Florida Appeals Court Rules Against Girl Based On Fantasized Future Events
| Fri Feb. 23, 2007 2:07 PM PST
In 2004, two Florida adolescents--16-year-old Amber and 17-year-old Jeremy--took digital photos of themselves nude and engaged in some sort of sexual contact. They then sent the photos from a computer at Amber's house to Jeremy's email address. Somehow, the Tallahassee police got possession of the photos, and both Amber and Jeremy were arrested and charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Jeremy was also charged with possession of child pornography.
Amber appealed the charge, believing she had the law on her side. In 1995, a Florida court ruled that two 16-year-olds could not be found delinquent for having sex with each other. Since Amber was engaged in legal sex, she and her attorney reasoned that the police had violated her guaranteed right to privacy.
Remember this (edited) exchange between Alice and the White Queen in Through the Looking Glass?
"Suppose he never commits the crime?"
"That would be all the better, wouldn't it?"
"Of course it would be all the better, but it wouldn't be all the better his being punished."
"You're wrong there, at any rate. Were you ever punished?"
"Only for faults."
"And you were all the better for it, I know!"
"Yes, but then I had done the things I was punished for. That makes all the difference."
"But if you hadn't done them, that would have been better still; better, and better, and better!"
This month, a Florida Appeals Court voted 2-1 to uphold the charge against Amber. Writing for the majority, Judge James R. Wolf, speculated that both Amber and Jeremy could have eventually sold the photos to child pornographers or shown them to friends. He also said that transferring the digital images from a camera to a computer and then sending them via email created "innumerable problems" because the computers could be hacked.
Judge Wolf's reasoning must make every Florida parent with photos of their naked children a bit uncomfortable. After all, they might show the photos to friends, and those friends might even sell them to child pornographers. Or one might slip out a of parent's pocket or purse and be picked up by a stranger, who could then sell it to a child pornographer. And who knows how many parents with photos of their naked toddlers might become child pornographers?
Amber and Jeremy are too young to be listed on a sex offender registry, thank goodness, but there is no doubt that their privacy was violated, and there is no telling what kind of psychological effect this circus has had on them.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
In California, females and males are both protected below the age of 18. This is equality under the law. If anybody has sex with a minor(whether the other party is also a minor or a 60 year old man or same sex), the party can be charged. Daddys know this law and threaten to call the cops on the daughter's boyfriend and he disappears fast. Also, in California, a Superior Court judge was found to have inappropriate pictures of minors on his computer and he is in prison now. As you can see, the State of California is very concerned about your personal life, for your own protection, of course. You are never too young or too old for Big Brother to list you or incarcerate you. We believe in Big Government in California. What are you doing in your bedroom tonight?
I can't figure out what about our culture is crowding out childhood, but its frustrating. The penal system wants to treat teens as grown ups, deciding that a seventeen year old having consentual sex with another seventeen year old is a rapist, when fifty years ago the umbrage would have been that they were expressing themselves sexually at all, seemingly too mature a behavior. It seems that teens can't win for losing.
More to the point, how the heck did the law even get involved here? More signs that they are watching people's every move?
Over the years, politicians have told us that their sweeping new laws wouldn't be used in the stupid ways they could be. Now we know that stupid laws will be enforced, and in particularly stupid ways.
We should be worried about the kiddie porn. Much of what the law now classes as child porn--remember, it may use a definition much wider than merely sexual acts--could once have easily appeared in your local newspaper. Who would dare now to print a photo of a successful swimming team?
If the "sex acts" were legal, how is it illegal to take pictures of them for one's own viewing or to voluntarily share with another person of legal age? The court's "reasoning" seems to skip that issue. If legal, the court cannot make it illegal by hypothesizing that an unproven theft of the material might make it so.
My state might consider it legal for me to slap my own child on the bum. But I could not legally do it to another child, nor could I use a baseball bat or my fists on my own child. If the court hypothesizes that I might, I'm in big trouble for something I neither did nor contemplated doing. Where is the "intent" that's required for there to be criminal liability? Nowhere.
The bull-in-the-china-shop problem is how did the police obtain the pictures. Did a participant have second thoughts and tell someone? Or, did Mr. Bush's domestic wire taps - which do not tap individuals but entire streams of data - pick them out of the ethernet and route them back to local authorities in a state that Mr. Bush considers a family fiefdom? Inquiring minds want to know.
