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: 5, Insightful) by MrNemesis on Saturday September 05 2015, @01:23PM
The most insane part of this - apart from the perpetrator and supposed victim being the same person - is the prosecutor wanting them to stand trial as adults (for something that wouldn't be illegal if they were adults) yet if the prosecutor wants to treat them as adults, why aren't they able to give informed consent? I can't understand why the whole thing hasn't been thrown out as "no case to answer".
Sets a worrying precedent as well. If victim and villain can be the same person and a child can be an adult for the purposes of punishment but not for the purposes of age-limited crimes, can a masturbating teenager be arrested for sexual assault and/or rape on their non-consenting self? Get a few more arsehole moralising prosecutors and you'll be able to lock an entire generation of teenagers up!
It'll certainly be the last time these two people will volunteer to help the police, that is if being permanently labelled as sex offenders doesn't fuck their lives up completely and turn them into social outcasts/criminals/suicide statistics.
As an aside, we have the same quirk in UK law; age of consent here is 16 but you can't buy or appear in porn until you're 18. Don't think any 16-17yr olds have been arrested here for making "porn" of themselves yet but it's probably only a matter of time before someone think it'll be a good idea to do so to increase their votes from Daily Heil readers.
"To paraphrase Nietzsche, I have looked into the abyss and been sick in it."
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:09PM
It is a long shot, but there is a saving grace that can come out of outrageous cases like these. A supreme court might issue a ruling to overturn these kinds of arrests as an appeal. It probably won't happen, but it could.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @02:43PM
If they don't make some sort of bad plea deal, that is.
(Score: 3, Informative) by hendrikboom on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:34PM
It seems the girl already has made a plea deal -- pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor, ended up with a year's probation and a cellphone ban.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tathra on Saturday September 05 2015, @11:19PM
and that's the entire goal right there, to scare them into taking a plea deal so the prosecutor can pad his stats. that's pretty much the entirety of our legal system these days, terrify innocent people into taking pleas by threatening to charge them with all kinds of things they'd never be found guilty of, but the risk of having to spend 20+ years in prison scares them enough to take probation or a small jail sentence even if they're totally innocent because they know the system has been broken for decades.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by duvel on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:07PM
The US may become a better place if it lifted its attitude towards sex to the level common in Europe.
This Sig is under surveilance by the NSA
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:32PM
Another goofy crime I've heard of is "self-plagiarism". Apparently, a person can commit plagiarism by copying their own works.
Suicide has of course always been silly to criminalize. How do you punish someone who succeeds in killing themselves? Harm their children, if they have any? But the US Constitution explicitly forbids punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Pray to God and the Devil that they burn in Hell for all eternity? More importantly, why even try to punish a suicide? If it's to deter others, one has to wonder how can it?
Sex is one of those fearful things that society goes over the top to manage. Technology is another, what with all this fear of hackers who could, at any time, hack into banks and take everyone's life savings, hack into the news sites and defame anyone, hoke up a fake video showing anyone engaging in sex with a partner of the same sex, or with minors, animals, or corpses, hack into dams and release all the water causing a major disaster, hack into food production facilities and add poison, or hack into the Pentagon and the Kremlin and launch the nukes. Consequently, punishments for hacking tend to be far too harsh, as Aaron Swartz learned.
Unreasoning fear is a bad basis for laws.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:49PM
Maybe even for attempted suicide if the convicted doesn't show remorse?
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:16PM
This is primarily a higher education essay/dissertation problem. At the vast majority of accredited institutions if you reuse your own words or ideas without citation, even if unintentionally, expulsion is the expectation and anything less is considered merciful. I am not kidding. Ask anyone with a graduate degree that had to write more than the usual papers and watch their face pale in remembrance of their fear.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:03PM
IANAL but I'd guess it's got something to do w/ life insurance.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:18AM
I doubt it, I haven't checked but I'm sure all life insurance policies will have nullification clauses in the in the case of suicide.
I'm sure it is just because of Christian moral bullshit. Something like, it is God who should decide who should live or die, therefore if you take your own life you are disobeying God's will and must be punished for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @01:04PM
Maybe you should have checked...
It's commonly included, but with a 12 month or so waiting period.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday September 05 2015, @11:25PM
the only way suicide, first trimester abortion, drug use, prostitution, and other consensual sexual activities between 2 post-pubescent individuals can be criminalized is if self-sovereignty is stripped from citizens. the government must literally own your body in order to tell you what you can and cannot do with it. it doesn't matter whether you agree or not with what other people are doing with their own bodies, its their body, they can do whatever they want to/with it; taking away one's control over their own body is literally slavery.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Sunday September 06 2015, @01:19AM
An indication of police state is that people that did nothing wrong are made scapegoats and thrown under the bus to scare another 100 from doing the same thing. In a police state, fear is equivalent to respect.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Monday September 07 2015, @02:38PM
I'm reminded of a comedy sketch (I can't recall the comedian's name) where he posited that given the age of consent was 16, but the age with which you could buy cigarettes was 18, you could have sex, but not smoke afterwards.