1-25-2010 National:
The boneheaded logic behind treating "sexting" teens as child pornographers.
That the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would even need to hear oral arguments in the case of Miller, et al. v. Skumanick last week is a pretty good indication that law enforcement officials in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania have lost their collective minds.
At issue in the case: Whether the U.S. Constitution permits prosecutors to charge minors who pose for nude or risque photos with child pornography. You read that correctly. In order to protect children from predators and child pornographers, the local district attorney is threatening to prosecute minors who pose for racy photos as if they were child pornographers.
Even within the context of the already hysterical overreaction to the "sexting" phenomenon, the facts in Miller are jaw-dropping. Of the three girls bringing suit, two were photographed at a slumber party wearing training bras. The third photographed herself baring her breasts, then sent the photo to a boy she'd hoped to make jealous. The girls aren't in trouble for distributing the photos, or even for taking them. They've been introduced to the criminal justice system merely for appearing in them.
Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick, Jr. gave the girls a choice. The first option was to face felony child pornography charges, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. The second was to attend a series of Skumanick-chosen classes, which according to the Pennsylvania ACLU included topics such as "what it means to be a girl in today's society" and "non-traditional societal and job roles." The girls would also be put on probation, subject to random drug tests, and would have to write essays explaining why appearing in photos while wearing their bras is wrong.
Skumanick would later tell a gathering of students and parents that he had the authority to prosecute girls photographed on the beach in bikinis, because the minors would be dressed "provocatively." He told the Wall Street Journal that by offering the girls the classes and probation instead of immediately hitting them with felony charges, "We thought we were being progressive."
Of the 19 minors Skumanick targeted, 16 chose the classes. The other three took Skumanick to court, where they won a restraining order. Skumanick appealed. To the credit of the people of Wyoming County, after 20 years in office Skumanick lost his bid for reelection last November. But his office continues to fight.
But this isn't just an isolated case of a renegade D.A. There have now been several cases across the country where young people who either pose for, snap, or forward provocative or nude photos of other minors are being charged or threatened with felony child pornography. In 2007, a state appeals court in Florida upheld charges of "directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child" and possession of child pornography charges against a 17-year-old boy and a 16-year-old girl for forwarding explicit photos of themselves having sex from her computer to his email address. The sex wasn't illegal. But the photos were. Incredibly, Judge James Wolf wrote in the majority opinion that "Mere production of these videos or pictures may...result in psychological trauma to the teenagers involved. Further, if these pictures are ultimately released, future damage may be done to these minors' careers or personal lives."
The message to minors: These photos can ruin your lives, kids. And just to prove it, we're going to ruin your lives.
These cases are the natural culmination of two trends. The first is the continuing view among politicians that there's no punishment too severe for sex offenders. Moreover, to show how serious we are about sex offenders, we should broaden the class of people we classify under the label. And there needn't be any actual victims.
In 2006, Karen Fletcher, also of Pennsylvania, was convicted in federal court for writing fictional stories (and granted, they were disturbing stories) about sexual and violent crimes against children. Until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2002, the 1996 Child Online Protection Act criminalized images of adults made to look like minors, as well as digitally manufactured photos of minors who don't actually exist.
The second trend is the "for the children" excuse that no law ought to be questioned if its intent is to protect young people. The resulting paternalism is built in.
Put these together, and you get the intellectually vacant policy of prosecuting children for sexually exploiting themselves...in order to protect them from the people who might exploit them.
It isn't exactly clear from what or whom the authorities are protecting these teens. To my knowledge, there hasn't been a single case of a predator who tracked down, then raped, killed, or otherwise physically harmed a minor after viewing explicit photos of the child on the Internet or via images forwarded by cell phone. Perhaps it has happened. But given the media obsession with these stories, if it's happened with any frequency at all, we would have probably heard about it by now.
The harm here seems to be the possibility that somewhere, someone other than the intended recipient of these photos may be masturbating to them. That's an uncomfortable thought, sure. But it's difficult to see how that presents tangible harm to the minors in the photos, certainly not to the point where the minors themselves ought to be prosecuted. Anyone turned on by the photos in Skumanick's case could just as easily placate themselves with an old Sears catalogue—and with no resulting damage to the models who posed in it.
