Stop child porn by creating child porn?

This is an excellent example of what happens when you create a law of convenience. The mother of a 15-year-old girl filed a complaint against her daughter’s 17-year-old boyfriend after she found a video of an erect penis on the girl’s phone. This prompted the state to arrest the boy, but because of a mistake the boy was released. The state re-arrested him, and then decided that they proof it was him on the video. So:

The case was set for trial on July 1, where Foster said Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Claiborne Richardson told her that her client must either plead guilty or police would obtain another search warrant “for pictures of his erect penis,” for comparison to the evidence from the teen’s cell phone. Foster asked how that would be accomplished and was told that “we just take him down to the hospital, give him a shot and then take the pictures that we need.”

That violates a host of laws, most notably the child pornography statute the state charged the boy under. No one is allowed to take incident photos of children. Yet the state apparently already violated this. According to the boy’s lawyer, when the police re-arrested the boy they took photos of his genitals without his consent. That would count as sexual battery, depending on how they obtained the photos.

The judge handling the case allowed the boy to leave the state before the warrant was served. However, it is unclear how the police can legally compel someone to take explicit photos for the purpose of implicating themselves in a crime. That is a direct violation of the 5th Amendment. You cannot be forced to give evidence against yourself. You certainly cannot be blackmailed into it, which is what the state, according to the boy’s lawyer, is attempting to do. As noted in the article:

Carlos Flores Laboy, appointed the teen’s guardian ad litem in the case, said he thought it was just as illegal for the Manassas City police to create their own child pornography as to investigate the teen for it. “They’re using a statute that was designed to protect children from being exploited in a sexual manner,” Flores Laboy said, “to take a picture of this young man in a sexually explicit manner. The irony is incredible.” The guardian added, “As a parent myself, I was floored. It’s child abuse. We’re wasting thousands of dollars and resources and man hours on a sexting case. That’s what we’re doing.”

And as if the situation were not already bad, there is this:

Foster said the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question. The girl has not been charged, and her mother filed a complaint about the boy’s video, Foster said.

To my knowledge, a 17-year-old is under the age of 18, meaning that anyone who has a video of a 17-year-old boy’s erect penis is in possession of child porn. Likewise, the girl created a video of herself, which also violates the statute. She not only committed the same crimes the boy is charged with, the creation and possession of child porn, but did them first. Yet she has not been charged.

It is interesting how these cases tend to up with the girl, regardless of her age, walking away with no charges while the boy faces felonies.

I am genuinely curious as to whether the judge will allow this child abuse to occur. The state would literally be creating child porn in order to prosecute someone for child porn. That in and of itself seems a violation of the law.

UPDATE: The police decided not to serve the warrant. They will allow the warrant to expire. The charges, however, remain. The boy will face the risk of being labeled a sex offender for allegedly recording a video of his own penis and sending it to his girlfriend. This is, of course, an excellent use of police resources. It is certainly better than tracking down adults who coerce minors into having sex and recording the events.

 

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Stop child porn by creating child porn?

  1. Pingback: Stop child porn by creating child porn? | Manosphere.com

  2. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Summer Fair Edition | Patriactionary

  3. In any act of sexual impropriety any female involved is a default victim, even when they are the perpetrator.

    This is fundamental at all levels of our culture.

    In this instance a girl has sent some naughty imagery to her slightly older boyfriend. Boyfriend has replied in likewise manner. Both have broken laws which relate to sexual behaviour. Everybody from the girl’s mother up to the courts of law are acting to “protect” the default victim from ANY adverse impact. If this leads to abusing and persecuting the other participant in the original crime that is quite acceptable should that individual be male.

    It’s notable that the response from officialdom was to treat an individual with a severity massively out of proportion with that individual’s actual “sin”.

  4. “Foster said the case began when the teen’s 15-year-old girlfriend sent photos of herself to the 17-year-old, who in turn sent her the video in question. The girl has not been charged, and her mother filed a complaint about the boy’s video, ”
    Classic feminist double standard.
    Additionally this should not be a police matter. The parents of both minors should have stepped in and corrected their kids. That is the girl’s mother’s fault.
    Lastly someone should file charges against the police.

  5. Not sure what the criteria is in the USA, but in Canada nekkid pictures of minors are not “child pornography” if they serve some medical, educational, artistic or for some miscellaneous “public good” purpose. I assume they’d argue prosecution of criminals is such a purpose.

    Even then… is that poor dude’s dick distinctive enough to convince beyond a reasonable doubt? Sigh, the criminal justice system has very little sense of priorites and absolutely no sense of equality.

  6. Even then… is that poor dude’s dick distinctive enough to convince beyond a reasonable doubt?

    That is another odd aspect of this. It is unclear how the state plans to compare the two images.

  7. Pingback: A questionable case of a false rape claim | Toy Soldiers

  8. Pingback: Teen sues police over ‘sexting’ civil rights violation | Toy Soldiers

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s