Mar 27th, 2009
Posted by Rachel Myers, ACLU at 11:20am	Free Speech, Women's Rights

Protection Gone Terribly Wrong: Baseless Child-Pornography Charges Against Teenage Girls In Pennsylvania

(Originally posted on Feministing.)

On Wednesday, the ACLU of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit against Wyoming County (PA) district attorney George Skumanick, Jr., for threatening three high school girls with child pornography charges over digital photos of themselves in which they appear topless or in their underwear. Skumanick asserted that the girls were accomplices to the production of child pornography because they allowed themselves to be photographed. The threatened charges of sexual abuse of a minor could come with jail time and registration as sex offenders

Which seems even more extreme when you consider that Skumanick has not threatened to charge the individuals who distributed the photos in the first place. It also seems a little counter-intuitive, since child pornography laws are meant to protect children from being exploited, where as charging them with a felony and potentially subjecting them to being on a sex offender registry hardly seems protective.

Neither of the two photos in question depicts sexual activity or reveals anything below the waist.

One is a picture taken two years ago at a slumber party showing Marissa Miller (now 15) and her friend Grace Kelly from the waist up, both wearing white bras. The other depicts Nancy Doe (a pseudonym used to protect the girl’s real identity) standing outside a shower with a bath towel wrapped around her body beneath her breasts.

Skumanick actually offered the girls a deal. If they didn’t want to face charges, they could be placed on probation, subject to random drug testing, and attend a six- to nine-month re-education program dealing with pornography and sexual violence. The D.A. explained the objectives of that program in a letter he sent home to the parents. They include gaining “an understanding of what it means to be a girl in today’s society, both advantages and disadvantages,” and identifying “non-traditional societal and job roles.”

While our clients recognized the D.A.’s actions as a violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights and turned to the ACLU for legal assistance, they were not the only ones offered this “choice” by Skumanick. 17 other students, 13 girls and 4 boys, accepted the deal from the D.A., including one girl who was shown in pictures in a bikini. Her parents asked the D.A. why on earth that would be child porn, and he said it was because she was "posed provocatively."

Vic Walczak, Legal Director for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in a statement:

Kids should be taught that sharing digitized images of themselves in embarrassing or compromised positions can have bad consequences, but prosecutors should not be using heavy artillery like child-pornography charges to teach them that lesson…These are just kids being irresponsible and careless; they are not criminals and they certainly haven't committed child pornography.

In the lawsuit, the ACLU charges that Skumanick is misusing his authority by threatening to bring baseless child-pornography charges in order to coerce parents into sending their children to the re-education program and putting them on probation. It also claims this is a form of unconstitutional retaliation against the parents and children who assert their right not to be bullied into participation. The ACLU is asking the federal court to issue an order prohibiting the district attorney from filing criminal charges against the girls.

In a hearing today in the U.S. District Court in Scranton, Judge James Munley gave D.A. Skumanick until tomorrow to file a brief.

Permalink |	Free Speech, Women's Rights

1. Sex Offender Issues Says:
   Mar 27th, 2009 at 10:43am

   http://sexoffenderissues.blogspot.com

   No I do not think young kids doing this, nor those experimenting with sex and just being kids, should be labeled a sex offender and potentially their lives ruined before they start. But, if they are able to be charged with a sex crime and labeled a child molester, then why not for producing and distributing child porn? Maybe when a lot of kids are caught up in this mess, then the legislature will see the mess they have created!

2. A taste of his own medicine? Says:
   Mar 27th, 2009 at 2:35pm

   What an embarrassment to "PA Law." Doesn't this public "serpent" have some bad guys to pursue? While the ACLU is at it, perhaps it should file a lawsuit against the prosecutor -- for official malfeasance, abuse of authority and character defamation. Now THAT would really serve as a deterrent to the real crime here.

3. Upset Says:
   Mar 27th, 2009 at 10:13pm

   What cause prostitution? What cause people to be homosexual? What cause people to become sex offenders? What cause all the ailments of this planet?
   The gods that people worship. They are worms from space that live in people and control the hosts. Since they are maggots, and hook worms, and all type of parasites that control the people but cannot be seen to be punished, the people have to pay for the gods of the 13 tribes of Israel and of Judah.

   The gods of Asia are killer worms that demand sacrifice and that pretend to be holy in order to eat their victims. HOw can something good live in something bad. The gods of the Jews pretend to be good while they are the ones that cause people to be bad.

   The only way for these worms to be annihilated is that flame planet become flame planet again and annihilated these worms of existence.

   The doctors use the motto: Don't ask, don't tell. That makes all doctors assassins. The scientists are also Hus servants of the worms. People have to pay for the dead which the hus know very well that it is the gods who gave them their wealth that keep making all people killing each other in other to feed themselves.

   The planets that we called stars are ships that quarantine this planet because of these killer worms. I heard that these worms planned to go to Mars, and other planets. What do they want to do. They are bacteria that invade not only the planet but every inhabitants as well.

