Posted on 06/01/2019 11:23:26 PM PDT by vannrox
Maryland's highest court will soon decide whether a 16-year-old girl, "S.K.," can face child pornography charges for taking a video of herself performing a sex act and sending it to a few of her close friends.
S.K. shared the video, in which she performs consensual oral sex on an unidentified male, with two close friends and fellow students, who later reported her to the school resource officer. S.K. was the only person charged in connection with the alleged crime.
The Special Court of Appeals upheld S.K.'s conviction, ruling that the consensual nature of the sex act in question was irrelevant, as was the fact that it was not illegal for S.K. to perform the act. Taking a video of the act and sending it to other people constituted distribution of child pornography, according to the court's decision.
"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not protect conduct of a minor who distributed a digital video file of herself engaged as a subject in consensual sexual conduct," wrote the court.
The Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling is expected later this year. The court, which is Maryland's equivalent of a state supreme court, heard oral arguments in February. The proceedings are recorded here. S.K.'s attorney, Public Defender Claudia Cortese, argued that the statute in question was not intended to punish minors for being featured in pornographic materials, but rather, to protect them. Punishing S.K., as the state has attempted to do, is cruel and authoritarian.
The state, on the other hand, has asserted that S.K. needs guidance, and that probation and a mandatory mental health evaluation were reasonable outcomes, The Washington Post reports:
At her initial hearing, the prosecutor said the state was not "trying to prove a point in going forward with this case," but that "the state believes that the respondent is in need of some guidance, rehabilitation for something deeper" and "is just trying to help her."
Because her case on the distribution of child pornography was in juvenile court, the teen never faced a mandatory sentence or the possibility of having to register as a sex offender. She was put on probation and referred for a mental health evaluation.
That teens shouldn't send sexy videos to each other—because they are bound to get out, cause embarrassment, and raise legal issues—is something S.K.'s parents, teachers, and school administrators could have impressed upon her without the heavy-handed involvement of the police and courts. It is draconian to charge a 16-year-old girl with trafficking in child pornography because she willingly filmed herself performing oral sex. Upholding S.K.'s conviction would set a disturbing precedent.
Insanity. Where do these prosecutors and judges come from? Do they read Kafka at night as a training function?
Talk about effing yourself.
Bull. Not upholding the conviction is the terrible precedent. It would be the first step to having a five year old making porn and it not being prosecuted.
The trouble with "Conservatives" is that they don't have brain one when it comes to defending (i.e conserving) traditional values.
The best defense is a good offense and for some reasons "Conservatives" refuse to ever go on the offense in order to recover the ground they've lost and weaken the enemy to make holding ground easier.
Retreat on this and within five years it'll be a story about some much younger kid being left to the parents and counselors for making kiddie porn. We know how that'll work out, the parents will look at the potential cash and say it's the child's right while the counselors will tell the kid how to do more build up before the main event, better light the scenes, and use better camera angles.
The question is, I think, is the girl at the age of consent in her country.
SARC alert. So the Md. Court of Appeals heard “ORAL” arguments on this case and will decide the charges later.
Isn’t that a conflict of interest since the charge against the girl involved “oral sex”.
In case you haven’t heard, the Md. Court of Appeals is one of the furthest left Appeals courts in the country.
If they convict her, John Belusi will rise up out of grave, dressed in an “Animal House” fraternity shirt and say, “BJ”.
I rest my case, oral, written or in sign language.
The same pattern has been repeated over and over again and yet, "Conservative" folks like to nod and say, "yes, this is an exception", or "oh, the punishment is too harsh in this case", or maybe, "this isn't what was envisioned when the law was passed". Followed in short order by dozens of court cases that clearly aim at pushing the envelope to the point that suits the most perverted wing of the sickest segment of society.
Consider that the people she distributed the video to would have faced prison for possession. She is being prosecuted for distributing, not for creating the video.
The 1st amendment is already limited; you can't post pornography in a public area or yell fire in a crowded theatre.
Courts have already ruled that sexual performance is a protected 1st amendment right, but there are limits. The use of minors in the production of pornography is illegal, as is distribution - posting for others (including minors) to see.
We don't really want to change that, do we?
correct.
THWWP!!
Libertarians support child pornography.
You would want a five-year-old kid prosecuted?
Disciplined, yes (by the parents). But prosecuted by the State?
Is this a five year old kid?
Am I saying it's the same as a five year old or that the next step is to put a five year old in the same role once precedent is set?
Is punishing a sixteen year old the same thing in your mind as punishing a five year old child?
Do most five year old children you know have the same amount of knowledge about sex the average sixteen year old does these days?
Is your it your belief that children as young as five years old should be free to profit from the creation of pornography they participate in since it's wrong to punish them?
Other participants shouldn't be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor or whatever applies, either, since the child consented. Right?
So let the sixteen year old walk because it wouldn't be right to prosecute a five year old, that's your point, that's the point of view of the people working to make it no crime to create child pornography if the child consents, and now we know where you stand on the issue.
I can read just fine. If it were my kid (16 or 5), I’d want to deal with it myself. Harshly.
I would not want to have to take on a State prosecution because my kid messed up.
Thank you for that further clarification of you position.
Yeah yeah yeah.
And minors shouldn’t be punished for arson either.
We get your reasoning.
I’m with you. What if next time there’s a perv who may offer to buy the video, if the quality is good enough? No contract, nothing solid, just a possibility. Things start getting slippery at that point, maybe a 14 year old next...how far do we go in that direction, or just cut it off at age 18?
As a PS, my kids only got flip-phones, and even with them I had scratched out the camera lenses. I have yet to hear a reason as to why kids today need smart phones...because they do not.
I agree with you about the smart phones. I can see a cheap phone people use for burner phones and a phone call only plan with no data for kids but the smart phone thing is nutz.
Anyone who wants to get their kid a smart phone either doesn't pay attention to what the most common data passed around on them is or doesn't care that two thirds of what is downloaded or shared on smart phones is porno.
Either way, they haven't kept up with what's going on with their kids and technology. That's a gave mistake for a parent to make.
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.