SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Child porn law goes nuts: 14-year-old girl charged for nude selfie
A 14-year-old girl is facing charges in Minnesota juvenile courts that could lead to her being placed on a sex offender registry—all for taking a nude selfie and sending it to a boy at her school. Prosecutors say that she violated Minnesota's child pornography statute, which bans distributing sexually explicit pictures of underaged subjects. But a legal brief filed this week by the ACLU of Minnesota says that this is ridiculous. Charging a teenager for taking a nude selfie means the state is charging the supposed victim—an absurd result that the legislature can't have intended when it passed Minnesota's child pornography statute, the ACLU argues.
The case is being heard by a juvenile court in Rice County—about an hour south of the Twin Cities. Because this is juvenile court, there's a lot we don't know including the name of the teenager. We don't even know if the selfie in question was a photo or a video. What we do know comes from the ACLU's legal brief, which includes a brief description of the case. According to the ACLU, the anonymous teen sent a nude selfie to a classmate over Snapchat. The recipient apparently took a screenshot of the message and shared it with others at school without the girl's consent. One of the classmates alerted the police in Faribault, Minnesota, which is presumably where the girl goes to school.
Officials decided to charge the girl with the "felony sex offense of knowingly disseminating pornographic work involving a minor to another person." An adult convicted of this crime can face up to seven years in prison. As a 14-year-old, the girl in this case isn't facing a criminal prosecution in adult court and won't face the harsh sentence an adult might face. The problem, the ACLU notes, is that if she's found guilty she is likely to be placed on a sex offender registry, where she would face the same stigmas as someone who commits violent sex crimes. That could lead to difficulties finding a job or obtaining housing. The ACLU's brief doesn't mention whether the boy was charged for distributing the girl's photo to other classmates.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @01:24AM (10 children)
The girl and the boy, then commuted or otherwise cleared their sentences after making a big deal out of it, and used it to remind people, both under the age of majority, and over it, that sexting with a minor is a felony, and dissemination of child pornography, whether by a child, or by an adult is an offense punishable by the full weight of a court of law.
Using it as a stick for a bit of public corporal punishment is fine. Using it as a stick to be a living horse dead is not.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @01:28AM (6 children)
No, there was never a public interest in any of this. It was always a matter between the kids and their parents to resolve.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @01:32AM
A man walked up to a woman who was sitting on a park bench, watching her 9-year-old girl play. The man's appearance could only be described as 'creepy' and 'unsettling'; he was cockeyed, wore small glasses, and had a thin mustache. After staring at the woman for a few moments, the man finally spoke these words: "You know, I've been looking it, and... hehe!"
Suddenly, the man instantly changed locations and was sitting on the grass, naked. The mother's child was sitting on top of him, also naked, and with the man's penis entering her. However, something was different about the girl's appearance; she was now incredibly obese, unlike previously; she had countless crater-like indentations on her buttocks, and the skin on the inside of said craters was a sickly greenish color; and finally, the craters on her skin were slowly leaking pus and blood.
The man began thrusting, and every time he did so, he screamed, "Looking it!" These words were shouted again and again, and echoed throughout the park. Occasionally, the man would scream other phrases, such as 'Delicious!', at the same time as he was screaming other words; what was most odd was that it sounded as if he was screaming two entirely different things simultaneously, almost as if someone who sounded exactly like he did was speaking over him. The man's thrusting became increasingly rapid over time, and so too did his shouts. Finally, the man squeezed the girl's buttocks with as much strength as he could muster, and a vomit-inducing mixture of pus and blood spewed everywhere, accompanied by a high-pitched scream
Elsewhere, a naked woman - the child's mother - could be seen hanging from her rectum on the end of an abnormally-large telephone pole which reached thousands of feet tall. The woman's rectum appeared to be stretching out to unbelievable lengths, to the point where it resembled a long hood. Perhaps due to this, the woman's face resembled nothing so much as a dead fish. From this location, the man's everlasting shouts of pleasure could be heard...
