State Supreme Court Ruling Means Washington Teens Who Sext Could End Up Felons

Comments

1
"In the majority decision today, six supreme court justices emphasized that Gray's case did not involve two teens consensually sexting each other and said it therefore would not consider those types of situations."

They may not want to talk about it, but how can this decision not form a precedent there? If the result for consensual sexting is wrong, how can this be right?

Anyway this is terrible public policy and if the court says the law means this, then the legislature has to change the law. I'll see if my rep is on board. I'm sorry to take time from their paramount duty, but this is not okay.
2
The law was written in 1984, and it's only recent updates have been to strengthen it against the "I didn't know she was 14" defense.

When you apply 1980's laws to our smartphone era, you get absurd results. Not the fault of the judges, but the fault of the legislature.
3
But ugh, this just factually is not porn. It does not appeal to the prurient interest. The problem with wangspam is *not* that wangspam is hotttt. It's gross, unwanted, and (here as commonly) part of a pattern of harassment.
4
One troubling aspect of the dissenting opinion is Justice Gordon-McCloud's identification of the defendant's Asperger's syndrome as a "demon" that the defendant "suffers from" and which "compelled" him to harass and send lewd pictures to the woman. As the mother of two boys with Asperger's, I find the suggestion that Asperger's "compels" a person to act in this manner offensive. Although Justice Gordon-McCloud was undoubtedly trying to be sympathetic to this individual, her rhetoric reinforces stigma that is offensive to those with neurological differences.
5
Let's start with this, "If you don't want everyone to see and/or get in trouble with your pix, don't put them on the internet". Show that person your pix in person, not on the net.
6
"I can't believe the legislature intended that result. It means that a 12-year-old girl who is groomed or lured into taking and then texting explicit depictions of herself to an adult can be prosecuted for succumbing to that grooming. I can't believe the legislature intended that result."

Right. I'm sure prosecutors are going to be lining up to charge a 12 year old girl with child porn distribution.
7
@6:

Well, now that they CAN...
8
Is having an erection "sexually explicit conduct"? Does that 7th grader who doesn't want to stand up in front of the class now a harasser?

Anywho, if this were, say, a lower court, I'd be OK with the ruling, assuming it'd be kicked up the chain to the level where judges can consider the spirit of intent of the law rather than simply the appropriateness of the application (I'm aware this ability rests at all levels of judgeship... but practically speaking I'd rather have our supreme court judges do this work).

In any case... what excuse does the WA supreme court have in not judging the intent of the law? There's no one above them to interpret the purpose/meaning/spirit/intent of the law, it's not like this will go to the US Supreme Court.
9
@6 just wait till the 12 year old victim refuses to testify, then see what the DA does.
10
This needs a legislative fix ASAP. Governor Inslee might consider a pardon eventually too. Meanwhile maybe we can get a new prosecutor out there who can set some priorities. A horrible outcome.
11
@JF: No, this will be selectively prosecuted against males.
12
And yes to @4. I know quite a few diagnosed Aspies and none of them pull this shit.
13
My impression is that these fossilized justices are jealous of anyone younger than them who has sex, or who even thinks about sex ...which is just about everybody.
14
Maybe it's time that parents take the cell phones away from their children? Oh wait, would that be responsible parenting? Dear God...we can't have any of THAT!!
15
@13 That statement only makes sense if we think that sex is something that happens without complications. And basically the entire canon of human art and literature revolves around all the ways that sex fucks us up. That's exactly why we have laws like this protecting kids in the first place. Just because they *want* to engage in sex doesn't mean they *should*.

To everyone who thinks what this kid was doing was OK and that the law should allow for this, I have a few questions.

Where do you draw the line when it comes to child porn? What if this kid shot a video with his phone of another kid giving him head? Video of two minors engaging in sex is the classic definition of child porn. What if he had taken a picture (willing or no) of an underage girlfriend naked and distributed that? If nothing else, the bright line of the current law is a virtue that is clearly understandable to everyone, including kids.

The article didn't specify what he did with his picture. Was it an unsolicited dick pic, perhaps sent to another minor? If so, what about that kid's rights not to be subject to a form of sexual assault? Her (or his) rights seem to be lost in this discussion.

I would absolutely agree with @14 here. Your kid is already a freaking sex offender at the tender age of 17, and you can't even bring yourself to take away his smart phone? I don't care where he falls on the Asperger's continuum; that is some major league horrible parenting.
16
One way of stopping it would be an app on the kid's phone that immediately sends any picture/video to the Parent's phone and Facebook page.
17
@15 look up Genarlow Wilson