ACLU sues Wyoming County DA over threat of charges for sexting

[Trinity]

They should be sued....they weren't even nude.....and why is nudity such a huge issue? Last time I checked you came into this world nude.....apparently god didn't have a problem with it. Although maybe now he should consider all newborns be born with some type of clothing, so no one is offended. (sounds ridiculous doesn't it?)



ACLU sues Wyoming County DA over threat of charges for sexting
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
By Paula Reed Ward, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Three students in the Tunkhannock School District in Wyoming County have filed a federal lawsuit against the district attorney there, claiming that his threats to charge them with child pornography for sending pictures of themselves either topless or in bras amount to abuse of his authority.

The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, also says that District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. is engaging in retaliation against the girls and their parents, who do not want their children to enter into a probationary and re-education program for the behavior as Mr. Skumanick has requested.

The case came to light in October, when school officials seized a number of cell phones from students in the district. They examined them and found pictures of scantily clad and naked teenage girls, many who were enrolled there, the lawsuit said. Male students had been trading the photographs on their cell phones, the district said.

Mr. Skumanick said publicly that students who possess inappropriate pictures of minors could be prosecuted.

In the photos in question, two girls, Marissa Miller and Grace Kelly, are seen lying side by side in their bras. One of them is talking on a phone, while the other makes a peace sign. In the second picture, the third girl, who is not named in the lawsuit, is seen emerging from the shower, with a towel wrapped around her, below her breasts.

"The two photographs, which depict no sexual activity or display of pubic area, are not illegal under Pennsylvania's crimes code and, indeed, are images protected by the First Amendment," the lawsuit said.

Mr. Skumanick has threatened charges of child pornography against the girls -- though not against the people distributing the pictures on their cell phones, the lawsuit said.

To avoid charges, he has offered probation and a five-week, 10-hour "re-education program," that would help the girls "[g]ain an understanding of how [their] actions were wrong," "gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today's society," and "[i]dentify non-traditional societal and job roles."

The lawsuit asserts that the photographs are constitutionally protected by the First Amendment, and that they are not child pornography.

If they are convicted, the plaintiffs contend, the girls would have a felony record and could be subjected to state Megan's Law provisions, which would require them to register as convicted sex offenders.

"Kids should be taught that sharing digitized images of themselves in embarrassing or compromised positions can have bad consequences, but prosecutors should not be using heavy artillery like child-pornography charges to teach them that lesson," said Witold Walczak, legal director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "These are just kids being irresponsible and careless; they are not criminals and they certainly haven't committed child pornography."

[sgtdmski]

Well what do you expect from the ACLU, the same group that protected the right of NAMBLA to post its members fantasies of having sex with young boys.

The article ends with "Kids should be taught......"

Isn't that what the prosecutor was trying to do? The article states:


To avoid charges, he has offered probation and a five-week, 10-hour "re-education program," that would help the girls "[g]ain an understanding of how [their] actions were wrong," "gain an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today's society," and "[i]dentify non-traditional societal and job roles."

Obviously the school is not doing it job in educating the children, for this was occuring at school, therefore the prosecutor stepped in.

dmk

[DannyR]

So you think that laws intended to protect minors from exploitation should be used to toss those very same minors in jail? Think there is another thread on this topic.


Well what do you expect from the ACLU, the same group that protected the right of NAMBLA to post its members fantasies of having sex with young boys.ACLU took the position that the person responsible for a murder is the murderer himself. It is NOT the fault of some video game, magazine, book or other medium that that murderer read.

In other words, don't go blaming what you read or anybody but yourself for your own actions. Isn't that a usually conservative stance?

[AlbumAddict]

So if the girls were 10 or 12 would the ACLU have taken the same stance? Hmmm

[DannyR]

So if the girls were 10 or 12 would the ACLU have taken the same stance? HmmmYou think a 10 year old girl taking a picture of herself naked should be treated as a sexual offender?

[sgtdmski]

So you think that laws intended to protect minors from exploitation should be used to toss those very same minors in jail? Think there is another thread on this topic.

ACLU took the position that the person responsible for a murder is the murderer himself. It is NOT the fault of some video game, magazine, book or other medium that that murderer read.

In other words, don't go blaming what you read or anybody but yourself for your own actions. Isn't that a usually conservative stance?

YEAH, it is a usual conservative stance, however, when this case when to Court the state brought in admitted NAMBLA members who stated that they shared their stories with others to give them ideas and advice on how to better have sex with boys.

The problem is that the law is not keeping up with technology. Recently a Lawyer from New York (http://pub14.bravenet.com/news/1122061507/259720/3) proposed a remedy for this problem.

dmk

[Agnapostate]

The prosecutors conjure imagery of Anthony Comstock in his prime.

[avatar4321]

This is ridiculous. You cant prosecute people which are designed by the statute to be protected. It's illegal and stupid.

