Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Minors Exploiting Themselves
What possesses prosecutors to bring these kinds of cases?
On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.
Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.
Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.
He is 17. She is 16. They were actually convicted. Worse, the sentence was upheld on appeal.
Judge James Wolf, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion.
Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own. And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: "The two computers (can) be hacked."
So they've been convicted of exploiting themselves. And though the article doesn't explicitly say, I would guess that the two will have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
There's more. From the majority opinion:
Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.
Emphasis mine. And what effect, I wonder, does Judge Wolf think a child pornography conviction will have on "these minors' careers or personal lives?"
Also note that the acts themselves weren't illegal. Only photographing them.
|2.12.07 @ 12:43PM|#
Mark today as the official day I started to think the world was coming to an end.
Gitmo for da youtz!|2.12.07 @ 12:45PM|#
There is a term for these kids behaviors. That term is "normal."
|2.12.07 @ 12:48PM|#
I don't think that it's Puritans as much as laws that have been
carelessly written and prosecutors with no sense of
justice(although I'll give them a pass if they had no choice but to
bring charges once notified of the violation).
The judge in this case is a fool is he believes that being
registered as a sex offender is worse that someone seeing your sex
tape.
I'd love to see the logic used by someone who believes that a
person can be their own victim. Although, I guess it'd be similar
to the logic used to prevent drug use, gambling etc.
|2.12.07 @ 12:55PM|#
You'd think that someone might find a way to apply some sort of "Romeo And Juliet" law in this case. But I suppose in Florida, that might entail both parties dramatically killing themselves in Act III, to safeguard against any future damage that might be done to "these minors' careers or personal lives."
Guy Montag|2.12.07 @ 12:58PM|#
You'd think that someone might find a way to apply some sort
of "Romeo And Juliet" law in this case. But I suppose in Florida,
that might entail both parties dramatically killing themselves in
Act III, to safeguard against any future damage that might be done
to "these minors' careers or personal lives."
No amount of NEA funding will vacate the State convictions. Another
example of how more government is never better.
Andy|2.12.07 @ 1:00PM|#
Here's my new favorite way of depressing myself when stories
like these are posted to H+R. I like to run through a list of
front-runners for 2008 and imagine how they would respond if
someone asked them about these incidences. I think this one would
range between "While it's always easy to pick on specific
misapplications of the law, it's always better to be safe rather
than sorry when it comes to protecting America's kids." and
"Prosecutors were made aware of a crime being committed, and
prosecuted it to the best of their ability. Hopefully, these
children have learned their lessons. American justice is
functioning as it should."
sigh. What do ya'll think? Would anyone stand up against any of the
items run today?
|2.12.07 @ 1:00PM|#
" ...transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC
created innumerable problems: "The two computers (can) be hacked."
"
By this logic, I should be prosecuted for having cash in my house:
someone could break in, steal my money, and use it to buy drugs.
Or, far worse than that, donate it to the Republican National
Committee- "Crusading Republicans Against Pleasure."
|2.12.07 @ 1:04PM|#
The Judge is just mad that he didn't get copies sent to
him.
rdkraus wins the thread!
Thomas Kimball|2.12.07 @ 1:10PM|#
"Crusading Republicans Against Pleasure." - that is the best
thing I have read all day, thanks P Brooks. :)
I am 18 and not in college yet and I live with two republicans, I
get so pissed at the H & R blog posts (not the writers of this
fine blog, but the crazy stories) I bring it up to my parents and
they have the complete opposite opinion.
My parents would say they should be arrested for sexual
behavior.
I HATE THIS FUCKING WORLD. I want everyone to realize humans fuck,
its natural and beautiful, and when I say that, I DON'T WANT ANYONE
SAYING "YES, WITH MARRIAGE AND NO PROTECTION OR ABORTION."
I must be cynic, I find myself yelling like Lewis Black. Sometimes
things like this give me rage. No, I have never hurt someone and
never will. But this stuff makes me cry almost, these kids lives
are over for doing something so amazing! so natural!
If Christians are for the natural body and against "liberal
progressiveness" then they should be the ones wanting sex, wanting
contraception to stop accidental mothers putting their kids in our
foster care system and other reasons.
I know what Christians do, my parents are catholic and I used to be
just like them. Until one day I took a psychoactive drug, smoked
weed and fucked an amazing girl (when I was 17..and she was
17..going to arrest me?).
This post is long, probably evil to Christians and stupid to some
libertarians.
I'm a libertarian and I'm sick of this shit, and thats not to say
its only in the USA, it also happens in France and Germany and
Britain.
I WANT TO MOVE TO MARS!
|2.12.07 @ 1:11PM|#
Incidentally, this provides an illustration of the reason most
homeschoolers like myself won't allow any guvmint
bureaucrat into our homes sans court order or warrant.
