Teens send nude pics to one other, face kiddie porn charges

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... arges.html

By Jacqui Cheng | Published: January 14, 2009 - 09:20PM CT

There are a number of reasons to think twice (or three times, or four times, or fifty times) before sending a nude photo of yourself to someone electronically. But, if you're under the age of 18, there's at least one big, glaring, serious reason: you and the recipient could be charged with trafficking child pornography. If you think this sounds crazy, it is exactly what happened in Greensburg, Pennsylvania after two teenage girls send nude photos to some teenage boys.

Two girls from Greensburg, who police say are "14 or 15" years old, allegedly sent nude photos to two boys who are slightly older than them (16 or 17) using their cell phones. The photos were discovered in October after one of the youngsters was caught using a cell phone during school hours—a violation of school rules—and had the phone taken away. The photos were discovered at that time—I didn't know teachers could go snooping through your cell phone, either—and turned over to police.

"It was a self portrait taken of a juvenile female taking pictures of her body, nude," Greensburg Police Department captain George Seranko told WPXI News. "Taking nude pictures of yourself, nothing good can come out of it."

This might seem like a one-off story, but last month, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy released survey results that said 20 percent of all teens have sent a nude photo of themselves to someone else electronically. More than two thirds of those who have sent photos claim they sent them to a boyfriend or girlfriend, but 15 percent say they have sent them to people they only "know" from the Internet. And they're not staying private, either—a quarter of teen girls and a third of teen boys said that they've had nude images originally meant for someone else shared with them.

Though the discovery was made several months ago, the Greensburg Police Department apparently decided to arrest and charge the teenagers this week. According to the police, the two girls are being charged with manufacturing, disseminating, or possessing child pornography, while the two boys are being charged with possession of child porn.

We'll have to wait and see whether anything actually comes of this case—like cases involving underage sex and statutory rape, there's a huge and inconsistent gray area when it comes to teens dealing with other teens. One thing's for sure, though; the students at the kids' high school will probably be scared straight about sending nude photos to each other—at least until the end of the school year.

Discussions on Arsand Digg make interesting points about this travesty of Puritanism and perversion of the rule of law.

[Kanastrous]

Future doctors, lawyers, engineers, senators, congresspersons, Presidents, all.

[Julhelm]

That's fucking ridiculous. What is it with the US and gleefully fucking up the lives of young people over victimless "crimes"?

[Kanastrous]

Our religious caste does not recognize the concept of victimless crime.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Nude children != paedophilia.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Well, it technically is child pornography (they were almost certainly not doing it for the artistic value inherent in the nude human form,) and, being minors, cannot legally give their consent. Being young teenagers, we cannot expect that they would have the maturity or foresight necessary to make an informed decision regarding situations like these.

So, legally, yes, you could charge them with those crimes. What they're hoping to accomplish, OTOH . . . who knows? The prosecutor would be hard-pressed to find a jury who would vote to convict school-age children of manufacturing and possessing that sort of stuff. Provided the charges aren't thrown out, and given how much of a dick the DA is, they'll probably be encouraged to plea-bargain down to something that will still ruin any chance these four kids will have at a normal life in civilized society.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Provided the charges aren't thrown out, and given how much of a dick the DA is, they'll probably be encouraged to plea-bargain down to something that will still ruin any chance these four kids will have at a normal life in civilized society.

That's probably the point. It's exactly the same logic behind the acts inspiring Tom Friedman's inadvertent textbook-definition of Terrorism, as well as the RIAA's lawsuit campaign, the War on Drugs, and every SLAPP ever filed. The targets, weapons, and tactics are completely different; the strategy is the same: crush dissent and break the will of the people.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This does not make any sense. At all. All four parties are too young to consent to sexual activity. So how can they commit the crime of manufacturing porn of themselves, when crimes require intent, and by definition they do not have the legal capacity to have said intent?

[Posner]

This does not make any sense. At all. All four parties are too young to consent to sexual activity. So how can they commit the crime of manufacturing porn of themselves, when crimes require intent, and by definition they do not have the legal capacity to have said intent?

Stop ruining legal practice with your logical conclusions. You see anything under 18 is bad for nudity, but you can form mens rea as soon as a court decides. 14 years olds have been convicted of grownup murder.

[Havok]

If I were the parents of the kid who's phone got confiscated, I would bring a suit against the school for invasion of privacy, if it is feasible, and expand it to the entire school district on the assumption that if one phone is being gone through, all of them are, to use as leverage to get these charges dismissed.
Seriously, are DAs that hard up for criminals, that they need to try to charge 15 year old girls with manufacturing and distribution of child pornography?

Edit:Does anyone know the legality of going through phones and personal belongings that are not in lockers?

[Darth Wong]

If I were the parents of the kid who's phone got confiscated, I would bring a suit against the school for invasion of privacy, if it is feasible, and expand it to the entire school district on the assumption that if one phone is being gone through, all of them are, to use as leverage to get these charges dismissed.

Seriously, are DAs that hard up for criminals, that they need to try to charge 15 year old girls with manufacturing and distribution of child pornography?

It's not a matter of being hard up for criminals; it's a matter of being elected and trying to do things that would look good in a political resume.

