NationStates Jolt Archive

Some of you may remember this old thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=580445) in which NSG members generally expressed outrage over the prospect of teens in Pennsylvania being prosecuted under child pornography laws for "sexting." As it turns out, the DA has reached deals with seventeen involved teenagers and is planning to pursue charges against three teenages BUT a federal judge has entered a TRO blocking the filing of such charges.

Federal judge blocks charges in Pa. 'sexting' case (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIHJhCJfVsImNszbPhStlN2xDbKQD978LAP80)
By MICHAEL RUBINKAM, ASSOCIATED PRESS – 2 hours ago

ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a prosecutor from filing child pornography charges against three northeastern Pennsylvania teenagers who appeared in racy photos that turned up on classmates' cell phones.

U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled against Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr., who has threatened to pursue felony charges against the girls unless they agree to participate in a five-week after-school program.

One picture showed two of the girls in their bras. The second photo showed another girl just out of the shower and topless, with a towel wrapped around her waist.

"We are grateful the judge recognized that prosecuting our clients for non-sexually explicit photographs raises serious constitutional questions," Witold Walczack, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.

"This country needs to have a discussion about whether prosecuting minors as child pornographers for merely being impulsive and naive is the appropriate way to address the serious consequences that can result" when teens send sexually suggestive photos of themselves and others to one another, he said.

Skumanick, who has said he can prosecute the teens as "accomplices" in the production of child pornography, said he would consider an appeal.

The ruling "sets a dangerous precedent by allowing people to commit crimes and then seek refuge from state arrest in the federal courts," he said.

The photos surfaced in October, when officials at Tunkhannock Area High School confiscated five cell phones and found that boys had been trading photos of scantily clad, semi-nude or nude teenage girls. The students with the cell phones ranged in age from 11 to 17.

Skumanick met with about 20 students and their parents last month and offered them a deal in which the youths wouldn't be prosecuted if they took a class on sexual harassment, sexual violence and gender roles. Seventeen of the students accepted the offer, but three balked and sued Skumanick last week.

The suit, filed by the ACLU, said the teens didn't consent to having the picture distributed and that the images are not pornographic. The ACLU said Skumanick's threat to prosecute is "retaliation" for the students' refusal to participate in the class.

Munley's decision to grant the teens a temporary restraining order prevents Skumanick from filing charges while the lawsuit proceeds.

The girls "make a reasonable argument that the images presented to the court do not appear to qualify in any way as depictions of prohibited sexual acts. Even if they were such depictions, the plaintiffs' argument that (they) were not involved in disseminating the images is also a reasonable one," Munley wrote.

Under Pennsylvania's child pornography law, it's a felony to possess or disseminate photos of a minor engaged in sexual activity, "lewd exhibition of the genitals" or nudity that is meant to titillate.

The judge said he "offers no final conclusion on the merits of plaintiffs' position" and scheduled a hearing on the case for June 2.

The complaint filed by the ACLU in the case may be found here (pdf). (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/MillerComplaintfinal.pdf)

The judge's order granting the Temporary Restraining Order may be found here (pdf). (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/MillerTROorder33009.pdf)

I applaud this judge's decision. Comments?

I also applaud the judge's decision. While they may have been in clear violation of the law, the punishment does not fit the crime. Clearly, a prosecution all the way through would have been detrimental to everyone involved and benefited no one - not even the public at large.

Besides that, sending nude pictures of yourself to other high school students has a tendency to work out its own punishment, given enough time.

wow judges with common sense do exist.

Good for him. In b4 anti-ACLU posters show up and bitch.

Good on the judge.

Good decision. While the pics were bad ideas in almost every possible way, the idea that the kids would be prosecuted on child porn charges was just disastrously idiotic.

The existence of anti-Child Pornography laws, otherwise being an as-always despicable form of censorship, is justified solely by their reason for being - to protect underage children from sexual exploitation.

To now use such laws as a weapon against the very people it was designed to protect, shows a level of cynical opportunism and disregard for justice unacceptable in a legal official.

Thank goodness we have the courts to act as a buffer and shield against such bureaucrats.

Well, it's pretty self-evident that the judge is right.

But to me the real question is: what do you do as a prosecutor if you're given a case like this? I mean, either you have to be enough of an idiot to think you're doing a good thing by marking 16-year olds as child predators for the rest of their lives for taking entirely consentual pictures of themselves, or you have to act like you are without actually believing it.

God I'm glad I've got nothing to do with the law.

Well, it's pretty self-evident that the judge is right.

But to me the real question is: what do you do as a prosecutor if you're given a case like this? I mean, either you have to be enough of an idiot to think you're doing a good thing by marking 16-year olds as child predators for the rest of their lives for taking entirely consentual pictures of themselves, or you have to act like you are without actually believing it.

God I'm glad I've got nothing to do with the law.

You convict them and let them appeal their sex offender status later. In some states, you can be taken off the sex offender roll even if you haven't or don't want to overturn your conviction; it's an entirely separate process that you have nothing to do with as a prosecutor. Therefore, whatever happens to the kids down the road is not your responsibility, but rather a failure in the appeals process, if an injustice occurs. And of course, if the appeals fail, the appellate board disowns the decision and blames you, obviating the need for either you or them to take personal responsibility for anything at all. It's win-win. :)

About this case: I say "good" that the damage was contained; however, you have to wonder about legal 'sacrificial lambs,' and what they mean to the process. I'm inclined to think that a few here and there work as a sort of legal or judicial laxative.

Good decision. While the pics were bad ideas in almost every possible way, the idea that the kids would be prosecuted on child porn charges was just disastrously idiotic.

It seems like most things that people do these days fall under the disastrously idiotic category.


To the OP: As a disappointed citizen living in PA almost cheered.

I'm outraged "sexting" is even a word....

It's a good result I think.

]Skumanick met with about 20 students and their parents last month and offered them a deal in which the youths wouldn't be prosecuted if they took a class on sexual harassment, sexual violence and gender roles. Seventeen of the students accepted the offer, but three balked and sued Skumanick last week.

Classes were a good idea.

I do wonder what kind of classes are available though. Is there a lot of call for underage autopornography counselling? Or were they going to troop them down to the nearest prison, for some group therapy under the professional eye of a parole officer...

I do wonder about this part of the report. Could it be that the legal system is passing the problem back to the school? ... where it belongs, if it is a problem at all.

I'm outraged "*******" is even a word....

It's not. You *****.

*Begins taking pictures of his willy*

If for whatever reason, a 15 year old takes a naked pic of themselves on their own phone and doesnt even distribute it, is this a violation of the law?

If for whatever reason, a 15 year old takes a naked pic of themselves on their own phone and doesnt even distribute it, is this a violation of the law?

Technically yes. I just never thought anyone would be stupid enough to prosecute. Except that obviously they tried. And they did it here too...

I agree that child pornography is wrong and I think it's a good idea these kids take classes, but come on. You can't call a bunch of teenagers child pornographers just for acting on stupidity and hormones. There are too many real pervs out there to waste time on this.

I agree that child pornography is wrong and I think it's a good idea these kids take classes, but come on. You can't call a bunch of teenagers child pornographers just for acting on stupidity and hormones. There are too many real pervs out there to waste time on this.

It is the job of all facets of the government to waste time and money on pursuits not worth pursuing.