I have just read a really intriguing news story that makes absolutely no sense to me. You can read it here at the Associated Press http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gebS2MKqUm9cqEj6s0Rv9g... and it should be many other places as well. She is facing two child pornography related charges for posting nearly 30 explicit pictures of HERSELF, and only herself, on MySpace. If she is convicted of the child pornography charges, she will be forced to register as a sex offender under Megan's Law and faces up to 17 years in prison. This is taking place in New Jersey.
I think this whole case is unfair and the prosecutors involved need to think about what they are doing here. Apparently they fail to see the irony, among other things.If somebody was 18 years of age or older I don't think they can be prosecuted for posting nude pictures of themselves online (but who knows, I didn't think this could happen either). The girl in this case has first amendment rights that make such a prosecution blatantly unconstitutional. There's nothing in the Bill of Rights that limits free speech to those 18 years of age or older. This case is a sad example of the double standards that are placed on minors. She is considered old enough to be prosecuted for felony charges, forced to be labeled as a sex offender the rest of her life, and serve nearly two decades in prison for something that would hardly be considered a crime if she were 18 years old. Yet she is not considered old enough to have constitutional rights, and its this very misguided notion that is resulting in the felony child pornography charges for which she is considered old enough to be prosecuted for. Does anybody see the irony? Just think about it for a few minutes because I don't think I did the best job at exposing the many ironical aspects of this prosecution. This is surely an interesting type of a Catch-22.
I'd like to hear what everybody thinks about this. How did the prosecutors even concoct the plan to charge her with felony possession and distribution of child pornography for pictures only of herself? Is it fair that she faces almost two decades in prison and the burden of being a "sex offender" her whole life because she is not considered to have first amendment rights? If convicted, shouldn't her record be cleared when she is old enough (age 18) to have constitutional thus making her "crime" nonexistent? Shouldn't her right to free speech as guaranteed in the constitution protect her from such malicious prosecution? What good will it do anybody if she is a registered sex offender her whole life when clearly this is not the case?
I think the girl should get counseling to learn the many valid reasons why posting naked pictures of yourself on MySpace is not a good thing. She is only fourteen and is biologically unable to weigh the consequences of a certain action the way we would expect someone 25+ to do. This is disgraceful that our society would use a good law (Megan's Law) for such a misguided purpose. I fully support Megan's Law because it protects innocent kids from being victims of horrific sexual crimes by ensuring the monsters that commit these heinous crimes against kids are unable to do it again. But this case puts Megan's Law at risk for harsh criticism and bad credibility. As stated in the article, even Megan's mom criticizes this prosecution. As far as I'm concerned the prosecutors in this case are just like sex offenders themselves in some ways (I'm obviously not accusing them of being sexual predators) and the girl is the victim. How ironic.
I do understand your dismay at these charges, but there are some things to consider that you've not mentioned.
First, as the article states:
I see what you're saying but I think any charges are inappropriate in this case. The truth is that the Bill of Rights doesn't have an age restriction on who can enjoy the individual rights guaranteed therein. Obviously, there is a host of other practical and moral reasons why she should not be charged with anything but we need look no further than the constitution. This is no more appropriate or constitutional than arresting and charging the girl for posting unpopular political opinions on the internet. Child pornography in general is not necessarily protected free speech because their are victims who are exploited to make the porn. Who is the victim here? There were no other children involved. What if some teenager somewhere has a picture of themselves when they were very young wherein they were naked (as toddlers may be in family photos) are they subject to arrest and accusations of possessing child pornography? First amendment rights do not have age restrictions and there is no reason they should.
I agree whole-heartedly; First Amendment Rights don't (and shouldn't) have an age limit. But, we also have to remember that Freedom of Speech doesn't necessarily include all speech, either.
For example, if you were to go into a movie theater and scream "Fire" and cause a panic. The panic erupts as people try to run, someone gets trampled. They find out you were the trigger and press charges. You couldn't hide behind freedom of speech - no matter how old you are. As another example, you can't walk up to a stranger or coworker and say something along the lines of "I'm going to screw your brains out" and then be shocked to get a sexual harrassment charge pressed. Freedom of Speech won't protect you there either.
There are laws that state the limits of Freedom of Speech - and most of those limits are reasonable and needed. Age is not one of them.
Don't misunderstand me; I agree these charges are bogus. I'm only stating that I understand where they pulled them from - they didn't pull them from thin air.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"when you have nothing else to say, "Fwonk" is always the perfect thing."
"yeah well, fwonk"
--Devon
Fanaile Essence
And obscene speech isn't protected under the first amendment unless it has literary, scientific, political, or artistic merit.