"Cracked down on child pornography" looks good on a political resume. "Showed reasonable judgment and restraint when dealing with teenagers accused of being child pornographers" does not. Especially when an opponent will distort it into "This man supports child pornography".

[The Yosemite Bear]

wait an actual teen responded to the "Show us yur bweebs" cries, I blame Girls gone Wild.....

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

If I were the parents of the kid who's phone got confiscated, I would bring a suit against the school for invasion of privacy, if it is feasible, and expand it to the entire school district on the assumption that if one phone is being gone through, all of them are, to use as leverage to get these charges dismissed.
Seriously, are DAs that hard up for criminals, that they need to try to charge 15 year old girls with manufacturing and distribution of child pornography?

Edit:Does anyone know the legality of going through phones and personal belongings that are not in lockers?

Perfectly legal. Legal precedent has established that children going to school legally do not have the same right or expectation to privacy that adults do. From a legal standpoint, the school has most of the same leeway in handling its pupils that their parents would at home. This is known as in loco parentis, or "in place of a parent" for the non-Latin speaking non-legal types. If one is using a cellphone in contravention to school policies, they ought to have every expectation that it shall be seized and inspected if they are caught. That part's not the disturbing part of the OP article.

[FireNexus]

Doesn't this clearly violate the spirit of child pornography laws? It seems like the laws are meant to prevent children from being abused or victimized by adults. I don't see that as being an issue here, except insofar as they are now being frivolously prosecuted.

[Havok]

Edit:Does anyone know the legality of going through phones and personal belongings that are not in lockers?

Perfectly legal. Legal precedent has established that children going to school legally do not have the same right or expectation to privacy that adults do. From a legal standpoint, the school has most of the same leeway in handling its pupils that their parents would at home. This is known as in loco parentis, or "in place of a parent" for the non-Latin speaking non-legal types. If one is using a cellphone in contravention to school policies, they ought to have every expectation that it shall be seized and inspected if they are caught.

Thanks. I figured it was something along those lines, as it was perfectly legal to search back packs when I was in school, but wasn't certain.

That part's not the disturbing part of the OP article.

That is for certain.

"Cracked down on child pornography" looks good on a political resume. "Showed reasonable judgment and restraint when dealing with teenagers accused of being child pornographers" does not. Especially when an opponent will distort it into "This man supports child pornography".

It's like you have a low opinion of politicians or something.

[Ekiqa]

It's like you have a low opinion of politicians or something.

I think its more that he has a low opinion of an elected judicial system.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This does not make any sense. At all. All four parties are too young to consent to sexual activity. So how can they commit the crime of manufacturing porn of themselves, when crimes require intent, and by definition they do not have the legal capacity to have said intent?

Stop ruining legal practice with your logical conclusions. You see anything under 18 is bad for nudity, but you can form mens rea as soon as a court decides. 14 years olds have been convicted of grownup murder.

This sort of thing is exactly the same as charging both teenagers in a High School romance with statutory rape...

[Bilbo]

Doesn't this clearly violate the spirit of child pornography laws? It seems like the laws are meant to prevent children from being abused or victimized by adults. I don't see that as being an issue here, except insofar as they are now being frivolously prosecuted.

LOL, the "spirit" of the law is violated every single day in this country by DA's looking to make their future political career. That is why laws have to be written the way they are in hopes that the "letter of the law" matches as much as possible the "spirit of the law".

Personally I fully expect highschooler in large numbers to start using the Access Code feature just about every single cellphone has on them. Once that happens and you cannot use the phone without entering a 4 digit code it will be interesting to see how schools react when they confiscate phones but cannot casually troll through them looking for goodies.

[Bilbo]

"Cracked down on child pornography" looks good on a political resume.

Kinda like the Mike Nifong case with the Duke Lacross students. It is pretty obvious taht the DA saw stars and a huge chance to launch his political career with that case.

[Bilbo]

This sort of thing is exactly the same as charging both teenagers in a High School romance with statutory rape...

Another item that only seems to happen in the Bible Belt south.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This happened in Utah, but the charge was child rape. Basically, if you have sex with a person under 14 regardless if consent was there is child rape. Well, two children who were under the age of 14 had sex and some politician looking to improve his/her resume charged them both with child rape. IIRC correctly it didn't go all the way...

[CmdrWilkens]

The funniest thing to me is that if the "logic" they are using is taken to its conclusion then the school officials who turned the evidence over to the police are guilty of distributing Child Pronography.

[Dominus Atheos]

And if these kids are convicted, they're going to be forced to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This happened in Utah, but the charge was child rape. Basically, if you have sex with a person under 14 regardless if consent was there is child rape. Well, two children who were under the age of 14 had sex and some politician looking to improve his/her resume charged them both with child rape. IIRC correctly it didn't go all the way...

0_o

Is it safe to assume that when their attorney filed a mens rea brief (or writ...or application... whatever its classification is when they ask the charges be dismissed because mens rea is not met) the judge looked at it and said "Yeah I am granting this..."?

[Superboy]

This case is completely absured, but as much disdain as I have for the US justice system, I still expect this to get thrown out before any of these kids have their lives ruined.

I'm curious, what would you think if some teens were charged with distributing child pornography after it was found that they had been taking graphic pictures of themselves and hosting them on a website for pedophiles?