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.

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.

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.

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.

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).