Even though this case is a little ridiculous. I suppose it could be argued that the courts are doing this to protect this girl, and other teenagers. After all, it is far from safe to post naked pictures of yourself online if you're only 14. But it seems to me that the courts have better things to worry about and maybe this should be dealt with by the site administraters or a safety organization for social networking sites.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
Reasonable people can debate whether or not the first amendment should be considered a protection of all speech. Although I am a pretty strict constitutionalist, I take a more liberal stance on the free speech rights mandated by the first amendment and I definitely believe it covers all types of speech. Obviously, speech that directly and legitimately causes bodily harm to other people is not protected by the first amendment but we should be careful as to what we allow to be considered legitimately harmful. A member of the KKK professing his or her hatred of Black Americans has the absolute right to do so. As long as there are no threats to others on the sign a member of the KKK is holding in Washington D.C. or anywhere else, they are fully protected by the first amendment.
The courts do not bring charges or prosecute in these types of cases but I'll assume you meant government prosecutors. If sending a troubled fourteen year old girl to jail for taking and sending photos of herself and forcing her to be registered as a sex offender the rest of her life is protecting her, I than our society is screwed up big time. No offense, but that's a terrible theory as to the motives of her prosecutors. My idea of helping the girl would be therapy and a good lesson on why its unsafe to put naked pictures of yourself on MySpace.
One of her felony charges is possession of child pornography. If this girl is convicted or the judge doesn't immediately toss these charges a dangerous precedent is set that will make young teenagers vulnerable to vicious sex offenders as well as vicious prosecutors. If the government can charge somebody who is under age 18, and only under age 18, with felony possession of child pornography for having photos of themselves in their own house than we have a big problem.
First of all, I do not agree with the charges, I was just trying to suggest what they might have been thinking when the charges were brought. And if I'm right, then they might have already decided not to find her guilty or it is more to serve as a warning to other teens.
As for obscene speech, what I said is not my own interpretation of the constitution. Since I won't be a judge in this case, my interpretation doesn't really matter. What I stated were pure facts according to my legal professor and West's business law tenth edition. I have the authors' names if you need them. And by the way, none of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are all-encompasing. That's why you can't carry a gun in airports.
As for the reasonable people, it is a common standard used by judges and others who interpret laws and the constitution that is hypothetical. There is no convention of reasonable people who debate whether something provocts an obsessive interest in sex.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
I am afraid that the precedent you fear has already been made. I'm sorry for the poor source, but my knowledge comes from a community I'd rather not venture back to in search of information. It seems that the US and UK take these things too far. The youngest person on the US Sex Offender Registry is (or was) 6 years old. Just six! And they are forced to register for life, for things that they both do not fully comprehend, and have not even been educated about. People seem to be unable to understand the damage caused by placing someone on the Sex Offenders Registry, especially children who are innocently experimenting with themselves or others as is natural. There was a case last year, I believe, of a teacher filing molestation charges on a 5 year old child after he placed his face on her clothed breast when he was hugging her after she picked him up. The worst thing is, law enforcement actually takes these cases seriously. The most that these people need is a little rehabilitation, not an end to their lives.
I think you see what I am saying about this case. I have never heard of such a thing before and was completely surprised when I read the news about this. I don't even know how the prosecutors came up with the idea to bring these charges against this girl. Anyway, I see you're new so Welcome to Progressive U and I hope you enjoy blogging here. It will be interesting to read some of your posts because you live in the U.K. I think your perspective will be a real asset here because most bloggers here live in the U.S.
I don't really know what to think about the whole thing, maybe her parents should mointor her more or they should have. I dont think the girl at the age of 14 should get jail time but maybe her parents
that whole situation really burns me up. image a young teen that's sexually active sending nude fotos of themself via the net or over their phone "sexting"... they may think its wrong, but they dont think its criminal, and the thought that this offense could render up to 17 years behind bars, and sexual predator status, is appalling, if the pigs (the whole judicial system) can do this to a child, then a child should know that these consequences exist, before they are charged, ie if this is the law then schools or some government program MUST educate children on the consequences first, its only just. are the pigs claiming "ignorance of the law is no excuse" ? BS!!! UNJUST!!
i do think it is a gross error to put pornography online esp when you are a minor, and in a position where other minors can see it, that's is wrong, but also she put herself on the net and child predators can see it, therefore they might get all worked up over her image and go out and abuse another child... of course not to put it all on her, if someone wants to abuse a child i'm sure they dont need child porn as a catalyst for it, just their possessed mind.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/mai
Peace & Blessings