laws? (*Rasies hand* - My 17-year old girlfriend moved in with me, with Mom's permission, when I was 18... According to California law, we were committing a misdemeanor.)

The sad thing is: it appears as though the judge in this case is going by the fact that the girls weren't actually naked in the photos (they were wearing bras). That makes it quite easy: Throw out the case, restrain the prosecutor, tell him to go bark up another tree. Yeah. But what if they *had* been naked? Then the legal side of it would have been much thornier. I would hope the judge would have behaved the same way, but I fear that he wouldn't have. Even though the reality of the situation would have been the same, bras or no bras.

I hope this case sets precedents that make it less criminal to have teenage hormones.

What's the crime if one of those girls had instead streaked the halls at their school?

Not being there to see it?

The short version - I have a garage that could fit 4 or 5 cars (OK, all the ones in the front would have to move out to get the one in the back out, but...). I can legally only keep one of my own cars in it - I'd be OK parking my neighbour's cars in there, as long as they have parking permits, but you can only get a parking permit for one car per household. And you need a parking permit to park a car in your own garage!

Oh, and I am not allowed to wash my car in the garage, because the drain doesn't have the required oil filters, BUT I am perfectly OK washing it in the street outside the garage, where the water runs straight into the canal. Go figure.

Over here, conservatives seize on government inefficiencies/inequities like that as evidence that government doesn't work, period. Of course when they actually use this rhetoric as a means of getting elected, they never actually shrink the size of government, but that's another story.

Also, state and local governments occasionally have similar weird and nonsensical laws on their books, some of which are enforced, some which are not. In most cases, people don't pay attention to state/local politics until it affects them in some major way, and often entrenched political machines at the state and local levels are even stronger than their national counterparts.

I know I would gladly limit myself to one car per household in exchange for a single-payer public healthcare option. Throw in a sensible foreign policy and I'd get rid of my car entirely.

Judges are supposed to uphold the law not make their own to their liking. Pisses me off to no end when a judge goes against the written law no matter how stupid it is. That is NOT their job.

The law can't cater for every eventuality, so it's usually overly broad and vague. Judges are supposed to interpret the law according to the situation in front of them, thus producing case law that can act as guidance for future cases. In this way, they serve as one of the checks and balances in any well-functioning legal system.

If you don't like the judge's judgement, well, that's what the appeals process is for.

Actually, I don't think that's part of a judge's job at all. We'd have no need for a judge if that was their role.

The cops around here don’t seem to take Sexting too seriously.

Case in point. My daughter’s 15 year old fried was sending naked pictures of herself to her 36 year old step father. The cops got tipped off but did nothing. Well I guess the pictures got him pretty horny because he left her mom and ran away with her. So for the last six months the 15 year old girl has been traveling around the country in his truck with his son (her step brother). The cops didn’t even bother to look for them or issue any warrants. Well a couple weeks ago she called her mom from a bus station asking to be picked up. I guess since now she is blessed with child she got tired of doing it in a truck. Well she’s back home now and no one is going to jail.

My wife will be going to her baby shower here soon to celebrate the birth of this baby. No doubt it will be F’ed up for life.

I guess we all are just sexual creatures and should just be happy and screw everything that moves.

The entire job of a judge is to interpret law. It is exactly their job. It's called judicial review.

Hopefully that situation worked out OK for you but my initial thought on this was - No wonder we have so many screwed up bastard kids on welfare running around wondering where and who there dad is with mom’s like that.

OK interpret. But too many times they "interpret" it to mean something totally different that what the words say.

I don't know where you live, so I have no idea what the law is there. However, transporting someone under 16 (possibly 18) across state lines and having sex with them is a federal offense.

I know, her mom knows, but the cops said “since she went willingly and they probably are going to go to a state/county where she is of the age of consent to get married.” So since this is what the cops thought they would do, they did not want to pursue the matter. Of course the 15 year old is not that attractive nor does her mom have money so this did not hit the media very hard.

I kept my distance from this mess so all this is stuff I heard from my wife. But as of now no one is in jail. The step dad thinks he is wanted so he is no where to be found.

Your cops are idiots. They should have reported it to the FBI.