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: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @03:39AM (11 children)
"the state is charging the supposed victim" - this is completely incorrect!
The daft article avoids talking about the actual (potential) issue, by ignoring it or by being too foolish to see it.
The "crime" being prosecuted endangers not the person whose photo it was, but the public. The recipient has got something illegal on his hands. The public can be done harm, as persons who might otherwise never have sexualized a 14yo might see the images and off they go.
The transformation to make this clear is: imagine it's drugs and not porn. The drug dealer gains from the transaction, or thinks they do; the purchaser is hurt by the drug (or the porn) that's damaging to the point of being excluded from legal society.
Now, I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the argument for why she's being tried. To pretend otherwise (that it's to save the 'victim' of the photo, who in this case was not coerced) is just plain foolish offtopicness, and the article author should be chastized.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @04:17AM
Alright, but that logic is utter gibberish and it's not any better than 'We have to save the child by destroying the child's life.' It's basically the Jack Thompson argument applied to underage porn.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @05:22AM (9 children)
Wow. Such harm. Much real. So sad.
Lower age of consent to 12 and don't be a fucking faggot anymore.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday January 01 2018, @06:23AM (6 children)
There are valid reasons why the age of consent shouldn't be too young, but part of the law should be about the difference in ages. If kids are within a year or two of the same age there shouldn't *BE* a question of "age of consent". It just shouldn't apply at all.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Monday January 01 2018, @02:58PM (5 children)
This is nonsense. The entire point of the law is that under age X cannot consent psychologically. Putting two people together under that age compounds the problem of diminished mental ability, it does not solve it. That is likely saying that G1 driver licence holders can normally only drive if accompanied by fully licensed driving expert, but if they found a road were only other G1 drivers were driving then they should be able to drive alone, as everyone on the road is as incompetent as themselves.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Monday January 01 2018, @04:25PM
That may very well be true, but a law? What crime is committed, and what good can come out of it by prosecuting them?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 01 2018, @04:53PM (2 children)
The problem with this, of course, is that it's very much an over-simplification. People mature at different rates. I've known people in their thirties that weren't mature enough emotionally to handle a sexual relationship. Unfortunately, bureaucracy can't function with individual evaluations, so we get these hard and bright lines (no drinking below 21, no sex below 18/17/whatever) with no consideration for the actual participants.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 02 2018, @10:12AM (1 child)
Yeah, no way we could try something different than the age of consent. Like maybe only involving the government if someone claims a rape occurred, and then investigating and trying the case on an individual basis just like we do with ordinary rape cases. That can't be done, since it would be too logical for this world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 04 2018, @03:07AM
Heck if you're lucky she might not even change her mind about it 30 years later and say it was rape just because you are now a politician on the other side... ;)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 02 2018, @09:35AM
1) For the same reason that they are considered not adults and able to "legally consent" that's the same reason why you should not try and punish them as adults.
2) And if one is 15 and the other is 17 AND the act was consensual (in the eyes of the 15 year old despite not the law) I think the 15 year old would be far more damaged by being "indecently exposed to the 'justice' system" and the 17 year old going to jail for say 15 years, than by being "sexually exploited".
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday January 01 2018, @02:05PM (1 child)
The age of consent is a pederast-friendly concept. Just forbid relationships when the age difference is more than 20% or so, unless both parties have a fully grown personality, which happens after the age of 21.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 02 2018, @10:14AM
No, it happens after the age of 25, and only on Tuesdays.