ACLU Tackles Sexist Sexting Case
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania has taken up the cause of minors prosecuted under new “sexting” cases—teens texting naked photographs of themselves and others to their closest friends, who then forward them to everyone. The ACLU filed suit against the district attorney for Wyoming County, Pennsylvania, for “threatening three high school girls with child pornography charges” after classmates’ cell phones were found holding suggestive photos of the girls themselves. Two of the girls appear in white bras; one appears in a towel, with her breasts exposed.
Oh, the children! They’re child porning themselves!
All these girls did was have their photos taken—they didn’t send them to anyone. Those who did send them are in deep shit with the Wyoming County district attorney, right? Nope. According to the ACLU, “The district attorney has not, however, threatened to charge the individuals who distributed the photos.” The girls, however, are “accomplices to the production of child pornography” because they OK’d the photo session.
Let’s dissect the logic of this for the two seconds that it takes to prove the D.A. to be an unapolagetic sexist.
Let’s see how Wyoming county, Pennsylvania might punish the following law-breakings:
Child molestation: D.A. prosecutes molested child for having childlike body child molester prefers.
Rape: D.A. prosecutes rape victim for allowing vagina to be violated by rapist.
Burglary: D.A. prosecutes homeowner for owning a bunch of nice stuff thieves also want.
A hearing in the case has been set for 1:30 p.m. today in front of Scranton U.S. District Court Judge James Munley.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
5:04 pm
I’m having trouble seeing how this lawsuit survives a motion for summary judgment based on Younger abstention, which prevents a federal court from enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings. There’s an exception to the Younger doctrine for prosecutions that are made in bad faith, but it’s the plaintiff’s burden of proof on bad faith, and prosecutors can almost always come up with some good-faith grounds.
9:05 am
Please check your facts. “According to the ACLU, “The district attorney has not, however, threatened to charge the individuals who distributed the photos.”
If you hadn’t just taken the ACLU’s word on this, you’d know that ALL the minors involved were subject to prosecution. In fact, all but the three girls accepted the DA’s offer to attend a diversion program in order to avoid being charged. Given the lack of any due diligence on your part, your comments are ignorant, uninformed and unprofessional.
11:50 am
Do you disagree that the ACLU claimed, “The district attorney has not, however, threatened to charge the individuals who distributed the photos”?
Those who caved to the DA’s demands and agreed to take a series of classes were not threatened with prosecution, even though that group includes the people who actually distributed the photos without the girls’ consent. The girls would not consent to the classes because they have done nothing wrong, and now they are being punished for it.
From the New York Times: “They asked the court to stop the district attorney from filing charges against them, contending that his threat to do so was ‘retaliation’ for the families asserting their First and Fourth Amendment rights to oppose his deal.”
I stand by my comments. Punishing the person who was made the object in a sex case like this is absolutely unacceptable. It doesn’t matter if anyone else involved is punished, too (especially in this case, when the distributors are getting a slap on the wrist instead of threat of prosecution).
1:56 pm
The ACLU absolutely made that claim. And curiously you took it at face value, and proceeded to make disparaging comments about the DA based on it. The problem is that the claim isn’t correct. What is my evidence of that? The ACLU!
In the same press release, the ACLU made this self-contradictory statement: “In February 2009, Skumanick sent a letter to the parents of approximately twenty Tunkhannock students, including the ACLU’s clients, threatening the students with criminal felony charges if they did not agree to be placed on probation and participate in a counseling program he devised.”
So, it turns out that the kids who “caved to the DA’s demands” to take those classes did so BECAUSE of the threat of prosecution. Stand by your comments if you’d like, but when you base them on incorrect facts, you can’t expect to have them taken seriously.
By running to federal court before any charges have been even filed in state court, the ACLU has done a disservice to kids who find themselves in similar situations in the future. The ACLU is discouraging DA’s from offering creative solutions to help kids avoid having an arrest record. If a DA decided from now on they will file charges first and offer a diversionary program later, I wouldn’t blame them one bit.
2:32 pm
The ACLU says: “In February 2009, Skumanick sent a letter to the parents of approximately twenty Tunkhannock students, including the ACLU’s clients, threatening the students with criminal felony charges if they did not agree to be placed on probation and participate in a counseling program he devised.”
The ACLU also says: “The district attorney has not, however, threatened to charge the individuals who distributed the photos.”
How do you know that the “individuals who distributed the photos” are included in the 20 students who received the letter?
The DA’s “creative solution” is inexcusable. It’s like giving a rape victim a choice between taking a class teaching her why she’s responsible for her rape, or prosecuting her for being an “accomplice” in the crime.
3:48 pm
There’s absolutely no evidence that the DA is somehow protecting the kids who distributed the photos. To suggest otherwise is baseless. In fact, press reports say that any kid who was involved got the letter, so that’s basis of my assertion.
Your analogy escapes me. As Judge Munley stated during the hearing yesterday (according to the NYT), “It seems like the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here.” Indeed.
3:59 pm
“Press reports”?
I never asserted that the DA is protecting the kids who distributed the photos. But it appears that only the girls whose photos were distributed risk being charged. And the reason is because those “children” pictured in this “child pornography” refused to declare that they were at fault. In what other case would you prosecute the children involved in child porn? It’s absurd.