(Score: 2, Disagree) by dry on Monday January 01 2018, @04:39AM (4 children)
Well the problem is when these pictures escape without the consent of those who took/had taken the pictures, and that is all the public interest.
Now to use child pornography laws about this is insane, but these kids do need to know that sharing pictures does mean a chance of the pictures not being private, and what do you do if the parents aren't explaining this to the kids?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @04:50AM (3 children)
Prosecution is not in the public interest. No good will come of it.
As for the rest, I'm guessing the kids have worked that out by now.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday January 01 2018, @09:49AM (2 children)
Is that the standard by which prosecution is judged?
Deterrence is still an acknowledge goal of criminal prosecution.
We use to pretend that "correction" was the aim. but no sentient person actually believes that any more.
And if that is your standard, on what do you base your blanket assertion?
In a lot of high schools in a lot of places kids (especially girls) are bullied into nude pictures, often with the claim that "everybody is doing it". Even the kids that don't want to participate get hounded into it. The ACLU's assertion that the child is coercing herself is intentional and obtusely willful ignorance of how this stuff gets started.
This isn't the end of the world. There's no point in pretending it is.
Juvenile records can and are expunged every day, often for worse crimes than this.
There's also no reason to assume the worst possible intent on the part of the prosecutor. It might have been worth your time to actually read the (pretty thin) coverage at ARS where it was stated: Because this is juvenile court, there's a lot we don't know including the name of the teenager. We don't even know if the selfie in question was a photo or a video. But apparently there being a "lot that they don't know" is just a come on for sensational journalism these days. Combine that with the ACLU trying the case in the press instead the courtroom and you have a perfect store of fake news and SJW fodder.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday January 01 2018, @10:36AM
So why would further legal consequences added to whatever she has already suffered be in the public interest? Revenge? For what? She is apparently the victim of her "crime". Will she feel better about it knowing she will suffer further punishment? Reform? How so? What will she learn that she hasn't already learned more thoroughly?
The prosecutor is aiming to punish a minor for self victimization over an all too common youthful indiscretion. There is no positive spin to put on that.
Of course we don't know the exact details, you didn't expect them to publish the selfie, did you? And we're never supposed to know the name of a juvenile defendant.
Funny how suddenly you want the government to spend tax dollars to be mommy and daddy and do "something" about "the problem"! You seem to be opposed to that when it might help someone.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday January 01 2018, @01:57PM
The safe approach is to not have a juvenile record in the first place. "Can be" is not "will be".
But that is where to put the smart money. This should have never seen a court room.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @01:40AM
(Score: 4, Informative) by noneof_theabove on Monday January 01 2018, @01:44PM (1 child)
There is no such thing called "expunge the records".
My brother-in-law several years ago had to get a lawyer to fight his employer [city]
because they found he was charged 35 years earlier, as a 17 year old, of possession &
consumption of alcohol by a minor.
Judge sealed the case and said that when he turned 21 [legal age for most popular drug]
his record would be expunged.
WRONG !
In this day and age Nothing, NOTHING is ever removed.
Like the internet has the the "way back machine archive", once you are charged
the record is forever saved in the "legal archives".
Something like DADT [don't ask, don't tell] it will not be "just distributed" but
should anyone go looking they will find it, and it is not difficult.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 02 2018, @01:27AM
I think that you err, but only in detail. I believe that the *court records* may be sealed, and expunged, but the POLICE RECORDS are completely separate, and never expunged. So, no matter how thoroughly the judicial branch may expunge their records, there remains an executive branch arrest record. Judicial says, "We have no records of John Doe being convicted of anything" so whoever was inquiring just goes to the police department to ask about John Doe.
Depending on department policy, the police can at the least state that they arrested John on such and such a date for possession, or whatever. They may also have recorded the final disposition of the case, that is, convicted, acquitted, or whatever.
Note that I have not said that you're wrong, but that I said that I THINK you have made a mistake. IANAL, of course, and I am only repeating what I have been told. You may or may not wish to research further.