« The death penalty debate in the (bellwether?) capital state of Ohio | Main | "Mandatory Life and the Death of Equitable Discretion" »

March 27, 2011

NY Times sees sexting news fit to print

Today's New York Times has a huge front-page story on teenage sexting, along with companion article looking at both the legal and social realities surrounding this modern technology issue.  Here are links to the pieces:

The middle article about state laws starts this way:

In the last two years, legislators have been weighing graduated responses to sexting between minors.  Some legal scholars refer to the images as “self-produced child pornography.”

Some states have amended their statutes on child pornography, obscenity or Internet crimes.  Many allow juvenile offenders to be charged with a misdemeanor or a lesser offense, so they can qualify for diversion programs and have their records expunged.  A few states have tried to define a sexting offense.

The laws have had a mixed response.  While many experts, educators and parents applaud the lessening of sanctions for what is often seen as thoughtless adolescent risk-taking, others deplore the establishment of a new crime that could not only intrude on First Amendment rights but could also sweep more children into the court system.

March 27, 2011 at 03:36 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e20147e3805ae9970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NY Times sees sexting news fit to print:

Comments

I can burn down my house. As long as I do no harm to others, such as by claiming insurance, it is legal, by my consent.

I can take axe and sledge hammer to my possessions. Not a crime.

I can chop a finger off my hand, even for no reason or justification. Not a crime.

I can homicide myself. Not a crime.

How can taking a pic of myself as a girl covered by a towel be "self-produced child pornography," making me a producer of child porn?

Simple. The lawyer is a rent seeking, lawyer gotcha lawyer dumbass, and a running dog for the vile feminist lawyer. What should be a matter of parental discipline, and counseling by family and church about loose morals, is now a federal crime, lands the girl on a sex offender registry so no one will ever rent her an apartment for the rest of her life, nor give her a license, nor hire her for a job involving children, even when aged 50.

Isn't it high time to just beat the ass of this vile rent seeking lawyer dumbass? To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 27, 2011 4:48:58 PM

That prosecutor.

He allows 90% of FBI Index felonies to go unanswered. He allows vicious predators to plea bargain to non-violent crimes. His agents, the police, conduct roundups, interrogations, and mass arrests of kids, costing the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars. When he has the criminal? It is likely that 20% of the time, he has the wrong guy. He believes in supernatural doctrines. He uses Medieval methods putting the criminal law in total failure.

Defendants should demand total e-discovery on all his personal and work computers. Any questionable content should be referred to the FBI for investigation. The same should be done to the judges that allow this incompetent to continue to fail to protect the public.

His employer should be wracked with injunctions, and Section 1983 claims. Break the budget with ruinous litigation, as the lawyer tries to do with all productive entities.

He and the judge should be shunned by family, church, and all service and product providers. To deter. The biased lawyers on the Supreme Court have granted him absolute immunity from tort liability. Immunity grows the entire enterprise, so expect these bogus cases to grow in number and variety, and the prosecution business to grow. In order to sustain itself, more conduct will have to be criminalized.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 27, 2011 8:26:28 PM

SC:

The same goes for internet "solicitation" crimes. Before anyone disses this idea, look at who the majority of these criminals are. Mostly young adult males who have never had any criminal behavior before and are not the threat that politicians and the media make them out to be.

Why are we so stupid? I am really beginning to believe in the vile feminist lawyer and her male running dogs, aka politicians. We need an enemy, any enemy, to round up the usual suspects, and make us feel (not be) morally superior.

That is also why we are bankrupt (a lack of fundamental, not legal intelligence). I see where legal intelligence is an oxymoron.

All colleges (including law school) will be the next to suffer the "bubble" as there is no ROI.

Posted by: albeed | Mar 27, 2011 9:38:58 PM

In those crimes, there is no actus reus. There is intent to have sex with an underage person. Most are nasty looking, fat, fifty year old detectives, who entrapped, seduced, and encouraged the mens rea by their online coyness and expressions of returned desire to meet. Not only does the lawyer believe in mind reading, in this case, the mens rea is the sole actus reus. I want to rob a bank. I enter a building. It turns out to be an abandoned warehouse. Frustrated, I go home. Should I be arrested for the inchoate crime of attempted bank robbery? Mens rea without actus reus. The police detective encouraging the meeting should be named an accomplice in the the generation of the illegal mens rea. If the mens rea is the actus reus, the detectives online utterances caused the mens rea, and he is the originator of the crime.