   Are you the Hus that are killing people for power as well. America is a lure that the worm gods of the Jews created after stealing the planet from the other inhabitants in order to always have servants, foods, and hosts.

   This planet needs to be sanitize and or annihilated by its original inhabitant: Flame.

   Isn't it time to stop the hypocrisy and stop putting people in jail and accusing people of things that they gods of the Jews do to people.

   Someone need to sue the gods of the Jews for killing innocent people. The gods of the Jews have decimated my family. The Jewish Bible cause roaches, worms, moths, spiders to live in people's house. Wherever the Hu Bible is there live roaches, worms, spiders, moths, dragonfly, mice, rats, and all things that feed on the dead.

   Why do we have birds on this planet? Birds eat worms and the religious inhabitants of this planet is full of worms which they call "holy Spirits". When you see birds, know that the birds see worms: Religious people.

   The planet become warp and nasty because the worms eat people who are greedy and who not only sold their families to killer worms they name gods, but people they don't know as well.

   When there is war, wherever there is death, what profit? The worms and the animals that eat the dead.
   The religious books say clearly that the worms eat people. I need to know if I can sue the Jews for feeding my family to their gods which they force on everyone and that they deceived everyone into serving their killer worms and the dead?

4. D. Russell Says:
   Mar 27th, 2009 at 10:14pm

   What the hell is wrong with these people? Why are these idiotic DA's destroying these kids' lives and wasting our legal resources -- from detectives to court time -- to even CONSIDER these a 'case?' These laws were intended to protect children from predators -- now, the predator is the prosecutors. I cannot even remotely see how or why these cases should even be valid.

   Morons!

5. kenbob Says:
   Mar 27th, 2009 at 11:14pm

   What does the ACLU see as an alternative to prosecution for these girls? Does the ACLU consider this to be free speech and therefore acceptable for underage girls to do this? Or do they see it as a problem? If it is a problem, how should the girls be dealt with? If it is legitimate free speech, how do you explain that position to those wishing to protect them from std's and the need for abortions?

6. Paen Says:
   Mar 28th, 2009 at 1:17pm

   It must be realy great to live in Wyoming county Pensylvania where there is so little crime that the local D.A.
   can afford to waste his time like this.

7. Michael Says:
   Mar 28th, 2009 at 4:45pm

   I spoke to an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina about this case. He stated that he would not have pursued charges, but would have asked that officers visit with the children and parents to explain to them the possible consequences of their actions in the future, and that they really shouldn't be doing this. I think that's a completely reasonable approach and that this Pennsylvania District Attorney is an aberration and out of line.

8. Vic Livingston Says:
   Mar 28th, 2009 at 8:38pm

   I suggested in a comment posted yesterday that ACLU also should help these girls sue the prosecutor in a civil action, for character defamation.

   The comment does not show up on my computer when I access this page.

   If it was removed by ACLU, I do not question the organization's right to exercise editorial control over content posted to its web site.

   But if it was removed by a third-arty entity, then there's a serious problem.

   Could you clarify, ACLU? If your people did not take down the post, I refer you to my running commentary on apparent prior restraint, censorship and tampering with internet communications, at:

   http://blog.aclu.org/2009/01/26/internet-filters-voluntary- ok-not-government-mandate/#comments

   Thank you.

9. EGAMA Says:
   Mar 28th, 2009 at 10:32pm

   Cases like these show how far-reaching sex offender laws are in America and why they seriously need reform.

10. Hawaiian style Says:
    Mar 29th, 2009 at 1:00pm

    I'll bet the D.A is really frustrated.

    He probably knows that someday we will have 3D phones that project a holographic image of the conversants, and he would like to charge some of those involved with RAPE.

    That would teach those kids to be on guard for unwanted electronic pregnancy!!!

    Just think if one party slammed down the phone on another he could then charge that party with electronic MURDER.

    That would teach electronic courtesy or else...

    Maybe we need to do a personality profile on potential D.A.s We certainly don't need control freaks doing a GREAT JOB like this.

    Come on Mr. S. we have laws against running stop signs too, but it is not treason if you do.

11. Aeromax Says:
    Mar 30th, 2009 at 3:38pm

    It's only a matter of time before the government starts giving us chastity belts with GPS and rfid tags, which can be unlocked if you're 18...with parent approval...if you fill out the forms...and don't have a criminal record...

12. roald Says:
    Mar 31st, 2009 at 8:51am

    According to an AP report I read, the judge has issued "a temporary restraining order prevents Skumanick from filing charges while the lawsuit proceeds". The next hearing is scheduled for 2-June

13. Robert Says:
    Mar 31st, 2009 at 12:34pm

    Have you as a country completely lost your minds? This moron DA should be prosecuted himself for abuse of power. HOWEVER, you only have yourselves to blames with the hysteria that you have created around any form of child sexuality - as though it doesn't exist! When you create insane laws, you are going to have insane people taking advantage of them.