But the idea that an otherwise innocuous image can mutate into illegal child porn based on how it might be used by pedophiles is gaining currency. In 2006, Alabama photographer Jeff Pierson was indicted on federal child porn charges for a website he ran featuring aspiring teen models. None of the models were nude, nor were any depicted engaged in any sexual activity. All of the models' parents signed off on the photos. But federal prosecutors argued the models struck "illegally provocative," "lascivious," and "coy" poses that could entice pedophiles. In 2002, Republican Rep. Mark Foley of Florida (yes, that Mark Foley) introduced the Child Modeling Exploitation Prevention Act, which would have prohibited the sale of any photo of a minor. It failed, but crazy as Foley's bill sounds, it at least would have cleared up the ambiguity. As the website CNET reported in a story about Pierson, federal courts have made the definition of child porn so subjective, "judges and juries [are] faced with the difficult task of making distinctions between lawful and unlawful camera angles and facial expressions."
When applied to "sexting" cases, that also leaves prosecutors like Skumanick far too much leeway—enough, for example, for him to believe he can prosecute a girl photographed in a bikini because he finds the photo uncomfortably "provocative." But even when "sexted" photos are unquestionably explicit, there's no justification for criminal charges. Even the deterrent argument falls flat. Despite these high-profile cases, threats of prosecution, and public service announcements on MTV, surveys suggest that about 20-25 percent of young people college-aged and younger have taken or sent sent explicit photos of themselves. That number is rising, not falling.
The root disconnect, here, is that the law treats pre-pubescent sex crimes on par with crimes related to teenagers who are sexually mature. Fact is, teenagers become sexually mature years before it's socially or legally permissible to think about them that way. That they're then having sex is nothing new. Nor is the fact that teens make rash, emotional, spur-of-the-moment decisions. What's new is that they're able to document it all in ways that can quickly escape their control. What they need after the fact are responsible adults who can walk them through a poor decision, appropriately reprimand or punish them if necessary, but all while keeping things in perspective, and minimizing the long-term consequences for the teen. Dumping the kid into the criminal justice system has all the subtlety and precision of dropping an anvil on the problem from 40 stories above. ..Source.. Radley Balko is a senior editor at Reason magazine.
January 25, 2010
Ruining Kids in Order to Save Them
May 26, 2009
IL- Illinois cracks down on sexting, applies law to all nude images
5-26-2009 Illinois:
Despite moves in Vermont to decriminalize sexting among teens, Illinois has gone in the other direction and passed a law that specifically make passing on mobile pictures illegal.
House Bill 2537 makes it a criminal offense to sell or distribute a videotape or nude image of another person without written consent and with the intent to damage a person’s reputation. The bill also makes uploading such images to the Internet a violation of this act. The measure states that a violation of this act a Class A misdemeanor worth up to 364 days in prison and a fine of up to $2,500. Yeah, because what kids need on top of a child porn charge is another 12 months in jail.
Despite this being promoted as a bill to save teenagers from sexting, take a close look at the wording: it’s not a bill targeted at sexting teenagers, but everyone: “a videotape or nude image of another person.” Lets say Paris Hilton walks out of a Chicago nightclub drunk, and her top falls down while she’s on the street. The images you take of her would couldn’t be used elsewhere without her permission, and publishing them would damage her reputation. If you were at a frat party, and some drunk girls got naked and you took video on your phone: you can’t use them without written permission from the girls, and they most definitely would tarnish their reputation (so the written permission may be a moot point anyway.)
The original bill would have also made anyone distributing the image or video liable as well, for example five people down the chain you receive it, then forward it on, therefore your action is illegal as well, unless of course you traced the picture and got written permission. A small amount of sanity prevailed when the bill hit the Illinois Senate, who added in two sections “This prohibition applies only to the initial dissemination of the video recording, and shall not apply to any subsequent dissemination, storage, or viewing of that image.” They also tried to cover their bases by inserting a reference to free speech: “Any depiction of a nude image that would be protected as free speech under either the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 4 of the Illinois Constitution.” The problem then becomes one of interpretation: is taking a picture of Paris Hilton naked and drunk protected by free speech, or is that frat party video protected?
