A Crime -- Or Not?
See if you can figure this one out. Two Florida teens, Amber, 16, and Jeremy, 17, took digital pictures of themselves doing something sexual, we don't know what. From Amber's house, they emailed the pictures to Jeremy.
I hate to tell you, but this sort of thing happens every day.
But it's the next part that makes your head spin. Well, first of all, somehow somebody found the pictures. The teens are underage, so this amounted to "child pornography." So they were charged with a felony -- as adults.
I don't know, here's the news story:
Man, you mean they think the parents gave the pictures to the police? Yikes. Why would you do that?
I'll never understand people, I guess.
I know I'm not supposed to say this out loud, but there's something wrong with the child-pornography laws. I have no sympathy at all for people who prey on children, but unfortunately that's not the only thing that's criminalized. Say you take a picture of some adult model, naked, and you Photoshop a kid's head on it. Guess what -- you're in possession of child pornography. You see what I mean? If it's supposed to protect children, it's not doing that. If it's just supposed to make it easier to arrest creeps, then ... I'd want to consider whether we really want to go down that road.
In discussing this case, some people have raised the question, what if you sent some pictures of your naked toddler to Grandma? Could you be prosecuted for some hideous felony?
Skipping down...
I don't know, what do you think? Do you think a crime was committed here? How long do you think these kids should go to prison for? Life -- or less?
I hate to tell you, but this sort of thing happens every day.
But it's the next part that makes your head spin. Well, first of all, somehow somebody found the pictures. The teens are underage, so this amounted to "child pornography." So they were charged with a felony -- as adults.
I don't know, here's the news story:
Combine unsupervised teenagers, digital cameras and e-mail, and, given sufficient time, you'll end up with risque photographs on a computer somewhere.
There's a problem with that: Technically, those images constitute child pornography. That's what 16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy, her boyfriend, both residents of the Tallahassee, Fla., area, learned firsthand. (Court documents include only their initials, A.H. and J.G.W., so we're using these pseudonyms to make this story a little easier to read.)
On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else.
Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos. Police blotter: Teens prosecuted for racy photos
Man, you mean they think the parents gave the pictures to the police? Yikes. Why would you do that?
I'll never understand people, I guess.
Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.
Some more background: Under a 1995 ruling in a case called B.B. v. State, the Florida Supreme Court said that a 16-year-old could not be found delinquent for having sex with another 16-year-old.
"The crux of the state's interest in an adult-minor situation is the prevention of exploitation of the minor by the adult," the majority said at the time. The court ruled that a Florida statute punishing sex between teens was "unconstitutional as applied to this 16-year-old as a basis for a delinquency proceeding."
The same applies to Amber and Jeremy. Even though he is a year older than her, he is still a minor in Florida.
In other words, under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they're criminals if they document it.
I know I'm not supposed to say this out loud, but there's something wrong with the child-pornography laws. I have no sympathy at all for people who prey on children, but unfortunately that's not the only thing that's criminalized. Say you take a picture of some adult model, naked, and you Photoshop a kid's head on it. Guess what -- you're in possession of child pornography. You see what I mean? If it's supposed to protect children, it's not doing that. If it's just supposed to make it easier to arrest creeps, then ... I'd want to consider whether we really want to go down that road.
In discussing this case, some people have raised the question, what if you sent some pictures of your naked toddler to Grandma? Could you be prosecuted for some hideous felony?
Skipping down...
[Judge James] Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own. And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: "The two computers (can) be hacked."
I don't know, what do you think? Do you think a crime was committed here? How long do you think these kids should go to prison for? Life -- or less?
posted by JimK at 6:27 PM
6 Comments:
As a final invitation to any Maryland high school youth who are reading this:
"It's All Good 2007", a conference for LGBT and allied youth, as well as supportive faculty members, on March 3 in Fairfax, Virginia. Focus is on GSAs, both current and planned. Applicants may register by sending Name, email, school, and age to itsallgood@glsennorthernvirginia.org
The conference begins with breakfast at 9:30 on March 3 at Little River United Church of Christ, 8410 Little River Turnpike, Annandale, Virginia.
More information at glsennorthernvirginia.org
Wish us all well.
Robert Rigby, Jr.
Florida is crazy- don't we know that already? If these kids had sold their photos- yes, it wouls be a crime. How did it come about- maybe one set of parents were upset and wanted to get the boy or girl in trouble and didn't realize it would backfire. Instead of talking to your kids about why you shouldn't take sex pictures of yourself and put them on the web(or not- so your SO can sell them later on when you become famous), call the cops. Of course, that's the answer.
Should they be charged as adults?
The pictures are illegal because J and A are minors. The prosecution has no case if J and A are adults: adults can photograph themselves and make all sorts of fools of themselves. The state has charged J and A as adults for an act which is not illegal for adults.
If they are going to be charged at all, shouldn't they be charged as minors?
Jim writes,
I hate to tell you, but this sort of thing happens every day.
Yes, yes, yes...but isn't the above sentiment an exercise in defining deviancy down? (to borrow a phrase from the late Sen. Patrick Moynahan)
Still, the application of this law in the present case should show legislators where the law can be adjusted to reflect the short-sighted, impulsive nature of our youth.
"I hate to tell you, but this sort of thing happens every day."
Yes, yes, yes...but isn't the above sentiment an exercise in defining deviancy down? (to borrow a phrase from the late Sen. Patrick Moynahan)
No, it's not. Do you consider news reports noting the frequency of suicide bombings in Iraq to be "defining *terrorism* down?" If something happens every day and someone reports that it happens every day, that's telling the truth.
Jim writes,
"I hate to tell you, but this sort of thing happens every day."
To which I respond,
Yes, yes, yes...but isn't the above sentiment an exercise in defining deviancy down? (to borrow a phrase from the late Sen. Patrick Moynahan)
To which Aunt Bea writes,
No, it's not. Do you consider news reports noting the frequency of suicide bombings in Iraq to be "defining *terrorism* down?" If something happens every day and someone reports that it happens every day, that's telling the truth.
Huh??? First off, one does not have a thing to do with the other. Second, I did not quote the late Sen. Moynahan "defining deviancy down" with reference to the news report of the two Florida teens in question; rather, I was refering to Jim's rather casual and dismissive attitude,
I hate to tell you, but this sort of thing happens every day.
which is clearly intended to convey the attitude that there is nothing to be concerned about here.
I beg to differ.
Post a Comment
<< Home