14. joebanana Says:
    Apr 1st, 2009 at 4:20pm

    Isn't making threats to kids illegal? This guy's a danger to the public, next he'll be charging parents with lewd acts for changing diapers.
    I'd hate to be caught giving an infant a bath.

15. SavedGirl Says:
    Apr 2nd, 2009 at 4:58am

    These girls broke the law and should pay the price.

16. Givemeabreak Says:
    Apr 2nd, 2009 at 7:16am

    These laws are not meant to protect children, only a moron would think so, especially after seeing this case. Child pornography laws are based on nothing but pure moral revulsion. Like the obscenity law, it is an anti-free speech law disguised as a measure to ensure safety. But how can outlawing a picture make any difference to anything? They are just images of things that have already happened.

17. Givemeabreak Says:
    Apr 2nd, 2009 at 5:16pm

    I actually agree with SavedGirl. It's a felony. The DA has done nothing wrong but do his job by seeking justice under the law. The problem is with the law, not the DA. When someone breaks a felonious law, then they should be charged, regardless of who they are. This is what you asked for, now you're going to whine and say you didn't want it?

    Make up your minds, but don't beg the DA to apply the law discriminately - that would be corrupt.

18. Dr.ShawnaMurrayMD Says:
    Apr 3rd, 2009 at 2:00am

    This is the face of law enforcement today. Welcome to the police state. Destroying lives and not preventing real crime.

19. skycadet Says:
    Apr 21st, 2009 at 6:31pm

    This is a serious misuse of the legal system and is why the Sex Offender laws need reform.. ie..The Adam Walsh law, which if Oprah has her way will be funded... If the Walsh is enforced and funded as it is, these girls will be on the SO list for ever.. How dare this Prosecutor equate this girls with those out there who are really a serious porblem.. Let's begin to move forward and change these laws and help these young girls...They are just curious and need guidance..

20. Maggie Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 7:52pm

    What happens if these girls do grow up to be predators? Someone's child is hurt and when they find out it could have been prevented big lawsuit! Everyone will be crying it should have been stopped in the beginning. Think about it!

21. Jayars Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 12:39pm

    Just wondering...

    1)
    The photos were of the girls, but they did not distribute them. So aren't they the victim, rather than the offender?

    2)
    Giving them an "option" of attending classes and re-education VS charged and registered as a sex offender... is like saying "Confess to your crime, or I'll shoot you". Sure, it *IS* an option, if we consider a ruined future/death an option.

    3)
    Here's a sillier question (by avoiding the whole issue), but if the pictures were on mobile phones, how would the authorities have found out about it? The only way I can think of is if someone was prying into the contents of the kids' phones. Now, I may have watched too many cop dramas, but even when a cop (yep, a law enforcement officer, rather than some school teachers) gathers evidence without a warrant, isn't that illegal?

    4)
    A bra and a 2-piece bikini are essentially the same shape/size. Does it mean a teen is wearing a bikini in a photo, she's also involved in child porn?

    5)
    This DA guy seems to have evidence on these girls. The only form of evidence that I can think of is the actual pictures themselves. So if he's insisting that the images are provocative and is child porn, doesn't that mean he himself has attempted to, and successfully, obtained "child pornography"?

    6)
    What was his basis for claiming that the images were "provocative"? By whose standard/definition?

    7)
    Once again... the girls did not distribute the images. So *they* are really the victims. But the more important thing here is, if we allow one crazy man to file charges and ruin the lives of these teenagers, simply because *he* thought that their photos were provocative, what's stopping everyone else from filing lawsuits on anything else that offends *THEM*?

    I believe that the law is there to protect people, and NEVER to be twisted for one's personal gain. In the case of this DA, I see him as a pathetic individual who's trying to TELL other people what to do because they're not living up to HIS expectations/standards.

    I really hope that whoever judges the case will have the sensibility to NOT blindly listen to every text from the lawbook that this DA quotes, and lose track of the true purpose of the law itself.

22. Jayars Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 1:10pm

    Just a quick explanation of what I meant by the law is meant to protect...

    These kids are charged under child pornography laws right? I had always believed that the MAIN purpose of this law is to protect our children? The punishment is merely to reprimand the offender, and to deter others from offending - a.k.a, exploiting children.

    However, in this case, the teens themselves have willingly taken the photos. Hence, even if we assume that the photos are child porn, punishing them using the VERY SAME law that is supposed to be protecting them,...is just plain stupid.

    And that's what I meant by the law is meant to protect, not punish, and that whoever is judging the case will take this into consideration.

23. Trevor Loughlin Says:
    Aug 1st, 2009 at 9:58am

    There is no such thing as an "illegal" image-in the higher grades of child pornography there are images of illegal acts however, and the use of these images to catch a predator is legitimate-anything beyond that is a misapplication of the law. Having predicted the horror of Islamic fundamentalism 30 years ago, I predicted 15 years ago that sexual pseudo-crime law in the name of child protection would become a similar horror. Right now I am feeling pretty smug.

Name

E-mail

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Homepage

• Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
• Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

What code is in the image? *

Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.