January 10, 2010
Some local (and international) coverage of sexting issues
This morning I noticed via the news feed a number of notable stories on "sexting" and the ways in which criminal laws try to deal with this issues:
- From Kentucky here: "Bill targets youth who send 'sexts': Richards’ proposal would lessen penalty for sending sexually explicit messages"
- From Pennsylvania here: "York County DA backs sexting reform: With two proposals in Harrisburg, legislators are hopeful the law could be changed this year"
- From Canada here, "'Sexting' nude photos a concern among teens: Is it criminal behaviour or just today’s version of spin the bottle?"
The story from Kentucky nicely summarizes the diversity of legal and policy responses to this new "sexting" phenomenon:
Legislation regarding sexting was introduced in at least 11 states in 2009, with six passing the bills, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The bills were a mix of increased penalties, decreased penalties and the creation of educational programs about the dangers of sexting....
The juvenile court system in Warren County has had an increasingly difficult time in deciding how to deal with sexting cases. “(They) are struggling how to handle it because it’s such a sensitive issue,” Warren County Attorney Amy Milliken said.
January 10, 2010 at 12:48 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some local (and international) coverage of sexting issues:
How would one deal with a law prohibiting witchcraft? Ignore it. And if a prosecutor wanted to get in the newspaper by prosecuting a witch, the judge should sanction the thug by assessing all costs to the personal assets of the prosecutor. In fairness, the judge is a public servant. He should be forced to answer the question of the prosecutor ahead of time, to avoid unfortunate mistake in discretion, "If I bring this witchcraft case, will you sanction me?" "I sure will, Son, because I do not like to have my court pranked by whippersnappers."
Desuetude violates Fifth Amendment Due Process and Equal Treatment. So, if a law has not been enforced for 5 years, it should be void. This would automatically clear the books of the undergrowth of legal weeds, cooky laws passed to pacify the drunken rage of the moment by geniuses in the legislature.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 10, 2010 2:01:29 PM