Not because we have computers full of dirty pictures, but because
there are all sorts of prosecutors and judges who will find
creative ways to "save" our children from the horrors of
homeschooling by using normal, innocent things like a "cluttered
house" to demonstrate parental incompetence.
In general, Government nowadays is not on the side of parents.
|2.12.07 @ 1:13PM|#
I would love to have to explain to a potentional employer or neighbor ( though in some states now I don't think a "sex offender" can legally live anywhere in the entire STATE) that I was convicted of molesting myself.
|2.12.07 @ 1:15PM|#
In general, Government nowadays is not on the side of
parents.
Nor is government on the side of anyone who isn't directly involved
in it or on the take.
In the future, as the regulatory state destroys the 'respectable'
lives of more and more people, expect a lot more folks to be living
"off the grid," so to speak. Once the law becomes a joke, only
fools follow the law.
|2.12.07 @ 1:18PM|#
This post is long, probably evil to Christians and stupid to
some libertarians.
I'm a libertarian and I'm sick of this shit
No, you're a snotty, rebellious teenaged adult who's still living
with his parents.
Come back in a few years after you've paid your own rent and income
taxes and then we'll talk.
|2.12.07 @ 1:20PM|#
Wasn't there a time once when the sane response for this kind of
behavior would have been for someone to simply talk to the kids
about this, ground them and take away the electronic devices that
facilitated this for a few months as punishment?
Yes, I can understand prosecuting a minor for taking and
distributing pictures of other minors to third parties, but this
case should not have been pursued. Let me guess, was there an
overzealous prosecutor who didn't want to be labelled as soft on
child porn?
Christopher Monnier|2.12.07 @ 1:20PM|#
> What possesses prosecutors to bring these kinds of
cases?
Why, that's two more sex offenders this prosecutor has locked away!
That'll make his total number that much more impressive when he
runs for office under the banner of public safety.
methcrackweedacid|2.12.07 @ 1:22PM|#
[I'm a libertarian and I'm sick of this shit
No, you're a snotty, rebellious teenaged adult who's still living
with his parents.]
I didn't know the two were mutually exclusive.
|2.12.07 @ 1:32PM|#
I didn't know the two were mutually exclusive.
Yeah, they are. Because kids who live a Beavis-and-Butthead
existence letting Mom and Dad pay their bills have no idea how the
world works. They just want to get laid or stoned in their room
downstairs whenever they want to without having to pay or be
responsible for it.
That's not libertarianism. It's hedonism.
Real libertarians are made when the kid gets a job and files his
first income tax return without having witheld enough money during
the previous year, or when he tries to buy a handgun in certain
jurisdictions, or when he tries to start a business without first
getting permission from the local zoning board.
Marshall|2.12.07 @ 1:33PM|#
About the same time frame (early 2004) there were several news
reports about a teenager (16, IIRC) in Latrobe, PA who took nude
pictures of herself and then sent them to her boyfriend.
The news reports said that she was arrested and charged with (a)
possesion of child pornography, (b) distribution of child
pornography, and (c) sexual abuse of a child (herself).
The report concluded with the Orwellian phrase "The district
attorney is seeking to have her tried as an adult".
I have not been able to find any kind of resolution to this case.
Does anyone know what happened in this case?
|2.12.07 @ 1:35PM|#
"Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the
parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but
somehow Florida police learned about the photos."
I think this is perhaps the big issue here. How the photos were
released can make a big difference as to how the kids wound up
being treated.
Hormone Cow|2.12.07 @ 1:35PM|#
I'm a libertarian and I'm sick of this shit
No, you're a snotty, rebellious teenaged adult who's still living
with his parents.
Come back in a few years after you've paid your own rent and income
taxes and then we'll talk.
Yes, as uh...methcrackweedacid said, this is not a mutually
exclusive trait. Maybe you could go a little lighter on the
vitriol, and not kill what are otherwise well-reasoned nascent
political leanings.
And on a side note, I find it interesting that so many people seem
to become libertarian after finding they have an affection for sex
and drugs.
|2.12.07 @ 1:45PM|#
These children are not mature enough to make rational
decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of
producing these videos.
But they are considered competent to stand trial on adult criminal
charges. Real logical thinking there.
I am becoming increasingly convinced that morons are in charge. And
it's not just in Florida, or even the USA.
It's just that here we have the laboratory where all the craziest
ideas are tried. When they have passed the test of pure gold plated
whackedoutedness they get copied elsewhere.
