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: 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.