The ACLU and other organizations are going to have a field day with this legislation. The application to all is heavy on fail, but the biggest fail is this continued push to criminalize children. If we concede that sexting is a problem (and many would argue that it’s a media beet up and not a serious problem) how is turning teenagers into criminals and sending them to jail going to solve the problem? Vermont understands that the big stick approach shouldn’t be applied, it’s just a shame that most other US States don’t yet. ..News Source.. by The INQUISITR
April 29, 2009
How Should Teens' "Sexting" – the Sending of Revealing Photos – Be Regulated?
4-29-2009 National:
Recently, the Wall Street Journal and its law blog reported on a Pennsylvania controversy over "sexting" – the practice of sending nude or semi-nude photos of oneself or others via cellphone. After some "sexted" photos were confiscated from students at a high school, the local District Attorney threatened to file broad child-pornography charges if the teens were not willing to enroll in a five-week compulsory educational program covering topics such as "what it means to be a girl in today's society." (This topic is telling; sexting controversies often seem to be connected to adults' discomfort with girls' expression of their sexuality. It seems likely, too, that discomfort with gay teens' sexuality will eventually lead to a sexting controversy as well.)
The ACLU rightly responded with a lawsuit. Because First Amendment rights were at issue, the suit could properly be filed prior to charges being brought, in order to address the ongoing "chilling effect" on speech of the threat of prosecution hanging overhead. A federal judge has temporarily enjoined the D.A. from filing charges, with a hearing to occur in June.
These particular charges are ill-grounded in law, as the ACLU has pointed out. The photos at issue show teen girls in their bras or, in one case, topless. In contrast, child pornography laws typically cover lascivious displays of the genitals and/or sexual activity. Thus, this is likely to be an easy case -- as the judge's initial ruling, granting an injunction in the ACLU's favor in part because of its high likelihood of success on the merits, indicates.
This is not the first time that old laws have proven to be a bad fit with recent technology. But it's an especially worrying example of a general problem, because both criminal charges and First Amendment rights are at issue.
In this column, I will consider how the law should respond when much harder cases regarding sexting come along, as they inevitably will. These cases would involve photos of underage teens having sex, displaying their genitals in a lascivious way, or both. Accordingly, these cases could validly form the basis for child-pornography charges. But should they always trigger charges? Or should the law be adjusted to take into account the factual nuances of the case?
Should There Be "Romeo and Juliet" And Age-Specific Exceptions for Sexting?
There is no question that if an adult traffics in photos that fit the child pornography laws – that is, photos that include a lascivious display of an underage person's genitals, or show an underage person having sex -- it is a very serious crime, as well as despicable behavior. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently issued an opinion allowing the prosecution of even those traffickers who offer virtual child pornography (involving no real children) but believe it is real – as I discussed in a prior column.
But what if teenagers take the photographs and do the trafficking, and the subjects and recipients of the photos are exclusively the teenagers themselves? Should the crime – and the penalties – be the same?
My answer is a strong "No." We should craft new laws specifically for sexting before old laws -- designed for graver and much more morally bankrupt, dangerous, and exploitative contexts -- are applied to sexting, and serious injustice results.
One good model for the regulation of teens' sexting might be the statutory rape laws – which sometimes offer a so-called "Romeo and Juliet" exception when the two parties to an act of sex are close in age (say, 18 and 16, or 17 and 15). If a 16-year-old "sexts" a photo of himself or herself at an 18-year-old high school classmate's invitation, surely that is far less disturbing than if the 16-year-old does so at the invitation of a 40-year-old adult.
Such exceptions might accord well with our sense of when sexting is really disturbing, and appropriately deemed a crime, and when it is better addressed (if at all) with non-criminal remedies such as school suspension, parental punishments, and the like. Notably, the ACLU, in the Pennsylvania case, has suggested that "sexting," in some cases, is not innocuous and may perhaps be penalized – but not through the criminal law.
The Tricky Issues of Consent that Sexting Raises, Especially with Respect to Forwarding
"Romeo and Juliet" exceptions in the sexting context probably will do more good than harm, in practice. But they will also have costs, if they are applied as bright-line rules.
That's because sexting is, in a way, more complicated than statutory rape. Statutory rape, by definition, comes out of a consensual act of sex; if it didn't, it would just be rape. The argument is that the young person's consent is not valid due to his or her immaturity, not that consent was not given. Thus, defining a crime as statutory rape moots out the consent issue. But often, the nature of sexting is intertwined with issues of consent and lack of consent that cannot be so easily put aside.