Or, are domestic wiretaps for which no warrant is issued - and how can you obtain a warrant to tap what flows across an entire network? - considered intelligence "sic" sources and methods and, thus, not subject to review under Mr. Bush's version of what constitutes a state secret? Again, inquiring minds want to know.
Submitted by D (not verified) on Sat Feb. 24, 2007 5:01 PM PST.
My best guess, and I think it is a good one, is that Amber's parents called the police on Jeremy for "corrupting" their daughter. The heart of this entire incide is most likely based on the still-prevailing belief that a "nice" girl couldn't possibly have CHOSEN to have sex.
Submitted by Diane (not verified) on Sat Feb. 24, 2007 5:03 PM PST.
That is I, making the above comment--the letters got chopped off of my name.
Diane, that sounds so plausible. And then they find they've got their daughter a child porn record.
Poor kid.
I don't think my teenage years would have had quite so many embarrassing records if computers had been around then, but the smart kids are going to have even more reason to seem paranoid. With this sort of stuff, and the fuss over "identity theft", we seem to be teaching them to routinely tell lies about themselves, for their own safety.
"The parents calling the police on Jeremy". When it comes to the underage, it is usually the parents that call the police. Often times it is the mother who threatens to call the police on the guy, if the daughter does not date somebody more suitable. It is a wonderful law for parents keeping control over their teenagers. Isn't that what life is all about? Who has the control.
I am a conservative, christian, republican, this ruling scares the bejevers out of me. Do I have to go find the picture my mother took of me, naked in the kitchen sink, when I was five years old? I'm 51 years old now, if I show that picture to anyone, could I be in trouble down the road, when they get even tougher on this kind of thing? Can anyone promise they won't? This is why pro-choice and pro-life people fight so hard over even the littlest change in the abortion laws, we know on both sides just how far the law can be stretched, by the other guys.
Submitted by kukuman (not verified) on Mon Feb. 26, 2007 7:19 PM PST.
Wow, How come the Us don't just have on standard law! after all you guys have ons standard income tax?
We don't have standard income tax. Each state has a different income tax, and some states have none.
You are probably thinking of federal income tax. It's true that people in all states pay that, but it's not the only tax they pay.
There is also sales tax, which rate differs by state. Some states have none, and they all have different rules about what products it applies to.
It's called "fedaralism"!
kukuman, that's why we're "the United States," the word "state" means country normally and that was the intention here to encourage democracy - each state would act on its own except where federalizing was in the states' common interest. Arguably things have become too federalized in some cases, partly because many Americans are as confused as you as to the intention of States' Rights and their purpose.
In any case, states are an effective democratic tool. For example, many unpopular, good laws get started in just one state, and then their success moves across the US. It's not all golden, but it is an important part of the US's democracy.
The EU now operates in a very similar but less federalized way, by the way.
If they push to be charged as adults, does that mean they can get their charges dismissed?
What if Jeremy had raped Amber while she took naked pictures of the attack? Could she be charged with child pornography then? Could he be charged as an adult in his rape case when her child pornography case depends upon him being regarded a child?
Any way you look at it, our laws applying adult statutes to children are hypocritical. If a 16 year old can be charged as an adult, then all laws regarding 16 year olds should regard them as adults.
Submitted by smart (not verified) on Tue Feb. 27, 2007 3:08 PM PST.
Very interesting! Thanks for posting.
this is sick, here's an idea, prosecute every judge and prosecutor who has been trying to incarcerate these kids for child endangerment, child abuse, and practically every thing else that comes to mind (I realize it's a legal improbability, but I can always dream). This "prosecution of the law as its written" despite there not being any truly definable victims stuff is getting really dangerous. It seems every week we here a story about someone, who noone thinks should even remotely be prosecuted, having the threat of jail time waved over their head.
The rapid pace at which technology is developing today appears to be faster than the ability of some humans to adapt to it. The Florida legal weenies who are castigating these kids can't seem to get their heads around a logical and rational response to the digital age.
Submitted by Alex (not verified) on Tue Feb. 27, 2007 4:36 PM PST.
These were their our private photos. This is so much wrong.
Submitted by Alex (not verified) on Tue Feb. 27, 2007 4:38 PM PST.