Sean|2.12.07 @ 1:46PM|#
There should be a law against judicial and prosecutorial misconduct to stop this stupidity. If these idiots could be held accountable for ruining the lives of people under the guise of "protecting" them, maybe there would be less of this. So what's next? How 'bout arresting pubescent teenagers for masturbation for sex with an underage person (albeit themselves…) Prosecutors really need to consider the intent of the law before prosecuting under it and judges the same before making decrees. Sometimes people act just like apes without rational thought
|2.12.07 @ 1:48PM|#
I'd hope that while they were convicted their minor status gave them some protection from having to answer unpleasant questions about that child porn charge and keep them off the list. The paternalistic tone about protecting the kids career makes me think that the judge didn't stick them on the sex offender list. I can't imagine anyone would think it would better to be a registered sex offender for life rather than have some tiny chance that Kevin Mitnick wants your porn. I mean, that is beyond stupid and well into crazy. The lack of the teens last name in the article indicates that CNet is a decent bunch of chaps or that the kids privacy is being protected (i.e. they won't be on the kiddy raper lists)
|2.12.07 @ 1:51PM|#
We live in one fucked up society. We live in a society where my sister in law has problems finding clothes for her three year old daughter because so many of them have things like "juicy" written across the ass. We completely sexualize children and adolescents. We let stage parents take their 12 and 13 year old girls and whore them out for millions in the record industry. The darling of the Sundance Film festival was a film that showed the rape of a 12 year old girl. Within this cesspool we call a mass culture their still swims pangs of guilt. To alleviate this sense of guilt society obsesses over "child pornography" and grabs the occasional poor bastard and burns them at the stake for the crime of "sexualizing children". Sending these poor kids to jail and marking them for life as perverts is no different than allegedly more "primitive" societies killing a virgin or a goat to appease the Gods in hopes of a good harvest. We truly live in a barbaric and dark age.
|2.12.07 @ 1:53PM|#
Yes, as uh...methcrackweedacid said, this is not a mutually
exclusive trait. Maybe you could go a little lighter on the
vitriol, and not kill what are otherwise well-reasoned nascent
political leanings.
Problem is, they're probably not "well-reasoned".
Libertarianism does not equal "Doing whatever I damn well please in
my parents' house and on my parents' dime whether they like it or
not".
Now if Mr. Kimball had said that he had moved out on his own
because he didn't agree with his parents' ideas, that would be
libertarianism, and quite admirable at that, too.
But from my experience, "libertarians" like him will still accept
money from Sexually-Repressed Catholics like Mom and Dad even when
he's off at college. And if not from them, then he'll probably
accept it from all of us in the form of a government grant or
subsidized loan.
Doesn't mean he won't become a libertarian someday, it just means
he needs to pay his own bills for a while to understand terms like
"taxation" and "regulation".
In my view, the essence of libertarianism is not "If it feels good,
do it" but rather "There's no such thing as a free lunch".
|2.12.07 @ 1:56PM|#
You'd think that someone might find a way to apply some sort of "Romeo And Juliet" law in this case. But I suppose in Florida, that might entail both parties dramatically killing themselves in Act III, to safeguard against any future damage that might be done to "these minors' careers or personal lives."
No amount of NEA funding will vacate the State convictions. Another example of how more government is never better.
Did that whoosh over Guy's head, or did Guy's remark whoosh over
mine?
|2.12.07 @ 1:58PM|#
"There should be a law against judicial and prosecutorial
misconduct to stop this stupidity. If these idiots could be held
accountable for ruining the lives of people under the guise of
"protecting" them, maybe there would be less of this."
I am reasonably certain that such laws exist, but (oddly enough)
they remain subject to "prosecutorial discretion." Remember: it's
for the electorate- err, "children."
lunchstealer|2.12.07 @ 2:00PM|#
These children are not mature enough to make rational
decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of
producing these videos.
But they're mature enough to be held criminally responsible.
They're old enough to consent to committing a crime, but not old
enough to consent to performing the act that is deemed criminal
solely because they're not mature enough to commit... Holy fuck I
can't even analyze it without being thrown into a recursive loop of
insanity. I can't even write a rational sentence outlining what the
judges and prosecutors here are even using as their thought
process.
Somehow they're simultaneously adult enough to face criminal
charges that are only criminal because they are not adult enough to
understand the repercussions of their actions. But their old enough
to have state-enforced repercussions imposed on them, because they
weren't old enough to be allowed to risk the repercussions.
Nope, still nonsensical. There's no way that any sane human being
can hold them responsible for a crime that is only a crime because
they cannot be legally deemed responsible.
I can only say that all legal professionals involved should be
disbarred, and the jurors prohibited from juring, and the police
officers be permanently sent back to traffic duty. None is
competent to be any serious part of our legal system.
|2.12.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Well said, John - You've got it exactly.
Captain Holly - Try decaf. Just because someone is a young person
living with his parents doensn't make him stupid.
What really gets me is the mobius-strip logic. The acts were legal,
but the documentation isn't? The pictures weren't disseminated, but
might be? The kids are both innocents being exploited, AND vile
exploiters? We're going to prevent damage to their futures by
branding them as sex offenders? Who somehow molested
THEMSELVES?
