Teen boy to be charged as adult for having nude photos... of himself

[Martinus]

http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/teen-boy-will-be-charged-as-adult-for-ha?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New+Campaign&utm_term=Vox+Newsletter+All

What the fuck is wrong with America? 

[Richard Hakluyt]

It could be worse than photos Mart, he may of (gasp!) been touching himself in an inappropriate fashion 

[Syt]

It could be worse than photos Mart, he may of (gasp!) been touching himself in an inappropriate fashion 

That's silly, teens never do that. They always wait until they have reached the age their society has deemed acceptable for sexual activity, or until they're married if that is what their community prescribes.

[garbon]

It could be worse than photos Mart, he may of (gasp!) been touching himself in an inappropriate fashion 

That's silly, teens never do that. They always wait until they have reached the age their society has deemed acceptable for sexual activity, or until they're married if that is what their community prescribes.

That blog notes that the two teens are of legal age to have sex with one another, but not sext.

As far as Marti getting outraged by this new story? Who gives a fuck.

[Josquius]

Porn laws really need updating.
Which is surprising considering cameras have been cheap and plentiful for decades

[garbon]

Porn laws really need updating.

Which is surprising considering cameras have been cheap and plentiful for decades

Well presumably not in the way that the UK has updated them.

At any rate, in the US, changing laws in favor of making sexually explicit things legal is not exactly a get out the vote call.

[Syt]

IIRC, Austrian law says that sexual photos of someone aged 14-18 (between age of consent and adulthood) are legal if they were made for private, personal use and there was no intention to distribute publicly or for profit.

(Publication/dissemination to third parties of such material remains illegal.)

[DGuller]

At any rate, in the US, changing laws in favor of making sexually explicit things legal is not exactly a get out the vote call.

Which is why there should be an entity that rules idiotic laws that damage lives to be highly unreasonable.  Like a court above all other courts.

[garbon]

At any rate, in the US, changing laws in favor of making sexually explicit things legal is not exactly a get out the vote call.

Which is why there should be an entity that rules idiotic laws that damage lives to be highly unreasonable.  Like a court above all other courts.

Presumably one has to have time/financial resources to ride a court case up that high?

[DGuller]

Presumably one has to have time/financial resources to ride a court case up that high?

Hopefully someone along the way latches on to the case and provides the legal team.  The problem is more that the current bench doesn't seem interested in doing anything about such clearly unjust laws.

[Martinus]

garbon and Syt, I believe you are missing the point - the point here is not whether making and publishing nude photos of minors should be illegal - but the insanity of charging a minor as an adult for making and sending photos *of himself* - i.e. someone the law is meant to protect in the first place.

It's like charging a suicide survivor with attempted murder - the question whether murder should be illegal does not even enter the picture.

[Martinus]

Presumably one has to have time/financial resources to ride a court case up that high?

Hopefully someone along the way latches on to the case and provides the legal team.  The problem is more that the current bench doesn't seem interested in doing anything about such clearly unjust laws.

There is something called prosecutorial discretion. Even if the law is drafted in a faulty way so that if read literally it would allow to charge the purported victim with a crime, prosecutor should choose not to bring charges.

[garbon]

garbon and Syt, I believe you are missing the point - the point here is not whether making and publishing nude photos of minors should be illegal - but the insanity of charging a minor as an adult for making and sending photos *of himself* - i.e. someone the law is meant to protect in the first place.

It's like charging a suicide survivor with attempted murder - the question whether murder should be illegal does not even enter the picture.

I don't think I missed that point at all.

Also, your analogy doesn't make any sense. Yes there were laws against suicide but most have gone away. Here, you don't want the law to go away, you just want it amended to make sense when it is applied.

[DGuller]

Presumably one has to have time/financial resources to ride a court case up that high?

Hopefully someone along the way latches on to the case and provides the legal team.  The problem is more that the current bench doesn't seem interested in doing anything about such clearly unjust laws.

There is something called prosecutorial discretion. Even if the law is drafted in a faulty way so that if read literally it would allow to charge the purported victim with a crime, prosecutor should choose not to bring charges.

Yes to a point, but where there is discretion, there is also abuse of discretion.  A system that depends on constant exercise of discretion is not a robust system.

[garbon]

Presumably one has to have time/financial resources to ride a court case up that high?

Hopefully someone along the way latches on to the case and provides the legal team.  The problem is more that the current bench doesn't seem interested in doing anything about such clearly unjust laws.

There is something called prosecutorial discretion. Even if the law is drafted in a faulty way so that if read literally it would allow to charge the purported victim with a crime, prosecutor should choose not to bring charges.

Oh my god - so shocking that a lawyer, somewhere, might decide to move forwards with ridiculous charges!