For instance, a 16-year-old sophomore girl might "sext" a nude photo she has taken of herself to her 18-year-old senior boyfriend, yet not intend that he share it with his 18-year-old friends. In my view, the girl's sexting the photo to the boyfriend would and should be immune from prosecution under a Romeo and Juliet exception – but one might argue that his forwarding of the photo to his same-age friends should not be immune (especially, but perhaps not only, if the girl did not consent to the forwarding). In other words, with respect to sexting, a pure age-based Romeo and Juliet exception, one that renders consent irrelevant, could be a refuge for scoundrels.
This example shows a strong tension between simple, bright-line age-based safe harbors for sexting, and a nuanced inquiry into whether the original "sexter" consented to forwarding. And there may be another nuance as well: Based on my admittedly limited knowledge as a member of Generation X and a viewer of the documentary "American Teen" (which covers a sexting story, among others), it seems to me that sexting in high school may be intimately bound up with issues of popularity, insecurity, and humiliation. And that explosive mix could lead to important and tricky issues regarding consent, particularly consent to forwarding.
For instance, a teen might authorize forwarding, but then later falsely claim that he or she did not consent, if the forwarding was accompanied by the forwarder's humiliating commentary on his or her body or if such commentary by recipients led to humiliation at school. Parental disapproval – or ignorance -- of teen relationships could lead to lying, too. In addition, a good-looking teen could deem it cooler to pretend that he or she was not, in fact, the driving force ensuring that a particularly flattering and explicit photo of him or her had ended up being "sexted" to the whole school but was "shocked, shocked to discover" that this had occurred.
In sum, I suspect that there is a whole complex anthropology here that it will be difficult for adults to fully understand. High-school communities might have unspoken "default rules," such as: "You can forward, but only with the photographer's – or subject's – okay." Or, "You can forward, but only to our clique, not to outsiders."
It's worth considering, here, that the worst sexting abuses, among teenagers, might lead to a civil claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, or to expulsion from school. In light of these possible remedies, as well as the chance that parents will take action, it's possible that Romeo-and-Juliet exceptions, although not ideal, might be good enough.
Such exceptions would still allow authorities to crack down on the 18-year-old senior who takes and "sexts" a photo of a 13-year-old eighth-grader, and who truly is engaging in child pornography. Yet these exceptions would also avoid imposing stiff criminal penalties on more-or-less same-age kids for what is, in essence, ugly immaturity, not crime. Alternatively, a compromise solution would create low-level misdemeanor offenses relating to sexting – offenses that would ensure that teenagers, who are often impulsive, could not ruin their lives with a single, ill-considered forward. ..News Source.. by Julie Hilden, who graduated from Yale Law School, practiced First Amendment law at the D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1996-99 and has been writing about First Amendment issues for a decade. Hilden, a FindLaw columnist, is also a novelist. In reviewing Hilden's novel, 3, Kirkus Reviews praised Hilden's "rather uncanny abilities," and Counterpunch called it "a must read.... a work of art." Hilden's website, www.juliehilden.com, includes free MP3 and text downloads of the novel's first chapter.
PA- Wyoming County DA appeals ‘sexting’ charges ban
Hummm, kinda sounds like the DA is correct; this time. He just may win this appeal.
4-29-2009 Pennsylvania:
The Wyoming County district attorney has appealed a decision by a federal judge to temporarily bar him from charging three teens involved in a “sexting” scandal that has grabbed headlines around the nation.
George Skumanick said U.S. District Judge James M. Munley’s ruling in March interferes with his ability to decide whether to bring charges in a criminal case. He is concerned the ruling could set a precedent that “allows anyone in the 33 counties that make up the Middle District of Pennsylvania to commit a crime and then run to federal court and say their civil rights were violated.”
The American Civil Liberties Union represents the three teens, who are among 20 Tunkhannock Area School District students threatened with child pornography charges after officials discovered nude or seminude photographs on cell phones confiscated from students. Mr. Skumanick told the Tunkhannock teens he would not prosecute them if they signed up for a five-week educational program.
The three girls represented in the ACLU lawsuit refused. ACLU lawyers are arguing the photographs in which the girls appear are not pornographic and should be protected under the First Amendment. One photo shows two of the girls wearing bras. The second shows the third girl wearing a towel, her breasts exposed.