How is it, in this society, people of 16 are deemed fit to drive
2-ton metal death machines on our highways, but aren't mature
enough to decide how & with whom to have sex?
I wonder if there's any legal recourse for these kids to sue the
prosecutors for defamation or frivolous lawsuit in civil court?
|2.12.07 @ 2:09PM|#
The report concluded with the Orwellian phrase "The district
attorney is seeking to have her tried as an adult".
I sincerely hope you somehow imagined that whole thing, because
that last line made my head explode.
fyodor|2.12.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Libertarianism does not equal "Doing whatever I damn well
please in my parents' house and on my parents' dime whether they
like it or not".
Funny, I didn't notice anywhere in Thomas's post saying that his
folks had no right to set rules for his stay in their house. Only
that their opinions pissed him off. And while he's going to have
learn to live with that (get used to it, kid!), it's not a
sentiment that's that far off from what many of us would
express.
* sigh *|2.12.07 @ 2:15PM|#
If we had the balls we'd all register as sex offenders in order to make the label meaningless.
* sigh * again|2.12.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Will it be a minor or an adult who gets into trouble if one of the defendants' inner child has a wardrobe malfunction while being tried as an adult?
violent_k|2.12.07 @ 2:25PM|#
How is it, in this society, people of 16 are deemed fit to
drive 2-ton metal death machines on our highways, but aren't mature
enough to decide how & with whom to have sex?
Because cars aren't fun anymore. And if a kid does look like he is
having fun in a car, we have laws in place to stop that.
|2.12.07 @ 2:26PM|#
Congratulations, Cpt. Holly, for demonstrating why the
libertarian movement is so very goddamned small.
If you're looking for a movement where you can look down with scorn
on anyone who hasn't attained the priesthood, then become an
Objectivist. I say the kid is welcome.
But kid, please, not so much angst... it's quite cliche. If you'd
left out the whole 'I hate my parents' schtick nobody would have
come down on you. Probably. You can never be sure here.
Warren|2.12.07 @ 2:29PM|#
FTR. I became a self professed libertarian back when I was
living in my parent's house and flunking out of the college they
were sending me to.
I'm much more self sufficient now, though I still accept financial
contributions from mom and pop. My politics and philosophy have
matured and evolved, but they are still built upon the foundation I
laid while I was yet a nymph.
|2.12.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Funny, I didn't notice anywhere in Thomas's post saying that
his folks had no right to set rules for his stay in their house.
Only that their opinions pissed him off. And while he's going to
have learn to live with that (get used to it, kid!), it's not a
sentiment that's that far off from what many of us would
express.
Funny, you must not have read where he wrote:
I know what Christians do, my parents are catholic and I used to be just like them. Until one day I took a psychoactive drug, smoked weed and fucked an amazing girl (when I was 17..and she was 17..going to arrest me?).
Obviously we don't know where this happened, but for some strange
reason I can't imagine him calling the girl up and saying "Hey
babe, let's do it at your house tonight, 'cuz my parents are
really Catholic and they wouldn't approve of having that
stuff in their house; as a libertarian I have to respect their
opinions and property".
|2.12.07 @ 2:30PM|#
OYG! Good thing I got rid of those pics of me and my first
wife!
What the hell is wrong with these people? Next thing they will be
arresting kids as child molesters for masturbating.
|2.12.07 @ 2:36PM|#
Every day it becomes easier for me to believe that David Icke*
is correct.
------
ps- Cap'n; you're basically right, but I would rather see "our
young people" proclaiming libertarianism instead of progressivism.
At least they have grasped the most important underlying principle,
which is that the government cannot make their lives better by
controlling them completely.
Warren|2.12.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Next thing they will be arresting kids as child molesters
for masturbating.
ktc2 wins the thread.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.12.07 @ 2:43PM|#
He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or
maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her
own.
Unless, of course, she wanted an abortion.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.12.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Tried as an adult? For making child porn of herself as a
child?
Is this Orwellian?
Radley, you continue to amaze with this stuff. Where the hell do
you find it all?
|2.12.07 @ 2:49PM|#
In some ways this isn't that hard to understand at all.
The laws against child porn should be rooted in a desire to protect
the children depicted in it. The person who buys child porn is
essentially participating in a conspiracy to commit the illegal
underlying act the porn depicts.
