Minors Exploiting Themselves
Radley Balko | February 12, 2007, 12:32pm
What possesses prosecutors
to bring these kinds of cases?On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified "sexual behavior." The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else. Court records don't say exactly what happened next--perhaps the parents wanted to end the relationship and raised the alarm--but somehow Florida police learned about the photos.
Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.
He is 17. She is 16. They were actually convicted. Worse, the sentence was upheld on appeal.
Judge James Wolf, a former prosecutor, wrote the majority opinion. Wolf speculated that Amber and Jeremy could have ended up selling the photos to child pornographers ("one motive for revealing the photos is profit") or showing the images to their friends. He claimed that Amber had neither the "foresight or maturity" to make a reasonable estimation of the risks on her own. And he said that transferring the images from a digital camera to a PC created innumerable problems: "The two computers (can) be hacked."
So they've been convicted of exploiting themselves. And though the article doesn't explicitly say, I would guess that the two will have to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
There's more. From the majority opinion:
Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives. These children are not mature enough to make rational decisions concerning all the possible negative implications of producing these videos.
Emphasis mine. And what effect, I wonder, does Judge Wolf think a child pornography conviction will have on "these minors' careers or personal lives?"
Also note that the acts themselves weren't illegal. Only photographing them.
Thomas Kimball | February 12, 2007, 1:10pm | #
"Crusading Republicans Against Pleasure." - that is the best thing I have read all day, thanks P Brooks. :)
I am 18 and not in college yet and I live with two republicans, I get so pissed at the H & R blog posts (not the writers of this fine blog, but the crazy stories) I bring it up to my parents and they have the complete opposite opinion.
My parents would say they should be arrested for sexual behavior.
I HATE THIS FUCKING WORLD. I want everyone to realize humans fuck, its natural and beautiful, and when I say that, I DON'T WANT ANYONE SAYING "YES, WITH MARRIAGE AND NO PROTECTION OR ABORTION."
I must be cynic, I find myself yelling like Lewis Black. Sometimes things like this give me rage. No, I have never hurt someone and never will. But this stuff makes me cry almost, these kids lives are over for doing something so amazing! so natural!
If Christians are for the natural body and against "liberal progressiveness" then they should be the ones wanting sex, wanting contraception to stop accidental mothers putting their kids in our foster care system and other reasons.
I know what Christians do, my parents are catholic and I used to be just like them. Until one day I took a psychoactive drug, smoked weed and fucked an amazing girl (when I was 17..and she was 17..going to arrest me?).
This post is long, probably evil to Christians and stupid to some libertarians.
I'm a libertarian and I'm sick of this shit, and thats not to say its only in the USA, it also happens in France and Germany and Britain.
I WANT TO MOVE TO MARS!
Captain Holly | February 12, 2007, 3:13pm | #
A minor dependent disobeying his parents has to be the most trivial violation of property rights I have yet heard a libertarian discuss. Besides, when I was of that age, I'd have been terrified to do that sort of thing in the house. My youthful transgressions were typically done on some neutral ground like a school trip or some gathering spot out in the woods. I don't see a libertarian position on that sort of thing (except possibly the trespassing in the woods - I assume no one had sought permission to be there).
Depends on what he did with the "pschoactive drugs". If he just used them himself at the end of a dark road or in a city park, then no, his rebellious attitude isn't really a big deal. Every teenager thinks he knows everything, including me when I was that age.
However, what if he had sold some of his "psychoactive drugs" in order to buy an X-Box? And the parents of his young paramour found some weed in her dresser, and called the cops? As Radley has shown on his web page, it's not very far-fetched to imagine his parent's door getting kicked in by the cops late some night in order to "take down" a "major dealer" who "sells drugs to other kids".
At that point, his rebelliousness could have severe and possibly significant consequences for his parents: Imagine what would happen if his Dad heard the commotion, thought it was an intruder, and confronted the cops with his Mossberg shotgun?
While there was some youthful vitriol aimed at his parents, the fact is that he's still posting about the state punishing these kids for what should be a crime against their parents' values, not any actionable state interest. The main thrust of his post was his opposition to his parents (and others like them) who believe that these kids were criminally liable, not just deserving of a couple months of grounding or permanent revocation of car privileges or something.
I dunno, I think most rebellious, annoying kids grow up to be statist liberals (see
Boomers, Baby). The attitude of "Mom and Dad are so unfair" can just as easily morph into "I should be allowed to do whatever I want" rather than "Big Government can oppress you".
But in any case, I've made my point and I won't belabor it any further. If I've judged the young Mr. Kimball unfairly, I apologize.
If not, then he needs to get a job and move out of Mommy and Daddy's house. Freedom is as much being independent as it is being free from restrictions. :)
Thrall | February 12, 2007, 6:29pm | #
Holy shit, people. Everyone just decided to pick on my post didn't they.
