NJ girl, 14, arrested after posting nude pics

[Noop]

NJ girl, 14, arrested after posting nude pics

By BETH DeFALCO, Associated Press Writer Beth Defalco, Associated Press Writer – Fri Mar 27, 7:49 am ET

TRENTON, N.J. – A 14-year-old New Jersey girl has been accused of child pornography after posting nearly 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com — charges that could force her to register as a sex offender if convicted.

The case comes as prosecutors nationwide pursue child pornography cases resulting from kids sending nude photos to one another over cell phones and e-mail. Legal experts, though, could not recall another case of a child porn charge resulting from a teen's posting to a social networking site.

MySpace would not comment on the New Jersey investigation, but the company has a team that reviews its network for inappropriate images. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children tipped off a state task force, which alerted the Passaic County Sheriff's Office.

The office investigated and discovered the Clifton resident had posted the "very explicit" photos of herself, sheriff's spokesman Bill Maer said Thursday.

"We consider this case a wake-up call to parents," Maer said. The girl posted the photos because "she wanted her boyfriend to see them," he said.

Investigators are looking at individuals who "knowingly" committed a crime, he said, declining to comment further because the case is still being investigated.

The teen, whose name has not been released because of her age, was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography. She was released to her mother's custody.

If convicted of the distribution charge, she would be forced to register with the state as a sex offender under Megan's Law, said state Attorney General Anne Milgram. She also could face up to 17 years in jail, though such a stiff sentence is unlikely.

Some observers — including the New Jersey mother behind the creation of Megan's Law — are criticizing the trend of prosecuting teens who send racy text messages or post illicit photos of themselves.

Maureen Kanka — whose daughter, Megan, became the law's namesake after she was raped and killed at age 7 in 1994 by a twice-convicted sex offender — blasted authorities for charging the 14-year-old girl.

The teen needs help, not legal trouble, she said.

"This shouldn't fall under Megan's Law in any way, shape or form. She should have an intervention and counseling, because the only person she exploited was herself."

Called "sexting" when it's done by cell phone, teenagers' habit of sending sexually suggestive photos of themselves and others to one another is a nationwide problem that has confounded parents, school administrators and law enforcers.

Prosecutors in states including Pennsylvania, Connecticut, North Dakota, Ohio, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin have tried stop it by charging teens who send and receive the pictures.

In northeastern Pennsylvania, a prosecutor recently threatened to file child porn charges against three teenage girls who authorities say took racy cell-phone pictures that ended up on classmates' cell phones.

The MySpace case may be a first, though.

"I'm not sure I've seen a prosecution like this coming out of a social networking site," said Seth Kreimer, a constitutional law professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Milgram, the attorney general, could not recall another such case in New Jersey. She cautioned parents to get on those sites and monitor what their kids are talking about and posting.

"Unfortunately, youth don't have the same judgment as adults," she said, "and often, adults don't have the same technical savvy as the youth."

NJ girl, 14, arrested after posting nude pics

[cartman]

This is bullcrap about registering as a sex offender. Do they charge kids that get into a school yard fight with child abuse?

[Noop]

I think sometimes well intentioned laws have bad circumstances.

[DeToxRox]

I blame it on the parents. This girl should have a cell phone.

[Noop]

I dread having a daughter... I hope me and my wife are able to instill in her some self respect.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

This is bullcrap about registering as a sex offender. Do they charge kids that get into a school yard fight with child abuse?

+1

[Easy Mac]

Pix plz k thx?

[lordscarlet]

Originally Posted by cartman

This is bullcrap about registering as a sex offender. Do they charge kids that get into a school yard fight with child abuse?

It's not that surprising. There are areas where public urination is cause for registering as a sex offender.

[Poli]

I thought there would be a connection with our own Jersey Girl. I guess ours is just a little bit older.

Front Office Football Central

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by cartman

This is bullcrap about registering as a sex offender. Do they charge kids that get into a school yard fight with child abuse?

+1

Does this mean anyone who has sex before legal age of consent (what, 50% of the population?) is a sex offender???

As others have said, an anomaly in the law, but needs to be corrected.

[MizzouRah]

Having a daughter is total hell.

I have two and one is 13 and it scares me to death. Seriously.. I trust her and we are in her business, but they way some of her friends dress and act around some of the older neighborhood kids is quite frightening.

[sterlingice]

NPR had a story about "sexting" last week- I had never heard about it before then. You have everything from parents suing schools because of it to this extreme. I don't know what the answer is

SI

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

NPR had a story about "sexting" last week- I had never heard about it before then. You have everything from parents suing schools because of it to this extreme. I don't know what the answer is

SI

How about kids that don't need fucking cell phones not having them?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Chubby

How about kids that don't need fucking cell phones not having them?