Somewhere along the line, though, child porn turned into plain old
contraband - where the law sees the problem as the object [or
digital image] itself. It's the same reason there is a strong push
out there to make the anti-child-porn laws out there apply to
computer-generated stuff that doesn't depict actual children at all
- because the problem is no longer seen as one of violated
children, but of the pictures themselves. If that's where you're
coming from, then the crime here was making the pictures exist, and
not that anyone was abused or harmed in the making of those
pictures. So you can in fact take a picture of yourself and violate
the law.
lunchstealer|2.12.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Cap'n
A - A minor dependent disobeying his parents has to be the most
trivial violation of property rights I have yet heard a libertarian
discuss. Besides, when I was of that age, I'd have been terrified
to do that sort of thing in the house. My youthful transgressions
were typically done on some neutral ground like a school trip or
some gathering spot out in the woods. I don't see a libertarian
position on that sort of thing (except possibly the trespassing in
the woods - I assume no one had sought permission to be
there).
B - While there was some youthful vitriol aimed at his parents, the
fact is that he's still posting about the state punishing these
kids for what should be a crime against their parents' values, not
any actionable state interest. The main thrust of his post was his
opposition to his parents (and others like them) who believe that
these kids were criminally liable, not just deserving of a couple
months of grounding or permanent revocation of car privileges or
something.
|2.12.07 @ 2:55PM|#
ktc2 @ 2:30pm:"Next thing they will be arresting kids as child
molesters for masturbating."
ktc2 wins the thread.
He might, if Sean hadn't come up with that one at 1:46pm.
It seems some people never bother to read what anyone else says
here.
lunchstealer|2.12.07 @ 2:56PM|#
twc, The 'Orwellian' post was in a comment by marshall, about a different incident than Radley's talking about.
|2.12.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Fluffy,
You are exactly right. Child pronography has become a thought crime
and the image contraband. Those kids making their own porn, legally
is no different than if they had grown their own pot or mushrooms.
The madness has got to stop.
|2.12.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Fluffy has this right. Of course, the reason the law punishes the mere production or possession of the "contraband" is that it avoids making prosecutors have to prove criminal intent. You will note in this case that under the facts as given, there was no evidence of intent to distribute the materials beyond the people involved. However, reading between the lines, it seems pretty clear that the appeals court didn't buy the argument that the defendant intended to keep the photos private. The court was probably afraid to reverse the conviction because that would potentially give "real criminals" a potential privacy defense if they weren't caught red-handed selling the material. This is a case of having to catch a few dolphins along with the tuna if you want to be sure to maximize your tuna catch. It seems we have come full circle from the old logic that it is better for a criminal to go free than for an innocent person to be convicted, to a new logic that is precisely the reverse. This problem permeates our criminal statutes, not just those dealing with the issue at hand. A huge problem, and difficult to fix because there aren't enough innocent victims to enrage the public.
|2.12.07 @ 3:13PM|#
A minor dependent disobeying his parents has to be the most
trivial violation of property rights I have yet heard a libertarian
discuss. Besides, when I was of that age, I'd have been terrified
to do that sort of thing in the house. My youthful transgressions
were typically done on some neutral ground like a school trip or
some gathering spot out in the woods. I don't see a libertarian
position on that sort of thing (except possibly the trespassing in
the woods - I assume no one had sought permission to be
there).
Depends on what he did with the "pschoactive drugs". If he just
used them himself at the end of a dark road or in a city park, then
no, his rebellious attitude isn't really a big deal. Every teenager
thinks he knows everything, including me when I was that age.
However, what if he had sold some of his "psychoactive drugs" in
order to buy an X-Box? And the parents of his young paramour found
some weed in her dresser, and called the cops? As Radley has shown
on his web page, it's not very far-fetched to imagine his parent's
door getting kicked in by the cops late some night in order to
"take down" a "major dealer" who "sells drugs to other kids".
At that point, his rebelliousness could have severe and possibly
significant consequences for his parents: Imagine what would happen
if his Dad heard the commotion, thought it was an intruder, and
confronted the cops with his Mossberg shotgun?
While there was some youthful vitriol aimed at his parents, the
fact is that he's still posting about the state punishing these
kids for what should be a crime against their parents' values, not
any actionable state interest. The main thrust of his post was his
opposition to his parents (and others like them) who believe that
these kids were criminally liable, not just deserving of a couple
months of grounding or permanent revocation of car privileges or
something.
I dunno, I think most rebellious, annoying kids grow up to be
statist liberals (see Boomers, Baby). The attitude of "Mom
and Dad are so unfair" can just as easily morph into "I should be
allowed to do whatever I want" rather than "Big Government can
oppress you".
But in any case, I've made my point and I won't belabor it any
further. If I've judged the young Mr. Kimball unfairly, I
apologize.
If not, then he needs to get a job and move out of Mommy and
Daddy's house. Freedom is as much being independent as it is being
free from restrictions. :)
Marshall|2.12.07 @ 3:13PM|#
>I sincerely hope you somehow imagined that whole thing,
because that last line made my head explode.
Googling for "Latrobe child porn 2004" finds several comments and
links to the original article at (no longer available),
recapitulation at as well as several comments. The second article
does not contain the "will be tried as an adult" comment.
I do not know how this case turned out, though.
Robert|2.12.07 @ 3:30PM|#
"The laws against child porn should be rooted in a desire to
protect the children depicted in it. The person who buys child porn
is essentially participating in a conspiracy to commit the illegal
underlying act the porn depicts.
"Somewhere along the line, though, child porn turned into plain old
contraband - where the law sees the problem as the object [or
digital image] itself. It's the same reason there is a strong push
out there to make the anti-child-porn laws out there apply to
computer-generated stuff that doesn't depict actual children at all
- because the problem is no longer seen as one of violated
children, but of the pictures themselves."
It's a clear example of what I call "dragging the pivot foot" --
the unmooring of the law from its original justific'n.
Fortunately the US Sup Ct has ruled simulated child pornography to
have 1st amendment protection, provided it's not obscene for other
reasons.
|2.12.07 @ 3:32PM|#
"Fortunately the US Sup Ct has ruled simulated child pornography
to have 1st amendment protection, provided it's not obscene for
other reasons."
How then is it not a minor's first amendment right to take picures
of his or her self?
fyodor|2.12.07 @ 3:45PM|#
However, what if he had sold some of his "psychoactive
drugs" in order to buy an X-Box?
Is this a parody? It sounds exactly like the logic of the judge
everyone is denouncing!!
In case you're serious, Captain Holly, "what if's" don't count as
reality!! If he fucked over his parents then he fucked over his
parents. If all he did was take some drugs on his own, then all he
did was take some drugs on his own. All we have good reason to
believe is the latter. Whether this counts as a property rights
violation is a hopelessly gray area that's ultimately not my
concern, and it shouldn't be yours either.
|2.12.07 @ 4:13PM|#
I dunno, I think most rebellious, annoying kids grow up to
be statist liberals
Somehow I doubt that Hannity was an obedient, well-mannered
teenager...
And perhaps Mr. Kimball wants a job, but minimum wage laws make it
tough for a teen to find one? (To riff off another thread)
brian423 (not Brian24)|2.12.07 @ 4:20PM|#
Besides puritanism as such, part of the problem is our society's aberrant tendency to regard post-pubescent teenagers as children rather than adults.
brian423 (not Brian24)|2.12.07 @ 4:29PM|#
I might add that Captain Holly's condescension towards teens reminds me of why I'm still learning to forgive my father at 34.
bill|2.12.07 @ 4:37PM|#
I thought kids today are supposed to be so computer savvy? Lesson number one, DON'T TAKE NAKED PICS OF YOURSELF AND PUT THEM ON A COMPUTER, MORONS!!!!!!!
|2.12.07 @ 4:41PM|#
"I thought kids today are supposed to be so computer savvy?
Lesson number one, DON'T TAKE NAKED PICS OF YOURSELF AND PUT THEM
ON A COMPUTER, MORONS!!!!!!!"
At the very least ENCRYPT!
|2.12.07 @ 4:51PM|#
John, ive disagreed with you often on these posts but you smacked that one out of the park.
TheDumbFish|2.12.07 @ 5:06PM|#
Upon the first reading of the post, my first reaction was that I
hoped that the judges, prosecuters, et al, would get physically
harmed somehow for this.
I don't really want that. But what might be a more fitting
pubishment - and most likely not right either - would be to dig up
dirt on people they care about who are "violating" the law in the
same way. Then see how they react.
fistina|2.12.07 @ 5:25PM|#
I predict there will be more prosecutions like this. Apparently the new "fad" for teens is to take cell phone video of themselves having sex and send it to all their friends. There's going to be a lot more registered sex offenders in our future.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.12.07 @ 5:28PM|#
There's going to be a lot more registered sex offenders in
our future.
Good. Maybe there will come a time when so many innocent people are
on those half-baked lists that the system will implode upon itself.
Maybe then someone will be forced to distinguish between a 17 year
old girl that gave a 15 year old boy a hummer and a violent child
rapist.
|2.12.07 @ 5:31PM|#
>My youthful transgressions were typically done on some
neutral ground like a school trip or some gathering spot out in the
woods.
Hmm. Just what I was thinking -- maybe they did it outside
somewhere -- more fun to do psychoactives outside than in your
parents' house.
Captain Holly, you're just plain ornery.
|2.12.07 @ 5:34PM|#
When teens screwing teens end up on the list and children playing doctor end up on the list the list is already meaningless. Most people just don't know it yet.
|2.12.07 @ 5:37PM|#
The most disturbing thing is the priror restraint explanation of why it was upheld on appeal. Don't these appelate judges know how un-American that is. Oh, I forgot. The US Attorney General doesn't even believe we have a right to habeas corpus..........
|2.12.07 @ 5:58PM|#
However, what if he had sold some of his "psychoactive drugs" in order to buy an X-Box? And the parents of his young paramour found some weed in her dresser, and called the cops? As Radley has shown on his web page, it's not very far-fetched to imagine his parent's door getting kicked in by the cops late some night in order to "take down" a "major dealer" who "sells drugs to other kids".
At that point, his rebelliousness could have severe and possibly significant consequences for his parents: Imagine what would happen if his Dad heard the commotion, thought it was an intruder, and confronted the cops with his Mossberg shotgun?
So, rebelliousness is good only if it doesn't have severe
consequences. Gotcha. Good thing the Sons of Liberty knew that
there were no real consequences for tossing three boatloads of tea
into the Boston Harbor. It would have been a real shame if it had
led to a war or something.
lunchstealer|2.12.07 @ 6:02PM|#
When teens screwing teens end up on the list and children
playing doctor end up on the list the list is already meaningless.
Most people just don't know it yet.
The list has so many false positives that it's certainly not much
use for its true purpose, but it's got some meaningful effects.
Most notably it can really ruin the lives of innocent people, like
these two kids. If they really have to register, they're certainly
going to have far worse consequences than any of the pipe-dreams
justice Wolf was imagining.
|2.12.07 @ 6:16PM|#
"Apparently the new "fad" for teens is to take cell phone video
of themselves having sex and send it to all their friends."
Does this happen before or after the rainbow party?
Thrall|2.12.07 @ 6:29PM|#
Holy shit, people. Everyone just decided to pick on my post
didn't they.
I had no idea a libertarian belief was that I cannot have my own
religious view in my parents house. Where do you people get that
from?
My post was made when I was angry and my thoughts didn't make it
clearly in that post.
You can think I am a rebellious teen all you want but most people
my age or younger that did rebel didn't become a libertarian. They
either became a die hard liberal or a communist.
I am not rebelling against anyone, in fact almost half of my
political views are shared by my parents. They also want Public
Schools to go, welfare to go and taxes lowered lots. They also
agree that a government shouldn't be in anyones house or pants.
They disagree on the drug issue but know I use drugs (will explain
later in my post), and many other issues they agree on. However
they are Pro-Life, against Stem Cell research and are against
homosexuals so much that my dad calls them degenerate child
molesters.
In case you haven't noticed by this post, I am not a normal
teenager, and by that I mean I am not one of the myspace kids who
says "omg wtf bbq..lol so cool that pic..i love teh dashboard
confessional"
About the drug use..
I had no idea that I was infringing on my parents property by
living here..? If I did do drugs in my house what exactly is the
problem? Should I go out and drive around stoned?
First off, I've never gotten high in my parents house. Secondly, I
don't drink alcohol and I don't smoke pot unless I'm at a party
which happens only once every month or two.
I have never done any drugs in my parents house, I wash dishes
daily, I have a job that I go to after school everyday and my
parents only real problem with me is that I am an atheist and a
libertarian.
"Libertarianism does not equal "Doing whatever I damn well please
in my parents' house and on my parents' dime whether they like it
or not".
Now if Mr. Kimball had said that he had moved out on his own
because he didn't agree with his parents' ideas, that would be
libertarianism, and quite admirable at that, too.
But from my experience, "libertarians" like him will still accept
money from Sexually-Repressed Catholics like Mom and Dad even when
he's off at college. And if not from them, then he'll probably
accept it from all of us in the form of a government grant or
subsidized loan.
Doesn't mean he won't become a libertarian someday, it just means
he needs to pay his own bills for a while to understand terms like
"taxation" and "regulation".
In my view, the essence of libertarianism is not "If it feels good,
do it" but rather "There's no such thing as a free lunch"."
wow. That's the most fucked up thing I have ever heard. I didn't
know I had to pay taxes to be a libertarian.
I can live in my parents house and have my own opinions, asshole.
Just because I live in a house with my parents does not mean I lose
any rights as an American, and one who is an adult.
I respect my parents believes, oh also, I go to church on Sunday
because my parents want me to.
And yes, I am going to take scholarships, no one can go to college
without help, and that includes my parents.
And no, I've never sold drugs.
Thomas|2.12.07 @ 6:32PM|#
PS: just because you want change, you don't need to act on it like that. I will live my life, no matter what
|2.12.07 @ 6:40PM|#
From Judge Pavadano's dissent:
If a minor cannot be criminally prosecuted for having sex with
another minor, as the court held in B.B., it follows that a minor
cannot be criminally prosecuted for taking a picture of herself
having sex with another minor. Although I do not condone the
child's conduct in this case, I cannot deny that it is private
conduct. Because there is no evidence that the child intended to
show the photographs to third parties, they are as private as the
act they depict...
The majority concludes that the child in this case did not have a
reasonable expectation that the photographs would remain private.
To support this conclusion, the majority speculates about the many
ways in which the photographs might have been revealed to others.
