CIVIL LIBERTIES  
comments_image -

Super Prude Prosecutors Charge Teenagers with Pornography and Worse For Sexy Text Messages

Sending a nude or semi-nude picture to a friend's cell phone is apparently a crime -- if you're a teen.
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email.

 
 
 
 

Taking nude pictures of yourself--nothing good can come of it.

   --Police Capt. George Seranko, Greensburg, Pennsylvania

The police captain might be right, in one sense. Particularly for the unskilled or ill equipped, getting the angle right, the focus and lighting just so, might be an effort--too much for the unsteady hand, the shy poser, the butterfingers. Much better to take nude pictures with someone else, to make a game of it, a performance of seeing and being seen, an

amuse-bouche

before the banquet, or maybe in place of it. Safe sex, unless you're a teenager, in which case someone might want to arrest you.

Captain Seranko made his observation after three girls and three boys at Greensburg Salem High School were charged with child pornography. The girls, ages 14 and 15, are charged with taking pictures of themselves, nude or seminude; the boys, 15, 16 and 17, with receiving them. The cellphone in which these dangerous images were lodged had been confiscated at school, not an outrageous exercise of authority if school officials had merely stashed the phone in a drawer, unmolested, until the student could collect it. But the officials had to snoop. One can picture their fevered actions, fumbling with the student's phone, opening one folder, then another, maddened as they press the wrong buttons and must begin again, without the nimbleness of youth--curses!--their otherwise desiccated imaginations now fertile with anticipated indecency; scouring through the teen's pictures and messages, expectant that their suspicions will be confirmed, certain that all they want is to protect the children... And yet, there they are, instant oglers, prying into places not meant for them, gazing at images not made for them, drenching the relationship between school authority and student in sex.

The recent attention to teen "sexting" has focused quite a lot on the presumed self-exploitation of kids, not so much on the prurient reflex of grown-ups who spy on and punish them. It has dwelt quite a lot on the traps of technology, not so much on the desires that precede picking up a camera. Quite a lot on the question of whether the teens are sex offenders or merely stupid, sluttish or mean, not so much on the freedom to see and be. Quite a lot on the legal meaning of images, not so much on the ways in which making them might delight, or on the cultural freakout that colors law, images and how they are perceived.

No one knows how many kids are poised for long sentences, life sentences (a possibility under federal law), plea deals that cast them in the pariah-land of sex offenders. Prosecutors have gone after teens in at least Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. School and police investigators in many states have searched students' phones, and now that the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy has estimated that one in five teenagers is taking and sending nude or seminude pictures of themselves, and four in ten are sending sexed-up text messages, kids generally are at risk of surveillance or worse.

Across the state from where Captain Seranko was discoursing on nude photographs, District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. was threatening sixteen girls and four boys with felony charges. Officials at Tunkhannock Area High School had confiscated phones, discovered about 100 photos and called the DA, who told reporters that the kids could face seven years in prison. In February, Skumanick convened parents to say that their kids were involved in a child porn investigation but could avoid being nailed by submitting to a ten-hour re-education program, paying $100 and agreeing to an "informal adjustment," in effect a guilty plea before judgment in the juvie system, which would put them on probation for at least six months and subject them to random drug tests. If the kids get in trouble while on probation, they could end up with a juvenile record of the sex offense. And once Pennsylvania amends its laws to make sex offender registration and notice requirements apply to juveniles over 14, as required by the federal Adam Walsh Act, they will apply retroactively--meaning kids with records will have their names and pictures displayed on the state's sex offender website for at least ten years.

submit to reddit

-
Email
Print
Share
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Civil Liberties headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: child porn, sex crimes, sexting
Alternet Special Coverage - Occupy Wall Street
Advertisement
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading most read content ..
Advertisement
Santorum Wins Missouri Primary and Minnesota Caucuses, But Meaning is Elusive

By Adele M. Stan

 
 
Cops Caught Anti-Pot Crusader With Her Own Stash -- Then Let Her Off The Hook

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Who is the Reaganest? A Quiz for GOP Hopefuls

By David Reeves and Anne Thompson | AlterNet

 
 
Colorado Court Says No Medical Pot for People on Probation

By Kristen Gwynne | AlterNet

 
 
Corporate Lessons From the Komen Affair: Hiring Right-Wing Ideologues Will Wreck Your Firm

By Sara Robinson | AlterNet

 
 
School Suspends 7th Grade Girl for Speaking her Native Language

By Amy Spicer | Imagine 2050

 
 
Good News: Court Rules Gay Marriage-Denying Proposition 8 (Proposition "H8") Unconstitutional

By Sarah Seltzer | AlterNet

 
 
Poll: Defying Bishops, Catholics Support Obama Birth Control Rules

By Adele M. Stan | AlterNet

 
 
Mitt-pocrisy of the Day: He Maintained Massachusetts Contraception Requirement That Mirrors Obama’s Rule

By Igor Volsky | Think Progress

 
 
Obama Campaign Plays Both Sides of Citizens United Debate, Rejects Then Welcomes Super PACs

By Steven Rosenfeld | AlterNet

 
 
 
 
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS
 
[ page served from web 1 ]