The girls were stupid. They arent Felons.

[sgtdmski]

This is ridiculous. You cant prosecute people which are designed by the statute to be protected. It's illegal and stupid.

The girls were stupid. They arent Felons.


I agree they are not felons, however, the law is not keeping up with technology, and when that happens the prosecutors face a tough dilemna. Either you don't charge someone, and let them continue, or you charge them hoping that the legislature is paying attention and changes the law so that it is better suited.

That is why I provided a link to a lawyer who is proposing just that. I believe that in this case, the prosecutor acted properly. And I think that the ACLU would do a country a better service by addressing the need to change the law, rather than once again taking the government to court.

dmk

[avatar4321]

I agree they are not felons, however, the law is not keeping up with technology, and when that happens the prosecutors face a tough dilemna. Either you don't charge someone, and let them continue, or you charge them hoping that the legislature is paying attention and changes the law so that it is better suited.

That is why I provided a link to a lawyer who is proposing just that. I believe that in this case, the prosecutor acted properly. And I think that the ACLU would do a country a better service by addressing the need to change the law, rather than once again taking the government to court.

dmk

No, the prosecutor didnt act properly. You dont have to change the law here because the law already protects the girls. Which means they cant be prosecuted.

[sgtdmski]

No, the prosecutor didnt act properly. You dont have to change the law here because the law already protects the girls. Which means they cant be prosecuted.

How does the law protect the girls, when they are guilty of distributing the child pornography. For that is what it is, child pornography. The pictures were sent by them to their friends. They were the ones who posed and then distributed the material. The prosecutor offered them a deal and they declined, now they can face the trial for child pornography, but to make matters a little greyer the ACLU filed the lawsuit.

I am sorry, but I cannot defend these girls actions. They were the ones who took and then sent the photos, ignorance of the law is not a defense, and neither is suing to beat the rap. Remember the SCOTUS has stated: I know it when I see it" in regards to pornography, however, with children that standard is much lower. The current law does not address sexting like this is, so therefore the only choice is to charge the crime of child pornography. The law does need to be changed!!!!!! For if we allow children to send photos of themselves in various levels of undress, why cannot an adult. Remember we are a nation of laws, and as such we are all equal under the law.

dmk

[Missileman]

Remember we are a nation of laws, and as such we are all equal under the law.

dmk

Except we're NOT all equal under the law. It's the reason we don't arrest a 3-year-old for public indecency when they run out of their house without a stitch on.

[Trinity]

Well, looks like Vermont is going to step up to the plate.........................

Legislature considers legalizing teen 'sexting'
Bill would exempt teens from child-porn laws for consensual image exchange.

Vermont’s Legislature is considering a bill that, if approved, would make the state one of the first in the nation to grant legal protections to teenagers who send sexually explicit photos and videos to one another with their cell phones.

The law change is receiving widespread support from prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, women’s groups and others. Still, some advocates are questioning whether the proposal crosses the line between legalizing a common practice among teens experimenting with sexuality and protecting predators who target and exploit youngsters.

The practice of exchanging graphic images, a rising trend among high school and even some middle school students known as sexting, in many cases runs afoul of child-pornography laws because of the participants’ ages. Recent national news reports about the topic have shared stories of youngsters — senders and recipients — who were brought to adult courts on felony charges, have been convicted and called pedophiles, and whose names will be included on sex-offender registries for years.

Rest of story..............
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20090412/NEWS03/90411019/-1/NEWS05

[sgtdmski]

Except we're NOT all equal under the law. It's the reason we don't arrest a 3-year-old for public indecency when they run out of their house without a stitch on.

No the reason we don't arrest a 3-year old for public indecency is that there is not mens rea in the 3-year old. As a 3-year old they do not have the mental acquity to understand that what they are doing is wrong and is a crime.

Once again, everyone is equal under the law. As I said ignorance of the law is not a defense, however, ignorance due to mental acquity as to what is right and what is wrong in society can be used as a defense.

dmk

[Missileman]

No the reason we don't arrest a 3-year old for public indecency is that there is not mens rea in the 3-year old. As a 3-year old they do not have the mental acquity to understand that what they are doing is wrong and is a crime.

Once again, everyone is equal under the law. As I said ignorance of the law is not a defense, however, ignorance due to mental acquity as to what is right and what is wrong in society can be used as a defense.

dmk

I disagree. A parent can take pictures of their children taking a bath and it's considered innocent and legal. Those identical pictures taken by someone else could be considered a crime.

In the case of children sending nude pictures of themselves, you can't have it both ways. Either they aren't old enough to realize they're doing something wrong and therefore there's no crime OR they're old enough to realize they're doing something wrong but at the same time old enough to consent to showing a picture of themself to someone else and there's still no crime.