And in fact those who intercepted the communication should be charged for privacy invasion
This is pathetic... I remember when I was 16 years old and I was dating a 17 year old girl. She wanted to have sex, we've been dating for a year... In my perspective, both kids in this story are being treated unfairly, what's so bad about a 16 and a 17 year old having sex? Your parents have done it, your grandparents have done it, why can't you. Who cares if they had naked pictures of themselves on their computers, if somebody hacked the computer, that's a law broken right there, if they took the pictures, that's another law right there...
They need to hire a P.I. to "somehow obtain" personal photos from the judge or the judge's family of family members being bathed as a baby or some other such "compromising" photos that COULD be used as child pornography. Then, have the judge or the judge's family members arrested on the same charges using the same argument.
See how fast the ruling changes then.
I sure hope this gets appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. This is absolutely crazy.
Judge is right.
Personally I'd agree with his speculation, however his speculation is bias. One cannot rule one way (in this case, based on evidence toward eventual act of criminal violation accordance to the state law of Floria) and speculate that these photographs of two teenagers' sexual encounter "might" be used in "various" inappropriate mannors without compelling evidence of risky behavior.
Since I have no clue what the hell I'm talking about in this case, I'm also speculating that only "risky" behavior I can think of by reading this article is the fact that how the local police got hands on these teenagers' photo. How? I do not know. However that's the only remotely compelling reason enough for the judge to rule this way. Without that "risky" behavior, this case shouldn't even have gotten to Floria's appeals court's front door.
C'mon people. Use your common sense. Two teenagers taking pictures of themselves having sexual encounter isn't exactly what I call "playing doctor." However none of them are surmisable as evidence of risky behavior due to the privacy law. Your new born child's naked picture isn't enough to violate Florida's law. I think, it's all about the circumstantial evidence which being police "SOMEHOW" got hands on the photos. I'm guessing, one of the teenagers' parents wasn't happy with what they were doing.
Either way, her privacy does not exist outside her own computer or in her parents' house using internet access paid by her parents. To expect privcy with all that, is truely foolish.
Well, I believe the judge and lawyers and police officers who had viewed the photo in the process of determining the outcome of this trial should be prosecuted for potentially using that seen image to go home and whack off or use it while engaged with their partners. After all they do have the potential to do make a copy and spread it around as well. So don't stop there, prosecute them using their same logic. I am not saying what the kids did was right or wrong, but they were both teenagers doing what teenagers do. If he was 23 and she was 16, then that is a different story.
This,I believe, is a very good example of the total lack of "common sense" in our society. We have been told, almost daily that all forms of communication are being monitored. While a photo kept in house may be slightly protected under privacy laws, once put over the airways, it's available to all hackers, even if the hacker is a police officer in one of our unlimited number of agencies. It's time to keep our private lives private. Maybe it is time to start instilling a little "common decency" in our society. These are EVIL times and you need to keep your butt covered, you never know!
RESPONSE TO ANON's COMMENT: "If he was 23 and she was 16, then that is a different story." :ACTUALLY, FLORIDA LAW NOW STATES THAT A 16 YEAR OLD GIRL CAN LEGALLY CONSENT TO SEX WITH A MAN UNDER 24, WHICH MEANS IF HE WAS 23 AND SHE WAS 16, IT WOULD NOT BE A DIFFERENT STORY... IT WOULD BE LEGAL, CONSENSUAL SEX ACCORDING TO FLORIDA'S STINKING SEX LAWS!!!!! WHAT THE FUCK IS FLORIDA DOING IN OUR BEDROOMS ANYWAY??? HEY, HERE'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR YA... HOW OLD DO YOU THINK THE JUDGE WAS WHEN HE MARRIED HIS LITTLE TEENAGE WIFE MANY YEARS AGO IN THEIR ARRANGED MORMON TEMPLE WEDDING??? UMMM, I DARE SAY THE JUDGE WAS IN HIS 20's or 30's WHEN HE MARRIED HIS LITTLE 13 OR 14 YEAR OLD WIFE, 'CAUSE BACK THEN THAT WAS THE THING TO DO. HELL, EVEN ELVIS SUNG SONGS ABOUT IT MAKING IT COOL TO GO FOR THE LITTLE GIRL, WITH LYRICS LIKE... "LITTLE SISTER, DON'T DO ME LIKE YOUR BIG SISTER DONE" ...NOW THERE'S A LIGHT FOR YOUR MINDS!!!