The phenomenon of sending and trading provocative photos via cell phone, or sexting, has caused problems for other teens around the country. The Tunkhannock case also has led to charges being filed against a 52-year-old Georgia man who saw sexually suggestive photos of a 14-year-old Tunkhannock Area girl and allegedly contacted her over the Internet for more intimate photos of herself, and then to engage in sex with him. ..News Source.. by ERIN L. NISSLEY, STAFF WRITER
April 3, 2009
OH- ACLU Urges Prosecutors, State Legislators to Treat Children With Compassion
4-3-2009 Ohio:
Move to Charge Youth Who “Sext” With Sex Crimes Unfair and Damaging
COLUMBUS- The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio sent letters to all county prosecutors and members of the Ohio General Assembly today, calling on them to respect the role of law and not impose heavy-handed charges on “sexting” teens. Throughout the past several weeks, county prosecutors from around the state have threatened to charge teens with felonies and have them labeled sex offenders if they are caught sending nude or partially nude images to others. State legislators have also discussed possible legislation to address the issue.
ACLU of Ohio Legal Director Jeffrey Gamso said, “Child pornography laws were created to protect child victims from adults who prey on them. In sexting cases, the victim is often also the perpetrator who originally distributed the photo. Local officials are twisting the law to prosecute those they were meant to protect. ”
“A conviction for sexting can do far more than teach a lesson — it can ruin a life. Teens found to have committed a felony or labeled a sex offender could be barred from certain jobs and educational programs, required to register for years with local law enforcement and have restrictions on where they may live. While teens should be educated on the consequences of distributing nude photos, imposing these harsh punishments will only further harm young lives.” added Gamso.
Besides Ohio, other states have begun to grapple with the issue of teen sexting. In late March, the ACLU filed suit against a prosecutor in Pennsylvania because he threatened to charge three girls with sex crimes because partially nude photos of them were found on a classmate’s cell phone. The judge sided with the ACLU on March 30 and granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the prosecutor from filing the charges.
“We all must do better at educating young people about respecting the dignity and privacy of themselves and their peers. By simply locking them up and imposing punishments, we disregard our duty to engage young people and teach them responsibility. What is even worse is that these punishments could endanger the child’s ability to succeed and overcome their previous misguided decisions,” Gamso concluded.
Read the letter to County Prosecutors
Read the letter to members of the Ohio General Assembly
..News Source.. by ACLU
April 2, 2009
OH- ACLU: 'Sexting' is not a crime
4-2-2009 Ohio:
COLUMBUS – Youths should not be treated like criminals for sending nude photos over cell phones or the Internet, the American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday.
At a Columbus news conference, lawyers from the ACLU and Ohio State University said that no Ohioan has been convicted of a felony yet, but lives could be ruined if underage youths have to register as sex offenders for sharing nude or semi-nude photos or video.
Known as “sexting,” teenagers also have been charged with pandering obscene material and other pornography crimes for transmitting or posting photos on Internet sites like Facebook or MySpace.
The ACLU of Ohio urged officials to stop prosecuting juveniles, claiming that the damage from criminal trials far outweighs the act of sexting. They sent letters Thursday to all 88 Ohio county prosecutors and members of the Ohio General Assembly, urging them not to pursue criminal charges.
Jeffrey M. Gamso, legal director of the ACLU of Ohio, said in a Pennsylvania case involving teenagers wearing bras, the pictures “could have been on the 6 o’clock news – it was nothing close to pornography.” Last week, the ACLU successfully filed suit in the Pennsylvania case and a federal judge temporarily blocked a prosecutor from filing felony child pornography charges against the teens.
Gamso doesn’t support reducing the charge for creating, exchanging or possessing nude photos to a first-degree misdemeanor – as proposed last week by state Rep. Ronald Maag, R-Lebanon. There are plenty of consequences outside the courtroom for youths who make mistakes, Gamso said. And anyone 18 and over can send the same photos to one another and not be charged, he said.
Instead, Gamso urged Ohio and other states to respond with education programs in schools rather than through the court system. Courts should not be involved unless someone feels personally damaged and then should file a lawsuit, he said.
“It turns out there are permanent records,” Gamso said, and some charges for sexting are subject to 20 years of registering as a sex offender. “Schools find out, jobs find out – this haunts them,” he said.
Gamso said child pornography laws “were not designed to cover this sort of activity (but) those who would prey on them. . . I don’t think it’s a crime.”