I had no idea a libertarian belief was that I cannot have my own religious view in my parents house. Where do you people get that from?
My post was made when I was angry and my thoughts didn't make it clearly in that post.
You can think I am a rebellious teen all you want but most people my age or younger that did rebel didn't become a libertarian. They either became a die hard liberal or a communist.
I am not rebelling against anyone, in fact almost half of my political views are shared by my parents. They also want Public Schools to go, welfare to go and taxes lowered lots. They also agree that a government shouldn't be in anyones house or pants. They disagree on the drug issue but know I use drugs (will explain later in my post), and many other issues they agree on. However they are Pro-Life, against Stem Cell research and are against homosexuals so much that my dad calls them degenerate child molesters.
In case you haven't noticed by this post, I am not a normal teenager, and by that I mean I am not one of the myspace kids who says "omg wtf bbq..lol so cool that pic..i love teh dashboard confessional"
About the drug use..
I had no idea that I was infringing on my parents property by living here..? If I did do drugs in my house what exactly is the problem? Should I go out and drive around stoned?
First off, I've never gotten high in my parents house. Secondly, I don't drink alcohol and I don't smoke pot unless I'm at a party which happens only once every month or two.
I have never done any drugs in my parents house, I wash dishes daily, I have a job that I go to after school everyday and my parents only real problem with me is that I am an atheist and a libertarian.
"Libertarianism does not equal "Doing whatever I damn well please in my parents' house and on my parents' dime whether they like it or not".
Now if Mr. Kimball had said that he had moved out on his own because he didn't agree with his parents' ideas, that would be libertarianism, and quite admirable at that, too.
But from my experience, "libertarians" like him will still accept money from Sexually-Repressed Catholics like Mom and Dad even when he's off at college. And if not from them, then he'll probably accept it from all of us in the form of a government grant or subsidized loan.
Doesn't mean he won't become a libertarian someday, it just means he needs to pay his own bills for a while to understand terms like "taxation" and "regulation".
In my view, the essence of libertarianism is not "If it feels good, do it" but rather "There's no such thing as a free lunch"."
wow. That's the most fucked up thing I have ever heard. I didn't know I had to pay taxes to be a libertarian.
I can live in my parents house and have my own opinions, asshole. Just because I live in a house with my parents does not mean I lose any rights as an American, and one who is an adult.
I respect my parents believes, oh also, I go to church on Sunday because my parents want me to.
And yes, I am going to take scholarships, no one can go to college without help, and that includes my parents.
And no, I've never sold drugs.
crimethink | February 12, 2007, 6:40pm | #
From Judge Pavadano's dissent:
If a minor cannot be criminally prosecuted for having sex with another minor, as the court held in B.B., it follows that a minor cannot be criminally prosecuted for taking a picture of herself having sex with another minor. Although I do not condone the child's conduct in this case, I cannot deny that it is private conduct. Because there is no evidence that the child intended to show the photographs to third parties, they are as private as the act they depict...
The majority concludes that the child in this case did not have a reasonable expectation that the photographs would remain private. To support this conclusion, the majority speculates about the many ways in which the photographs might have been revealed to others. The e-mail transmission might have been intercepted. The relationship might have ended badly. The boyfriend might have wanted to show the photo to someone else to brag about his sexual conquest. With all due respect, I think these arguments are beside the point. Certainly there are circumstances in which the photos might have been revealed unintentionally to third parties, but that would always be the case.
That the Internet is easily hacked, as the majority says, is not material. The issue is whether the child intended to keep the photos private, not whether it would be possible for someone to obtain the photos against her will and thereby to invade her privacy. The majority states that the child "placed the photos on a computer and then, using the Internet, transferred them to another computer," as if to suggest that she left them out carelessly for anyone to find. That is not what happened. She sent the photos to her boyfriend at his personal e-mail address, intending to share them only with him.
The method the child used to transmit the photos to her boyfriend carries some danger of disclosure, but so do others. If the child had taken a printed photograph and placed it in her purse, it might have been disclosed to third parties if her purse had been lost or stolen. If she had mailed it to her boyfriend in an envelope, it might have been revealed if the envelope had been delivered to the wrong address and mistakenly opened. As these examples illustrate, there is always a possibility that something a person intends to keep private will eventually be disclosed to others. But we cannot gauge the reasonableness of a person's expectation of privacy merely by speculating about the many ways in which it might be violated.
The critical point in this case is that the child intended to keep the photographs private. She did not attempt to exploit anyone or to embarrass anyone. I think her expectation of privacy in the photographs was reasonable. Certainly, an argument could be made that she was foolish to expect that, but the expectation of a 16-year-old cannot be measured by the collective wisdom of appellate judges who have no emotional connection to the event. Perhaps if the child had as much time to reflect on these events, she would have eventually concluded, as the majority did, that there were ways in which these photos might have been unintentionally disclosed. That does not make her expectation of privacy unreasonable.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
