The law is an ass. (Especially when the ass is on camera.)

When most people hear the words “kiddie porn,” they’re thinking of innocent children being exploited and damaged for life by villainous adults. That’s the legal theory behind laws against child pornography: protecting the victims against exploitation.

What is happening more and more is that these same laws are being used as a tool to punish stupid or irresponsible teenagers who have exploited and harmed no one, but merely photographed or filmed themselves having sex.

Four Chicago-area teenagers faces felony child-pornography charges after uploading a video of themselves having sex to Twitter. The three boys and one girl, ages 14-16, are being held in juvenile custody until a court hearing later this month.

Both the sex and the posting of the video were consensual—this is not a rape or “revenge porn” scenario. But under Illinois law (as in many other states), minors who post sexually-oriented images of themselves online or even share them privately with one another can be charged as child pornographers.

It’s an absurd situation (and one Reason writers have railed against before). Maybe things like tweeting your orgy video or texting nude photos to classmates aren’t the wisest decisions a teen can make, but these are matters that parents or perhaps school administrators should address, not the criminal justice system. Who benefits from branding these teens sex predators for life because they dared to explore their sexuality?

According to the Chief of Police, they are being targeted for prosecution in order to “send a message”:

“The child pornography offense that was charged is in place for a reason, because we don’t want to accept that type of behavior as a society,” [Joliet Police Chief Brian] Benton said. “It’s making a strong statement, and I think it’s important to do so, to send a message to others that kids shouldn’t be involved in this type of behavior, and hopefully this will serve as a deterrent.”

Being registered as a sex offender for life is a deterrent, all right. A deterrent against ever having a normal life. These kids committed a crime against no one, and harmed no one except arguably themselves. They are not in the class of predatory criminals these laws were intended to punish, and it is a mockery of justice to pretend that the laws were passed to ruin the lives of kids for behaving in less than a mature manner. (Of course, if they had done the same as adults, they would face no legal consequences at all.)

What also fascinates me about this whole issue is when the increasing ubiquity of cameras are factored in. Whether they are cell phone cameras, web cameras, nanny cameras, surveillance cameras, or baby sitting cameras, they are cheap, easy to install, and it is a social norm for your average middle class family to have several cameras in their home.

So I have a hypothetical question which might be fun for a law school exam. Suppose a couple regularly employs a local teenager to babysit their kids while they’re out on the town. Suppose further than one of their kids tells them that the babysitter likes to have her boyfriend over, and that when he comes over the kids have seen them play what the little kids call “funny games.” Wanting to know exactly what is going on before confronting the babysitter and/or her parents, Dad installs a hidden surveillance camera and sets it up to ascertain whether the babysitter and her boyfriend are having sex. The parents come home, review the “evidence,” and BINGO! The two of them are caught in flagrante delicto, with the boyfriend on film giving it to her right on the couch. Bear in mind that the boyfriend and girlfriend are 15 years old, well below the age of consent, and well below the kiddie porn threshold.

Did Dad make kiddie porn? He set up the camera intending to catch them having sex, and it worked. And even if he didn’t intentionally make kiddie porn, doesn’t he now possess it?

It would not surprise me if the parents could be sent to prison for a long, long time.   


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

6 responses to “The law is an ass. (Especially when the ass is on camera.)”

  1. captain*arizona Avatar
    captain*arizona

    These are your conservatives in action. You expect a rattlesnake not to bite?

  2. Ewiggins Avatar
    Ewiggins

    I consider myself on the right fringe of conservatism. Moral ethic, fiscal conservative, right wing Judeo-Christian fringe. Kiddie porn is one of those topics I REALLY struggle with when it comes to Law. Like just about every parent out there I have pictures of my infant children playing in the bath. Pics of them outside in the suits jumping through the sprinkler, playing at the beach. This is not porn! However, this does NOT mean I want some perv hanging at the park taking shots of my toddler playing in the fountain then taking his phone home to the privacy of his bathroom hand lotion and tissues.

    I absolutely despise the direction our legal system has taking in trying to determine the intent of the mass murder or rapist. How did the killer FEEL about the 4 people he ate. Did the person “Hate” the black women or did he “Just” rape and murder her.

    This is the dilema. Porn is in the eye of the beholder. Sexuality and sexualization resides in the mind. What is one persons perverted is another’s art.

    No teen should spend the rest of their lives answering for their stupid mistakes. I made plenty, and the idea that I would still be paying to society NOW for something I did 40 years ago ROTS.

    I have no good answer for how a legal system run by men will ever have an ability to address this issue in a just fasion.

  3. Man Mountain Molehill Avatar
    Man Mountain Molehill

    Possible sf plot:

    Children are biologically sexless until age 18. At a coming-of-age type ceremony they pick a gender and have the appropriate genitals and secondary characteristics installed. No possibility of sex, discrimination or much of anything else before then.

  4. Man Mountain Molehill Avatar
    Man Mountain Molehill

    I had the distinct impression that criminal law was based on there being an injured party. Said injury being empirically and objectively demonstrable in open court. I guess I was wrong. If a 17 y.o. woman takes a nude selfie it’s a felony, and so on. Just nuts.

    Sexlessness isn’t going far enough. To entirely prevent any possibility of any type of offense at all from rape and murder all the way down to badthought all people of any age should spend their existence strapped to a board, sedated and fed intravenously.

    Remember kids, when guns are illegal only the police will have guns.

  5. Veeshir Avatar

    A few years ago I saw a story where a kid was charged with a sex-crime for putting an inflatable love-doll (probably stolen from Cap AZ) and was charged with a felony sex crime.

    The county prosecutor said the charges were appropriate.

    http://doubleplusundead.com/2011/07/30/livin-la-vida-chingada-loco/

  6. Man Mountain Molehill Avatar
    Man Mountain Molehill

    Has any prosecutor ever in all history ever declared charges inappropriate?

    Prosecutors gonna charge charge charge charge charge…

    Which moral idiot invented the concept of “victimless crime” anyway? Probably Bentham. grrrr.