Posted on 04/12/2009 12:16:21 PM PDT by wagglebee
"Sexting" is a national activity of young girls of taking nude or seminude photographs of themselves, and sending them out using cell phones. The photos get widely distributed, leading to harm to the girls, and in one case, to a suicide. The ACLU has sued a local prosecutor, seeking a court ruling that "sexting" is free speech, and the prosecutor should cease acting against it.
The facts for this article, but not its legal conclusions, come from an article on the MTV website on 27 March 2009. The article begins by discussing the phenomenon of "sexting," teenaged girls sending nude or seminude photographs of themselves to others using the camera features of their cell phones.
The impetus for some kind of serious action is stated at the end of the article, noting that Jessica Logan of Chicago killed herself last June because a nude photo she sent to her then boyfriend was circulated all over her school and beyond. As a result of massive taunting, she killed herself, and now her mother has taken up the cause of warning parents about the growing phenomenon of "sexting" and the fact that the results can be deadly.
The article names eight states where the legislatures are wrestling with the problem and seeking to write laws that might persuade parents and children to put a stop to this practice that children apparently do as a lark, but which can have serious consequences.
The specific article talks about a situation in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania, where the District Attorney announced that he was considering bringing charges including child pornography against two 14 year old girls who took and distributed photographs of themselves in their underwear. The local ACLU responded by suing the prosecutor, claiming that "sexting" was a matter of free speech, and the courts should order the prosecutor not to bring charges.
One has to read the article with care to find out that the prosecutor used the possibility of criminal prosecution to encourage 17 of 20 girls at the local high school to agree to probation and attendance in a class on sexual harassment and sexual violence. This prosecutor is obviously not trying to get convictions against these girls, which would result in lifetime labeling as committing a sexual crime involving a minor.
Three of the girls and their parents, however, refused to accept probation and the class attendance, saying that their girls "were just having fun," and "did nothing wrong," and "did not intend for their photographs to be widely distributed." The parents are obviously nitwits, since activities by their daughters which could cause them a lifetime of psychological problems or at worst, suicide, is not "just a little fun." And they are teaching their children to be nitwits, since it is obvious that such photographs are passed around as soon as they are available.
Most dangerous, however, is the attempt by the ACLU to prevent authorities from using the law to get the children and the parents to take this matter seriously, and prevent future harm to children. This was a school centered investigation, and the school authorities brought in the prosecutor when they found that the problem was widespread, and the children were not taking it seriously.
If the federal court where the ACLU has filed their case is so foolish as to ignore the special duty that school officials and public authorities have to protect young people from dangerous situations, the result will be paid in widespread psychological damage and occasional suicides, across the country. The ACLU may be willing to pay that price, but the First Amendment does not require any judge to force that price to be paid.
Sources on the Net:
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1608002/20090327/story.jhtml
Because for the left human well-being has NEVER been a priority.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Well its certainly not doing any good to charge the kids with child porn and making them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
these young ladies, and I use that term loosely, should they ever plan to run for public office, will unfortunately find these pics following them 30 years from now.
I agree, but doing nothing is not the solution either.
The biggest punishment for 14 yos who “sext” is knowing when they are 20 that there are nude photos out there of them without any clothes.
Cheers!
...oh, and Happy Easter.
Cheers!
...oh, and Happy Easter.
Happy Easter to you as well.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Bonfire of the Platitudes"
The Declaration, the Constitution, parts of the Federalist, and America's Owner's Manual, here.\
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
In 30 years, having this on your resume will probably assure your election as one who was ahead of his/her time...
They advocate EVIL.
This had to be stopped.
If it had been allowed to persist it would nbe know time before chicken hawks would be sending texts of young boys and other even more atrocious behavior.
that there are nude photos out there of them without any clothes.”
Compared to the nude photos of them fully dressed.
yep.
“these young ladies, and I use that term loosely, should they ever plan to run for public office, will unfortunately find these pics following them 30 years from now.”
Not if they run as Democrats/s
>>This prosecutor was using the threat of serious prosecution to get the girls and their parents to agree to diversion programs. Three girls and their parents were too stupid to agree to diversion. One of these girl-fools was named Grace Kelly. LOL.
John / Billybob <<
I’m not sure I would accept plea to anything for taking a picture of myself in underwear that covers as much my bathing suit.
My initial impression is that threatening these kids with lifetime felonies for that was unethical.
>>Well its certainly not doing any good to charge the kids with child porn and making them register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
Agreed that “nothing” for all teen sexting can’t be the answer either because there is too much of a range of ages and too much opportunity for exploitation.
When I was in high school and a senior (17) was caught with a naked freshman (14) in his tent on school it was the senior who got the bulk of the punishment.
Just a few years of age difference can make a lot of difference in that age range.
Great article!
Thanks for the ping.
“My initial impression is that threatening these kids with lifetime felonies for that was unethical.”
I concur.
However, had any of my friends lil darlins done something like that, not only would they be grounded until well into the next ice age, bottoms would be tanned. And how!
This whole ‘sexting’ thing is more of the poisonous fruit of the Tree of Liberalism.