I'm in favor of this plan. All I had in my room growing up was a radio and I'm not all that old. Anything else, I had to go into the rest of the house to use- phone, tv, computer, etc- so I couldn't just camp out. I think my sister got a phone in her room once she was about 15. Nowadays, it seems all kids have cell phones starting at about 7.

SI

[Pumpy Tudors]

GET OFF MY LAWN

[Izulde]

This war on teen sexuality is even more stupid and ineffective than the war on drugs and that's saying something.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

GET OFF MY LAWN

I don't have a lawn so I can't say that. Thanks for rubbing it in

SI

[Maple Leafs]

I have a two-year-old daughter.

I just keep telling myself that things have gone as bad as they're going to get in the last 10 years, and will reverse themselves back to normal by the time she's a teenager.

I'm right, aren't I? Please tell me I'm right.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I have a two-year-old daughter.

I just keep telling myself that things have gone as bad as they're going to get in the last 10 years, and will reverse themselves back to normal by the time she's a teenager.

I'm right, aren't I? Please tell me I'm right.

Shoulda thought about that before Brian Burke started Twittering.

[RainMaker]

I don't have kids, but is it the norm to allow kids unsupervised access to the net from their homes? Is it common that all kids have cell phones?

I don't think I'd be overprotective, but I do think I'd have some limits for my kids. No webcam in the bedroom and being able to access your kids media doesn't seem like it's stepping too far.

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I have a two-year-old daughter.

I just keep telling myself that things have gone as bad as they're going to get in the last 10 years, and will reverse themselves back to normal by the time she's a teenager.

I'm right, aren't I? Please tell me I'm right.

That's what I'm banking on with my two daughters...or else I hear Greenland is nice this time of year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't have kids, but is it the norm to allow kids unsupervised access to the net from their homes? Is it common that all kids have cell phones?

The cell phone thing is hitting at least as early as the fifth grade now. "Mom, pick me up early from {fill in event here}", "Mom I forgot to tell you but I need to stay after school for {fill in event here}", etc. But by late middle school/early high school, the phones seem to be the #1 can't live without accessory. I'd guess it's probably 90%-95% of teens with one at this point and their use is virtually non-stop.


Unsupervised net access is all over the board best I can tell, from wide open to none at all but ranging toward more supervised than not at least in the middle school to early high school age group.

[RendeR]

Until our kids are old enough to show they have a clue how to present themselves in any public forum the "kids use" computer will be in the living room with the screen facing the entire room. No cell phones until they need them for extra-curriculars in school and even then they will have limited minutes and every single thing that goes through them will be reviewable.

[Raiders Army]

We got our daughter a cell phone this week (she's in 5th grade) for her birthday. We can't stop her from being a...girl, but we can trust that we've set her up with the right morals not to get into too much trouble. That and we monitor their internet usage as much as possible.

Look at it this way: when they're grown up, they'll have even MORE problems with their kids than we do.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The cell phone thing is hitting at least as early as the fifth grade now. "Mom, pick me up early from {fill in event here}", "Mom I forgot to tell you but I need to stay after school for {fill in event here}", etc. But by late middle school/early high school, the phones seem to be the #1 can't live without accessory. I'd guess it's probably 90%-95% of teens with one at this point and their use is virtually non-stop.


Unsupervised net access is all over the board best I can tell, from wide open to none at all but ranging toward more supervised than not at least in the middle school to early high school age group.

I think they still have these things call pay phones.

As for texting and cameras, can't parents disable them?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think they still have these things call pay phones.

Seriously, try to find one these days. It's hard to find a pay phone now.

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

How about kids that don't need fucking cell phones not having them?

My daughter is 14 - she has a cell phone and I think its good she has.

It simpliies things when she's out with her friends as she can easily call and ask to be picked up, if anything comes up we can contact her easily etc.

Denying a child something like that doesn't fix the situation - if anything it makes it worse because they then see the item as something they 'desire' for the future, I see a mobile like I do alcohol to some extent - its the parents job to help them use it responsibly.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Seriously, try to find one these days. It's hard to find a pay phone now.

SI

How true. I miss phone booths. What the hell is Superman supposed to do now?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I think they still have these things call pay phones.

As other have mentioned, I can't remember the last time I actually saw a working pay phone.

As for texting and cameras, can't parents disable them?