FURTHERMORE, WHOEVER WAS SNOOPING IN ON THOSE KIDS HAVING SEX AND WHOEVER SEARCHED OUT THEIR NUDE PICTURES SHOULD BE ARRESTED AND CHARGED ACCORDINGLY, EVEN IF IT WAS THE PARENTS. I MEAN, THESE KIDS LIVES ARE FOREVER RUINED BY THIS STUPID FUCKIN SHIT, THANKS TO SOME FUCKIN PEEPING TOM PREDATOR WHO GOT JEALOUS CAUSE THEY WEREN'T THE ONE GETTIN THAT TIGHT TEEN PUSSY SO INSTEAD THEY SNITCHED THEM OUT AND RUINED THEIR INNOCENT LIVES!!!
ADDITIONALLY, I BELIEVE THAT SCHOOL STUDENTS WHO ARE CLASSMATES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE SEX WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING CHARGED WITH A CRIME. FOR EXAMPLE, MOST HIGH SCHOOLS IN FLORIDA ARE 9-12 GRADES, WHICH MEANS THE STUDENTS MAY RANGE IN AGE FROM 13 TO 20. IF THESE "KIDS" ARE 'HIGH SCHOOL CLASSMATES' THEN THEY ARE GOING TO NATURALLY INTERACT AND DO WHAT KIDS DO - HAVE SEX, AND LOTS OF IT!!! THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE LEGAL FOR A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL TO HAVE SEX WITH A 20 YEAR OLD GUY, SINCE THEY ARE BOTH KIDS, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE CLASSMATES, WHICH IS NORMAL IN FLORIDA!!! HELL, IN SOME STATES, THE AGE WINDOW IS 10 YEARS, WHICH MEANS A 13 YEAR OLD GIRL CAN HAVE CONSENSUAL SEX WITH A MAN AS OLD AS 23... THIS MEANS A 23 YEAR OLD MAN CAN GO DOWN TO THE LOCAL MIDDLE OR HIGH SCHOOL AND HAVE SEX WITH A GIRL AS YOUNG AS 13. HOW ABOUT THAT??? HELL, in FROSTPROOF, FL., THE HIGH SCHOOL IS 5th GRADE TO 12th GRADE ALL IN ONE BUILDING!!! THIS MEANS KIDS AS YOUNG AS 9 YEARS OLD ARE CLASSMATES WITH KIDS AS OLD AS 20 YEARS OLD... WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THAT??? SHOULD THEY BE SEPARATED??? IT'S OBVIOUS THEY ALL HAVE SEX - IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN TO FROSTPROOF, FL., YOU KNOW EXACLTY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ...GIRLS AS YOUNG AS 10 YEARS OLD HAVING BABIES!!!!!! NOW THAT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in my opinion i respect the people of Florida that want to protect under aged kids but sometimes they have to understand that some under aged kids that are maybe 16 years old want to have sex with an older person its totally normal i mean if you feel attracted to them then why shouldn't they be able to have sex! And not only that is not only about sex but about a serious relationship maybe a younger person and an older person truly care about each other but they can't be together because of the "law" !! i think people should take that into consideration!
Submitted by cris (not verified) on Sat May. 19, 2007 6:49 PM PDT.
im nine and i thinku have to be 18 to have SEX
I actually have a question. I am 16 and i am getting emancipated from my parents... or i'm trying to. i wanted to know if i could live with a 26 year old man. he is a good friend of mine and he said that i could live with him. is this okay because i don't want him to get in trouble. he just wants to help.
One of the foundations of liberalism is to dispense with artifical constraints on human expression. Why shouldn't children have sex as early as they feel like it? What better way to separate them from their parents and their thinking? Then once they get into college, they can be molded into adult liberals more easily.
This more like a question to who can point me it the right direction. It was brought to my attention a week or so ago that a Parent (father) was watching Porn with his son (adopted). The mother was raving mad when she found out. She called CPS and they said that there was nothing that could be done since it was a parent watching Porn with the child, which the child is only 13 years old. We live in Michigan. Can someone point us in the right direction or give us some insite on this situation. There has to be something we can do for this family. PLEASE.