As to law school, the rule of law is an essential utility product. Shut it off, and you are in Fallujah, spending full time on personal security, doing nothing else. Its supply and price should be regulated like electricity or water, in the interest of the public and not that of the lawyer hierarchy. We could close half the law schools. The lawyer's income would increase. There would be less frivolous lawyering. Everyone would be ahead except the hierarchy. We have 1.3 million lawyers for 300 million people. Japan has 100 million people. It has 20,000 lawyers. Crime is nearly non-existent. Agreements are nearly always enforced. There is far more order there. The higher the lawyer ratio, the higher the crime and chaos. In South America, they have even more lawyers than we do, and their societies are unlivable hell holes of criminality and corruption. So, we need about half the number of lawyers that we currently have. Crime would drop proportionally, by half. We should close the top half of the law schools because they hate America the most. Defund them. Seize their assets. Redistribute them to the low lifes they champion, protect and immunize.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 27, 2011 11:09:20 PM

There is intent to have sex with an underage person. Most are nasty looking, fat, fifty year old detectives, who entrapped, seduced, and encouraged the mens rea by their online coyness and expressions of returned desire to meet. Not only does the lawyer believe in mind reading, in this case, the mens rea is the sole actus reus. I want to rob a bank. I enter a building. It turns out to be an abandoned warehouse. Frustrated, I go home. Should I be arrested for the inchoate crime of attempted bank robbery? Mens rea without actus reus. The police detective encouraging the meeting should be named an accomplice in the the generation of the illegal mens rea. If the mens rea is the actus reus, the detectives online utterances caused the mens rea, and he is the originator of the crime.

Posted by: replica cartier | Mar 28, 2011 12:25:01 AM

To understand this big deal, you have to combine this development in the law with the postings here on child porn restitution rulings. The viewing by strangers without awareness by the victim does not require a proximate cause of harm analysis. It is a strict liability matter.

Every person who has sexting on their phone is a republisher. Every owner of the phone (a parent with assets) is guilty of negligent entrustment. The liability is per se (no proof needed) after any conviction or acceptance of a plea bargain. The field could be a bigger lawyer rent mine than asbestos litigation. Sexting is everywhere, with limitless exposure of the assets of all middle class families with adolescents.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 29, 2011 7:42:02 AM

I predict sexting imagery will be prominent at eulogies in 100 years, and of great value and comfort to the family.

"This is how great grandma looked at 16, hot." I predict it is those images that will populate the solar powered video displays on the tombstones of people in 100 years.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 29, 2011 8:43:35 AM

LOL SC i think in less than 100 years society will be looking back at american from 1960-2040 or so and think the whole bunch was NUTS or psychotic!

Posted by: rodsmith | Mar 30, 2011 2:08:36 PM

So it is alright for teenagers to take and post pic through sexting but that pic ends up the internet and is veiwed by an older person they can get in trouble for cp but the producers get nothing wtf.

Posted by: frank | Apr 3, 2011 7:52:46 PM

Thank you for sharing,it is very helpful and I really like it!

Posted by: Big pony | Apr 11, 2011 6:14:33 AM

I like what you have said,it is really helpful to me,thanks!

Posted by: Big pony | Apr 11, 2011 7:49:58 AM

I enoyed reading your blogs. I am a father of a 12 year old that I am always talking to about those that prey on children. I don't want her to fear everybody, just trying let her know that she can come to daddy a talk to him about everything. Our kids are the future leader of the world. If we all make sure that parents and children aware of these peoples we can help with trying to bring this to a halt. Parents should always talk to their children and listen to them. Stay alert to children behavior or changes in their personalities it can tell you alot. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Jeff Sallette | Jul 25, 2011 10:18:24 AM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB