Girls sue DA in sexting ‘porn’ case
p2pnet news view P2P | Mobiles:- “Not quite the stuff of X-rated movies, but it was enough to prompt the Wyoming County district attorney last month to threaten to file charges of child pornography against the three girls involved unless they agreed to probation and a 10-hour ‘re-education program’,” says the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.
The quote comes in a report which kicks off »»»
The first image shows two teenage girls lying side by side in their bras. One of them is talking on a phone, while the other makes a peace sign.
In another picture, a third girl is seen just as she emerged from a shower, wrapped by a towel but with her breasts exposed.
And local district attorney George Skumanick Jr thought this sufficient to launch a sexting (sending nude or sexual photos by cell-phone text-messaging) case.
Some 20% of teens admit to participating in sexting, says a nationwide survey by the National Campaign to Support Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy.
Now the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania is representing the three girls and their parents, claiming Skumanick violated the girls’ First Amendment rights.
“The lawsuit says the photos do not constitute child pornography under Pennsylvania’s criminal code since they depict no sexual activity and do not display the pubic area of the girls’ bodies,” says Wired.
Says the New York Times »»»
Mr. Skumanick said he considered the photo “provocative” enough to tell Marissa and the friend, Grace Kelly, that if they did not attend a 10-hour class dealing with pornography and sexual violence, he was considering filing a charge of sexual abuse of a minor against both girls. If convicted, they could serve time in prison and would probably have to register as sex offenders.
It was the same deal that 17 other students — 13 girls and 4 boys — accepted by the end of February. All of them either been caught with a cellphone containing pictures of nude or seminude students, or were identified in one or more such photos.
But three students, Marissa, Grace and a third girl who appeared in another photo, along with their mothers, felt the deal was unfair and illegal.
But, “Skumanick’s threatened prosecution chills Plaintiff’s First Amendment right of expression, causing them concern about whether they may photograph their daughters, or whether the girls may allow themselves to be photographed, wearing a two-piece bathing suit,” the ACLU wrote, says Wired, adding:
“The lawsuit also claims the demand that the parents agree to place their girls in an education program violates the parents’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to direct the upbringing of their own children. When lawyers for the parents asked for a copy of the photos that would be used to charge their children, Skumanick reportedly refused on grounds that he would be committing a crime by sharing child porn.
“Skumanick still insists the images are child porn under the state law, which makes it a felony to possess or distribute images depicting a minor engaged in a sex act or the “lewd” depiction of genitalia or nudity that is meant to arouse or titillate.”
Pittsburgh Post Gazette – March 26, 2009
Wired - ACLU Sues Prosecutor Over ‘Sexting’ Child Porn Charges, March 25, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
March 26th, 2009 at 11:52 am
“Girls sue DA in sexting ‘porn’ case”
Whaddya talkin’ about?!
I’m not being sued by anybody!
: )
March 26th, 2009 at 11:57 am
“Skumanick still insists the images are child porn under the state law, which makes it a felony to possess or distribute images depicting a minor…”
But, the old pervert feels its okay for himself to POSSESS said “child porn” images and tell the girls’ own parents how “disgusting” these pictures are!
This guy needs to be removed from office immediately and placed in a psychiatric facility.
March 26th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Hypocrite to say the least, apparently.
It seems to me that the photos will need to be shown in court. No evidence, no case. If he can’t show the photos, the assumption should be that he doesn’t have them until proven otherwise (by showing them).
In any event… it’s the girls themselves. Why would showing the girls a picture of *themselves* be illegal?
March 26th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
All right for more government interference in people’s lives. Whats next, charging a failed suicide attempt with “Attempted Homicide?”
March 26th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
And, what business did the school have with examining the contents of the students’ phones?!!
That’s certainly another point of contention with me.
The way they did it was a violation of basic constitutional law.
March 26th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
I’ll bet this guy has a shitload of similar “porn” in his possession he wouldn’t want to talk about.
March 26th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
i think the whole US has gone bonkers.
everyone is being sued by someone
March 26th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
As a parent of a six grade girl, this whole paranoia surrounding child porn is getting WAY out of hand.
As in the case of the group of old ladies that went around painting “clothes” on works of art, and wrapping a cloth around the bodies of statues or even spray painting “clothes” onto statues- because they showed breasts and pubic ares, the present society has fallen back into an unhealthy view of sexuality- i.e. the natural body can only be viewed as an arousing and offensive part of the body.
Threatening legal action on kids who took pictures of them selves or friends in skimpy clothing, or close to no clothing at all, with child pornography, is outright stupid, and to say that pictures of minors in their underwear is child pornography, only shows how sick a mind that the DA is the most perverted one of them all.
Just my two cents
March 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am
What a Schmuck lol
Chasing kids Murderers No more fun to prosecute?
March 27th, 2009 at 11:03 am
So, when did we vote in a reg that says they can look at our kids cell phones??
I think that a charge of invasion of privacy needs to be tacked on here somewhere!!
And yes, that DA needs to be pulled, have a psyc eval done, and assigned to a rubber room somewhere!!
March 27th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“Skumanick still insists the images are child porn under the state law, which makes it a felony to possess or distribute images”
This piece of crap of Skumanick must get it’s stuff straight: since he possess the the images of what he call pronography he must be a felon!
I have a message for this scumbag of Skumanick:
LEAVE OR KID ALONE!
We deal with this. THIS IS OUR JOB! NOT YOUR!
Go and hide before something hapen to you you moron!
March 27th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Let raid the Skumanick house!
He must be a pederast collecting child pornography himself to think of such thing!
In my experience when somebody accuse you of something you would not have think off, mean that he is doing it himself!
Let go an arest this sexual pervert to protect our kids!
March 28th, 2009 at 3:01 am
Im a Aussie and I have been offerd a free house ( 3 bed room ) .. a good job .. nice car, nice freands and a new life in the US ..
And my reponce …. FUCK OFF !! FUCKING YANKS ARE ALL FUCKED IN THE HEAD MATE !!!
March 28th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Quote:FUCKING YANKS ARE ALL FUCKED IN THE HEAD MATE !!!
Oh please you can’t judge all us “yanks” by the actions of one narrow-minded jerk off, how would you feel if we did that to you?
March 30th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Betcha Skumanick is doing this for Jesus!