Federal Judge Blocks Charges In Pa. 'Sexting' Case

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(03-30) 15:39 PDT Scranton, Pa. (AP) --

A federal judge has blocked a prosecutor from filing child pornography charges against three northeastern Pennsylvania teenagers over racy cell phone pictures.

U.S. District Judge James Munley issued a temporary restraining order Monday against Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. The prosecutor has said he would pursue felony charges against the girls unless they agree to participate in a five-week after-school program.

But the teens say they didn't consent to having their pictures distributed to classmates' phones. They also claim the photos aren't pornographic but protected First Amendment speech.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/03/30/national/a153940D31.DTL

[scytherius]

1. Excellent

Children need to be protected without a doubt, but these laws are draconian and absurd. Slapping these kids as sex offenders is utterly absurd.

[Blackhatjack]

2. They won't be happy until the girls agree to wear ankle length plain jumpers a la Big Love....

They're about as much sex offenders as Bush is a genius!

I'd be plenty mad if pics were taken of me and distributed without my consent, and then a federal prosecutor comes along and says "hey either agree to enter an after school diversion program or be charged as a sex offender."

This is not even a close call .... it's insane. Do we need federal prosecutors in our bedrooms? I don't think so.

[The abyss]

4. Excellent commentary!

[WestSeattle2]

3. Good grief....

Felony charges?! Is this prosecutor mentally stable? Seriously. This sounds like an incredible lapse in prosecutorial judgment. Call the parents and let them deal with it for crying out loud. I mean honestly, if my kid did that, or I should say if I found out my kid was doing that, the cell phone would be taken away for six months. End of story. High price to pay if you're 14, just make sure the cost of getting caught is well known to the kids.

We used Polaroid "one-shot" instant cameras back in the day...the kind that developed in front of your eyes. It was fun, "daring", and admittedly adolescent behavior. In other words, part of growing up. Jeezus, get a grip, no pun intended.

The only thing that changes is the technology, and apparently the judgment of those who should know better, and I'm not talking about the kids.

At least there is a federal judge with common sense.

[Posteritatis]

6. That's not even the silliest case anyway

About two years ago some kid got successfully charged with abuse of his (I think it was a he, don't remember clearly) future self over photos like that. That's the point that convinced me the litigation over this stuff was getting just a bit out of hand.

[rug]

5. Surprise, surprise, the DA is running for reelection.

http://newage-examiner.com/sections/news/archive/2009/02/03/tunkhannock-attorney-enters-da-race.aspx

[mackerel]

7. Why is it so absurd?

[snake in the grass]

8. Nice to know that someone there is sane.

This should have never been an issue in the first place.

[bobburgster]

9. Doesn't make sense until....

you hear the DA is running for reelection.

[buckrogers1965]

10. The only thing more insane

Would be to charge them as adults for taking underaged pictures of themselves.