Sexting in Jersey

Katherine Mangu-Ward | July 23, 2009

The New Jersey legislature is considering a couple of bills which would allow teens to send dirty pics to each other without winding up in jail.

If only every article started with this phrase:

Recognizing that teenagers who e-mail nude or sexually suggestive photos of themselves to friends aren't really child pornographers...

The bills make exceptions to harsh child porn laws when the people producing, distributing, and/or consuming the pics are minors, while shoehorning in (likely useless) anti-sexting education measures designed to make adults feel less icky about the whole situation.

Don't forget to check out Reason's article about kids who got seriously screwed by taking their innocent quest to get screwed online.

Comments

kilroy|7.23.09 @ 6:12PM|#

Again KMW with the witty alt-tag.

Keep up the good work.

Tricky Prickears |7.23.09 @ 6:13PM|#

I was reading about this in the Star-Ledger. It's bullshit. Just another "Pre-Trial Intervention" type program. Probation, group therapy, piss testing, administrative costs, then, if you're lucky, and don't piss off you're PO, the charge will be dropped and just a "small" spot will appear on your record.

Tricky Prickears |7.23.09 @ 6:18PM|#

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/trenton_nj_ap_like.html

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/trenton_nj_ap_like.html

jtuf|7.23.09 @ 6:21PM|#

You can search for A4069 and S2926 here. Those are the Assembly and Senate versions of the bill respectively. Unfortunately, the state run website doesn't allow linking directly to the bills.

jtuf|7.23.09 @ 6:26PM|#

Yeah, these lines from the bill sum it up:

The Attorney General, in consultation with the Administrative Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, shall develop an educational program for juveniles who have committed an eligible offense as defined under the provisions of subsection a. of this section. The county prosecutor shall determine whether a juvenile shall be admitted to the program. A juvenile who successfully completes the program shall have the opportunity to avoid prosecution for the eligible offense.

jtuf|7.23.09 @ 6:29PM|#

One of the major psychiatric institutes in New Jersey is one town away from me. They have a pediatric psych ward. To save money, they put all kids age 0 to 18 in the same ward. On a typical day, the staff called security to restrain or focibly medicate the kids half a dozen times. I don't think sending yet another class of kids to reeducation camps is an improvement.

Tricky Prickears |7.23.09 @ 6:41PM|#

You must live near Ancora.

The Administrative Office of the Courts is responsible for the Intensive Supervision Program (ISP). Or as the state inmates refer to it - The Inmate Sucker Program.

Michael Ejercito|7.23.09 @ 8:52PM|#

The best solution to this issue is this:

Governments should let teens sext all they want- and then publicly publish their sexting on publicly accessible web sites, and send a copy of their sexting to the parents or legal guardians.

Wicks Cherrycoke|7.23.09 @ 9:08PM|#

I should have known it sounded too good to be true that the Nanny State was adopting something sensible.

Some dude|7.23.09 @ 9:35PM|#

I couldn't help but notice you didn't put up an actual picture of teen sexting. It is like you think there might be something wrong with it or something.

some other dude|7.23.09 @ 10:09PM|#

I couldn't help but notice you didn't put up an actual picture of teen sexting. It is like you think there might be something wrong with it or something.

Uh, no it's not. That's less than a fourth as clever as you think it is on at least two levels.

One, whether they think sexting is wrong or not, publishing pictures of minors on the web isn't sexting. Not doing the former says nothing about their opinion of the latter.

Second, regardless of their overall views on publishing pictures of teenagers (and I haven't heard them advocate that) or sexting, publishing those pictures would be illegal so again, even if they were for it (and I don't see that they are) it would still be irresponsible of them to do so because of the legal consequences.

For example, I think you should be completely free to snort coke all you want but if I were going to advocate that on a blog, I doubt I'd attach a photo of myself actually snorting coke. That doesn't mean I secretly think there is something wrong with it; it just means I'm not a complete idiot.

The Libertarian Guy|7.23.09 @ 10:58PM|#

Fourteen-year-old girl takes nekkid pics of herself, gets charged with sex crimes.

What part of this makes sense, again?

DocMerlin|7.24.09 @ 3:26AM|#

14 year old takes pics of herself naked and sends it to a 14 year old friend. The reciever's father catches him and punishes him and takes away the phone. He is now guilty of possession of child porn.

|7.24.09 @ 8:27AM|#

14 year old takes pics of herself naked and sends it to a 14 year old friend. The reciever's father catches him and punishes him and takes away the phone. He is now guilty of possession of child porn. The cops come and arrest him. The cops confiscate the phone as evidence, the cops are now guilty of posession. The bailiff carrys the evidence to the bench at the hearing, the bailiff is now guilty of posession of child porn. well, you get the idea...

Xeones|7.24.09 @ 8:41AM|#

domo, that's ok, though. The father is guilty of possession when he's caught with the phone because he's little people, but the cops are cops.

robc|7.24.09 @ 9:15AM|#

14 year old takes pics of herself naked and sends it to a 14 year old friend. The reciever's father catches him and punishes him and takes away the phone. He is now guilty of possession of child porn clearly gay.

FTFY

robc|7.24.09 @ 9:16AM|#

...Unless the father was like "Dude, you can do better than that".

|7.24.09 @ 9:39AM|#

Wow, dude that is totally amazing dude!

RT
www.privacy-tools.tk

BakedPenguin|7.24.09 @ 9:57AM|#

You're tired anonymity guy. Go away. Please.

kilroy|7.24.09 @ 10:08AM|#

It looks like this only "protects" juveniles. What happens if "14 year old takes pics of herself naked and sends it to a 19 year old friend"?

Wade|7.24.09 @ 12:12PM|#

That whole shitstorm started because the girl's dad was pissed when he found out she wasn't the precious little angel he thought he had brainwashed in isolation from the evils of the world that he thought she was. Kind of like parents that chase after their kids with ant-bacterial soap and then wonder why they have no natural immunities.

|7.24.09 @ 1:49PM|#

Recognizing that teenagers who e-mail nude or sexually suggestive photos of themselves to friends aren't really child pornographers...

But teenagers who e-mail sexually suggestive photos of themselves are really child pornographers. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

|7.24.09 @ 2:24PM|#

What happens if "14 year old takes pics of herself naked and sends it to a 19 year old friend"?

Twenty years hard time?