SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Later this month, a North Carolina high school student will appear in a state court and face five child pornography-related charges for engaging in consensual sexting with his girlfriend.
What's strange is that of the five charges he faces, four of them are for taking and possessing nude photos of himself on his own phone—the final charge is for possessing one nude photo his girlfriend took for him. There is no evidence of coercion or further distribution of the images anywhere beyond the two teenagers' phones.
Similarly, the young woman was originally charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor—but was listed on her warrant for arrest as both perpetrator and victim. The case illustrates a bizarre legal quandry that has resulted in state law being far behind technology and unable to distinguish between predatory child pornography and innocent (if ill-advised) behavior of teenagers.
The boy is being charged with child pornography for taking pictures of himself.
[These teens were of the age of consent in North Carolina and could legally have had sex with each other. Juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 16 in North Carolina, however, so they are being tried as adults on felony charges of possessing child porn... of themselves. -Ed.]
(Score: 4, Informative) by frojack on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:47PM
Jury nullification isn't a legal right that jurors possess.
You might want to check your facts:
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#Court_rulings [wikipedia.org]
If a juror indicates during voir dire that they intend to vote to nullify, they will be dismissed. But if the jury as a whole in their secret deliberations comes to that opinion, it is perfectly legal and fully within their rights.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.