The e-mail transmission might have been intercepted. The
relationship might have ended badly. The boyfriend might have
wanted to show the photo to someone else to brag about his sexual
conquest. With all due respect, I think these arguments are beside
the point. Certainly there are circumstances in which the photos
might have been revealed unintentionally to third parties, but that
would always be the case.
That the Internet is easily hacked, as the majority says, is not
material. The issue is whether the child intended to keep the
photos private, not whether it would be possible for someone to
obtain the photos against her will and thereby to invade her
privacy. The majority states that the child "placed the photos on a
computer and then, using the Internet, transferred them to another
computer," as if to suggest that she left them out carelessly for
anyone to find. That is not what happened. She sent the photos to
her boyfriend at his personal e-mail address, intending to share
them only with him.
The method the child used to transmit the photos to her boyfriend
carries some danger of disclosure, but so do others. If the child
had taken a printed photograph and placed it in her purse, it might
have been disclosed to third parties if her purse had been lost or
stolen. If she had mailed it to her boyfriend in an envelope, it
might have been revealed if the envelope had been delivered to the
wrong address and mistakenly opened. As these examples illustrate,
there is always a possibility that something a person intends to
keep private will eventually be disclosed to others. But we cannot
gauge the reasonableness of a person's expectation of privacy
merely by speculating about the many ways in which it might be
violated.
The critical point in this case is that the child intended to keep
the photographs private. She did not attempt to exploit anyone or
to embarrass anyone. I think her expectation of privacy in the
photographs was reasonable. Certainly, an argument could be made
that she was foolish to expect that, but the expectation of a
16-year-old cannot be measured by the collective wisdom of
appellate judges who have no emotional connection to the event.
Perhaps if the child had as much time to reflect on these events,
she would have eventually concluded, as the majority did, that
there were ways in which these photos might have been
unintentionally disclosed. That does not make her expectation of
privacy unreasonable.
|2.12.07 @ 6:50PM|#
As dumb as this particular case is, how else do you prevent the
launch of an industry of 16 year old self-produced porn
stars?
If the 16 year old isn't responsible for the possession of child
pornography, then how can you hold them responsible for the
distribution, or even the sale?
I think this would have been better handled by DA discretion. Scare
the hell out of the kids, and then decline to prosecute.
How is this guy going to win an election if he's putting "innocent"
kids in prison?
mediageek|2.12.07 @ 6:53PM|#
Thrall-
Welcome to the fold.
Just realize that as a young libertarian, you're going to have to
put up with more than your fair share of crotchety old
assholes.
Comes with the territory.
lunchstealer|2.12.07 @ 7:00PM|#
Thrall,
Yup. Comes with the territory. Cap'n Holly's just bein' cranky.
Don't worry about it.
|2.12.07 @ 7:37PM|#
Thrall,
Welcome to the fight. And no, you do NOT need to pay your first tax
or being harrased by a shield-carrying bully (a.k.a. a policeman)
to become a libertarian - you just need to love your freedom,
respect the freedom of others and think CLEARLY about the
consequences derived from the actions of a violent, aggresive
institution trying to control our lives.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.12.07 @ 7:38PM|#
Lunch, no, I was serious, isn't trying a minor as an adult for
taking naked pictures of herself as a minor, wickedly
Orwellian?
She's a minor, in possession of "child" porn, that she took, as a
minor, so the DA wants to try her as an adult. For having pictures
of herself naked as a minor. But she really is a minor, not an
adult. But for this purpose, she's an adult.
Solve it all by making kids legal adults at 14.
The Wine Commonsewer|2.12.07 @ 7:41PM|#
Lunch, I think I'm losing it, I just reread the original post (after the fact, of course) and now I do not see anything there about trying anyone as an adult. Duh.
taker|2.12.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Damn. I was all excited because I first read the headline as
"Miners Exploiting Themselves"
Oh well.
|2.12.07 @ 9:03PM|#
Thrall =
Holly was being a paternalistic, hypocritical bitch for no good
reason... not the normal state of play on this board.
and as it happens, you remind me a lot of myself when i was 18.
Best of luck to you.
I didn't know I had to pay taxes to be a
libertarian.
Oh, quite the opposite... you are actually obligated to do
everything in your power to screw the IRS to hell and get away with
it :)
(Long live wesley snipes, keep it real homie!!)
JG
|2.12.07 @ 10:28PM|#
If the 16 year old isn't responsible for the possession of
child pornography, then how can you hold them responsible for the
distribution, or even the sale?
There's really no way to make it profitable unless you go into the
adult market, and any adults who purchase or otherwise obtain such
pornography could be held accountable.
|2.13.07 @ 8:28AM|#
There's really no way to make it profitable unless you go
into the adult market
Or so you've heard...from your friend...
:)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245