Perhaps it is time to start ‘doing a Prynn’with the SlutsRUs crowd. Does any one have a stock of large Scarlet Letters?
From the article posted.
“...school authorities brought in the prosecutor when they found that the problem was widespread, and the children were not taking it seriously.
Neither should anyone else take it seriously either, it is funny to think that we could possibly be more prudish 20 years from now.
So, you CONDONE child pornography?
I actually agree with the ACLU on the sexting. I mean really...you want a 15 year old girl and 16 year old boy who send pictures of themselves to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives...oh and don’t forget about the 10 year jail sentence.
That’s not the point, the ACLU wants to protect this as free speech.
I don’t want them to do it to protect free speech of course, but the only way I can see it being punished is if the 16 year old boy then turned around and sent it to his college friends and they send them out to even older folks. Then procecution to the fullest extent. I am just concerned about the immature 15 year old girl who is trying to impress the immature 16 year old boy...what to do with them???
Anyone who confuses nudity with pornography needs to have their head examined. There was nothing contained within the article that could have been construed to be pornographic by a normal thinking person.
I wish I knew.
Okay, so you condone the distribution of nude photographs of children?
...Hmmm... just wondering if any high-profile ACLU types have teeny-bopper daughters with their own live web cams...
Charging teens who do this with child pornography removes all meaning from the term.
Child pornography is a devastatingly evil crime that harms victims irreparably. I’m not sure what the upper limit on punishment should be for the adult participants, but I personally would make a case for the death penalty.
This texting stuff is tacky, stupid, distasteful, and possibly harmful, but it does not rise to the level of child pornography.
>>“My initial impression is that threatening these kids with lifetime felonies for that was unethical.”
However, had any of my friends lil darlins done something like that, not only would they be grounded until well into the next ice age, bottoms would be tanned. And how!<<
Maybe some sort of juvenile charges that disappears when they turn 18. The point of the law is supposed to help and protect kids - not harm them.
Parent them. Which isn't the DA's job. Or the social worker's. Or the teacher's. Hillary's socialist village nonsense to the contrary.
That sounds like a very worthwhile idea.
Without condoning or condemning anything or anyone... I allow children to be children. Happy friggin’ Easter!
Kindly read with care. I don't support a ten year sentence and a lifetime of the sex offender label. On the other hand, I heartily attack the ACLU effort to have this declared to be “free speech.”
John / Billybob
It’s not prudery. It’s called having simple dignity and self-respect. Making human beings no more than attractive pieces of meat is not intellectual nor is it progress.
George Skumanick is a corrupt scumbag who threatened to Nifong these kids on false charges unless they paid $150 to attend his “re-education” camp.
It doesn't matter if they are actually charged, though. It matters that they are being threatened with a mis-use of child pornography laws. Simply put, I am not in favor of threatening citizens of the United States with charges that are ridiculous on their face, nor am I in favor of prosecutors threatening things they have no way of delivering. It breeds contempt for the law.
In at least one case in Pennsylvania that the ACLU is involved with, the DA has threatened the teens with prosecution unless they undergo "counseling".
Sexting Girls Facing Porn Charge Sue D.A. (^)
I'm not in favor of the state climbing inside the heads of our young people under threat of prosecution, either. Are you?
Kindly read with care. I don't support a ten year sentence and a lifetime of the sex offender label. On the other hand, I heartily attack the ACLU effort to have this declared to be “free speech.”
Do you similarly heartily attack prosecutors for threatening to misuse the law?
Frankly, it doesn't matter what you support - what matters is that in many places, a conviction of this type is enough to brand a person for the rest of their days. So, you want to brand real child pornographers? Good. It's less than I would do (I would also apply the death penalty where it was warranted), but fine. I want to know who they are and what they've been convicted of if they ever get out (something else that would never happen in my world). But a 13 year old with a cell phone is not the same thing, and threatening to treat her like one dilutes the meaning of the term.
I don't generally support the ACLU, but I don't jump on the government bandwagon "just because" the ACLU is against something, either. In this case, threatening children with a lifetime of ongoing stigma is unwarranted and wrong.
Yep.
Allow the parents to take care of it. Demand that the parent take care of it, if you have to. The idea that the state knows best when it comes to punishing idiotic non-violent/non-property damage-type behavior from children is becoming sadly pervasive.
“The idea that the state knows best when it comes to punishing idiotic non-violent/non-property damage-type behavior from children is becoming sadly pervasive.”
Exactly! Allowing the goobers in gooberment agencies to force their heavy handed, jack booted thugs into the realm of family is just a way to expand the reach and budget of said agencies.
“It’s called having simple dignity and self-respect.”
So you think that people who enjoy nudity have no dignity or self-respect, how quaint and uninformed.
The art world throughout the ages and across the world appears to differ with your parochial worldview.
And you believe that all a person is is meat. And those who are not pretty have no value. How narrow.
Teaching children that how they look naked is important is very shallow.
Free Speech refers to political and religious speech. It has nothing at all to do with "sexting," nothing.
I see that you have now been banned or suspended and can't help but wonder if it is because you are on condoning CHILDREN sending out nude pictures of themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.