Riiiiiight. Soon as they get the VCR to stop blinking I'm sure they'll get right on that

In all seriousness, I'm the go-to guy for tech support for more friends than I can count. And as I've said before, that frightens me because I know how very very little I actually know, so imagine how far off the curve they are.
My wife is an otherwise very intelligent woman but get to electronics and it's hopeless, so I wouldn't hold my breath on parents being able to master locking up functions on phones. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how to get the clock on my security system to acknowledge daylight savings time.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My wife is an otherwise very intelligent woman but get to electronics and it's hopeless, so I wouldn't hold my breath on parents being able to master locking up functions on phones. Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how to get the clock on my security system to acknowledge daylight savings time.

You'd think there'd be a market out there for cell phones that were easy to set up with security preferences before you'd give them to kids. Something specifically aimed at parents of early teens who have these kind of concerns, but not the technical know-how to do it with regular phones.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

You'd think there'd be a market out there for cell phones that were easy to set up with security preferences before you'd give them to kids. Something specifically aimed at parents of early teens who have these kind of concerns, but not the technical know-how to do it with regular phones.

They aim them at the elderly, but would appear to also fit your scenario:

http://www.jitterbug.com/

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

+1

Does this mean anyone who has sex before legal age of consent (what, 50% of the population?) is a sex offender???

As others have said, an anomaly in the law, but needs to be corrected.

Actually, that's the case. If there is enough of an age difference a teen could be charged with statutory rape for having sex with a younger teen. And they are registered as sex offenders. This is one of my gripes about all these "registered sex offender" laws and people wanting public registries. A lot of what goes into the system is not at all what people expect it is. Nobody will nkow in ten years what this girl is registered for, they'll just not want their kids near her.

[Chubby]

I think our solution will be a phone with GPS so I can call bullshit when they say they are at the mall and really at Billy's house. I'll also break the camera if we have a girl in the future

[flere-imsaho]

This all makes sneaking Playboys and Penthouses into the locker room seem pretty lightweight by comparison.

When my little guy gets old enough to use the internet, he's going to find out quickly that Daddy has enabled logging at the router.

[Butter]

Doesn't Disney or someone make a cell-phone that is GPS enabled so you can actually see where your kids are at via the 'net?

[IrishHand]

To be fair...there's been a lot of "omg wtf" that is completely off-base about the possibility of jail time or being a registered sex offender. There is ZERO chance that either of those things takes place. The DA knows this, the girl knows this...the only people who don't, apparently, are the newsmedia and, by inference, most Americans.

When some legal expert says "these charges could come with a max sentence of 17 years in jail and registration as a sex offender", that's technically correct. However, that's only going to happen for some adult predator who commited those acts with aggravating factors and a history of criminal/deviant behavior. This girl will get handled in juvenile court and is the lowest-level offender possible for the charges that were brought.

If anything, she'll get some sort of probation. The point of this whole venture from a DA/prosecution standpoint is to send a message to kids: don't make your personal porn available on the internet. The public interest, imo, is clearly being served by this - underage kids, especially females, are the group most apt to being exploited sexually. We want to make this less likely, and this is a means to that end. I'm not saying it's a great solution or idea, but I certainly understand where it's coming from at the prosecutorial level. (Disclaimer: I used to work at the DA's Office in Orange County, CA and am familiar with the struggles that my former colleagues are having with this emerging issue.)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by IrishHand

To be fair...there's been a lot of "omg wtf" that is completely off-base about the possibility of jail time or being a registered sex offender. There is ZERO chance that either of those things takes place. The DA knows this, the girl knows this...the only people who don't, apparently, are the newsmedia and, by inference, most Americans.

When some legal expert says "these charges could come with a max sentence of 17 years in jail and registration as a sex offender", that's technically correct. However, that's only going to happen for some adult predator who commited those acts with aggravating factors and a history of criminal/deviant behavior. This girl will get handled in juvenile court and is the lowest-level offender possible for the charges that were brought.

If anything, she'll get some sort of probation. The point of this whole venture from a DA/prosecution standpoint is to send a message to kids: don't make your personal porn available on the internet. The public interest, imo, is clearly being served by this - underage kids, especially females, are the group most apt to being exploited sexually. We want to make this less likely, and this is a means to that end. I'm not saying it's a great solution or idea, but I certainly understand where it's coming from at the prosecutorial level. (Disclaimer: I used to work at the DA's Office in Orange County, CA and am familiar with the struggles that my former colleagues are having with this emerging issue.)

sssh - reason and logic are not allowed in this thread. only hyperbole and overreaction!