“What we don’t need to do is prosecute children for making mistakes. Children do foolish things and the remedy against foolish things is not criminal action,” Gamso said. “Local officials are twisting the law to prosecute those they were meant to protect. A conviction for sexting can do far more than teach a lesson – it can ruin a life.”
One recent case was prosecuted in Mason when nude photos of a 15-year-old girl were found on a freshman boy’s cell phone. Both teens were charged with misdemeanor counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. And in Middletown last month, a 13-year-old boy was arrested on a felony charge after officials at Stephen Vail Middle School found a sexually explicit image of an eighth-grade girl engaged in sexual activity on his cell phone.
Ohio’s policy toward sexting is not unique, but it is still contrary to neuroscience research, said Katherine Hunt Federle, an Ohio State University law professor and director of the Justice for Children Project.
Juveniles think differently, Federle said. Teens’ brains are underdeveloped and rely more on a “gut instinct” compared to adults, she said.
The underdeveloped teen brain hampers the efforts to effectively punish teens, she said.
“Juveniles who commit sexual offenses do not manifest sexual disorders in the same way that adults do, and even those who might engage in what we could characterize as sexual deviance do not necessarily manifest persistent and entrenched deviance over time,” she said. This makes it difficult to diagnose any child as a sex offender.
Tier I is the lowest sexually oriented classification in Ohio, and that requires registering for 10 years – an alarming number to Federle.
“Juveniles do not pose that community threat that we seem to associate with sex offenders,” she said.
“What we’re doing is we are using these laws like ‘Scarlet Letter’ laws, and they’re going to follow these kids around for years,” Federle said. “It will make it difficult for them to go to college, to get a job, to be a member of the community.” ..News Source.. by Jon Craig and Tom Knox
March 30, 2009
PA- Federal judge blocks charges in Pa. 'sexting' case
3-30-2009 Pennsylvania:
ALLENTOWN, Pa. (AP) — A federal judge on Monday temporarily blocked a prosecutor from filing child pornography charges against three northeastern Pennsylvania teenagers who appeared in racy photos that turned up on classmates' cell phones.
U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled against Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr., who has threatened to pursue felony charges against the girls unless they agree to participate in a five-week after-school program.
One picture showed two of the girls in their bras. The second photo showed another girl just out of the shower and topless, with a towel wrapped around her waist.
"We are grateful the judge recognized that prosecuting our clients for non-sexually explicit photographs raises serious constitutional questions," Witold Walczack, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said in a statement.
"This country needs to have a discussion about whether prosecuting minors as child pornographers for merely being impulsive and naive is the appropriate way to address the serious consequences that can result" when teens send sexually suggestive photos of themselves and others to one another, he said.
Skumanick, who has said he can prosecute the teens as "accomplices" in the production of child pornography, said he would consider an appeal.
The ruling "sets a dangerous precedent by allowing people to commit crimes and then seek refuge from state arrest in the federal courts," he said.
The photos surfaced in October, when officials at Tunkhannock Area High School confiscated five cell phones and found that boys had been trading photos of scantily clad, semi-nude or nude teenage girls. The students with the cell phones ranged in age from 11 to 17.
Skumanick met with about 20 students and their parents last month and offered them a deal in which the youths wouldn't be prosecuted if they took a class on sexual harassment, sexual violence and gender roles. Seventeen of the students accepted the offer, but three balked and sued Skumanick last week.
The suit, filed by the ACLU, said the teens didn't consent to having the picture distributed and that the images are not pornographic. The ACLU said Skumanick's threat to prosecute is "retaliation" for the students' refusal to participate in the class.
Munley's decision to grant the teens a temporary restraining order prevents Skumanick from filing charges while the lawsuit proceeds.
The girls "make a reasonable argument that the images presented to the court do not appear to qualify in any way as depictions of prohibited sexual acts. Even if they were such depictions, the plaintiffs' argument that (they) were not involved in disseminating the images is also a reasonable one," Munley wrote.
Under Pennsylvania's child pornography law, it's a felony to possess or disseminate photos of a minor engaged in sexual activity, "lewd exhibition of the genitals" or nudity that is meant to titillate.
The judge said he "offers no final conclusion on the merits of plaintiffs' position" and scheduled a hearing on the case for June 2. ..News Source.. by MICHAEL RUBINKAM