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I think our solution will be a phone with GPS so I can call bullshit when they say they are at the mall and really at Billy's house. I'll also break the camera if we have a girl in the future

Someone in lurker's old office had a phone with a GPS for her son, and he doesn't know about it. She said she'd caught him lying with it a couple times, but she was waiting until he had made a really serious lie before letting him know that she had it. I think I'd rather have the kid know I can verify where he is so he doesn't lie in the first place. I wonder how long she ended up waiting.

[finketr]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Doesn't Disney or someone make a cell-phone that is GPS enabled so you can actually see where your kids are at via the 'net?

Sprint offers this service on some of their phones/plans.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by IrishHand

To be fair...there's been a lot of "omg wtf" that is completely off-base about the possibility of jail time or being a registered sex offender. There is ZERO chance that either of those things takes place. The DA knows this, the girl knows this...the only people who don't, apparently, are the newsmedia and, by inference, most Americans.

When some legal expert says "these charges could come with a max sentence of 17 years in jail and registration as a sex offender", that's technically correct. However, that's only going to happen for some adult predator who commited those acts with aggravating factors and a history of criminal/deviant behavior. This girl will get handled in juvenile court and is the lowest-level offender possible for the charges that were brought.

If anything, she'll get some sort of probation. The point of this whole venture from a DA/prosecution standpoint is to send a message to kids: don't make your personal porn available on the internet. The public interest, imo, is clearly being served by this - underage kids, especially females, are the group most apt to being exploited sexually. We want to make this less likely, and this is a means to that end. I'm not saying it's a great solution or idea, but I certainly understand where it's coming from at the prosecutorial level. (Disclaimer: I used to work at the DA's Office in Orange County, CA and am familiar with the struggles that my former colleagues are having with this emerging issue.)

Never say never:
Wilson v. State of Georgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by IrishHand

If anything, she'll get some sort of probation. The point of this whole venture from a DA/prosecution standpoint is to send a message to kids: don't make your personal porn available on the internet. The public interest, imo, is clearly being served by this - underage kids, especially females, are the group most apt to being exploited sexually. We want to make this less likely, and this is a means to that end. I'm not saying it's a great solution or idea, but I certainly understand where it's coming from at the prosecutorial level. (Disclaimer: I used to work at the DA's Office in Orange County, CA and am familiar with the struggles that my former colleagues are having with this emerging issue.)

The thing that worries me is that the recent national sprint to mandatory minimum sentences and to restricting or eliminating judicial discretion often affects a case like this. I agree with you -- if permitted, a judge would probably recognize that a modest punishment is likely sufficient in this case. But if the law says that anyone convicted of posting explicit pictures of underage models has to register as a sex offender, the judge cannot simply ignore it. And I doubt any legislator was thinking ahead to a situation like this when s/he was writing this bill.

Cartman's link is particularly appropos. Eventually the legislature and the courts agreed that the law as applied to this case was silly. But that won't give this kid 2 years of his life back; nor did he get the felony conviction expunged from his record.

[flere-imsaho]

Gotta love how, in Georgia, up until 1998 if your wife gave you a blowjob you could get 20 years in prison.

[IrishHand]

cartman - there are many practical and legal differences between those two cases (the 14-year old girl and Genarlow Wilson), many of them human/environmental (which is a big deal in jury/criminal trials):
-17-year old black guy allegedly rapes 17-year old girl, then gets blow job from 15-year old girl during amateur porn video taken at party in Georgia, then gets prosecuted based on poorly-written law (had he had vaginal and not oral sex with the 15-year old, he gets minimal punishment), and convicted by a jury who obeyed arguably improper jury instructions
-14-year old (presumably white) girl posts explicit pictures of herself online in New Jersey, won't be tried as an adult and would never get a jury conviction unless she's a complete freak.

[IrishHand]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

The thing that worries me is that the recent national sprint to mandatory minimum sentences and to restricting or eliminating judicial discretion often affects a case like this.

Which makes you the first person in the past few days who's expressed a legitimate concern in this case.

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Cartman's link is particularly appropos. Eventually the legislature and the courts agreed that the law as applied to this case was silly. But that won't give this kid 2 years of his life back; nor did he get the felony conviction expunged from his record.

The Wilson case is a wierd one, which is why it got such media coverage. The media coverage there was focused on the injustice of the resolution of the case. The media coverage on the present case is just because of the sensational nature of it. If the 14-year old girl got any sort of conviction, there would be many times the public furor that there was in the Wilson case, mostly for the environmental reasons I noted above.