Judge Puts "Sexting" Prosecution On Hold

Sexy Photos Of Teen Girls Sent By Cell Phone, DA Wants To Charge Them With Child Porn; Lawsuit Pending

(AP)  A federal judge says he isn't ruling yet on the merits of a lawsuit filed against a prosecutor on behalf of three northeastern Pennsylvania teenagers.

But for now, he's banning Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. from filing child porn charges against the girls for racy cell-phone pictures of themselves.

U.S. District Judge James Munley issued a temporary restraining order Monday against Skumanick. The prosecutor has said he would pursue felony charges against the girls unless they agree to participate in a five-week after-school program.

But the teens say they didn't consent to having the pictures distributed to classmates' phones. They also say the photos aren't pornographic but protected First Amendment speech.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit last week on the girls' behalf. Munley says he'll hear arguments on the ACLU lawsuit in June.

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.

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.

[JamesM4]

The prosecutor has said he would pursue felony charges against the girls unless they agree to participate in a five-week after-school program.

I would point out that it's an abuse of office and abuse of power for the prosecutor to determine guilt and attempt to have the girls agree to a punishment, and then to threaten them with felony charges if they do not agree to his punishment.

This is happening a lot with teens, and with adults. You do this or we will take you to court and charge you with much steeper charges. COURTS should be the ones determining guilt and deciding what, if anything, the people charged should do.

What started as well meaning pre-trial intervention programs get abused when the prosecutors threaten more severe charges if you don't take that option. We should have a system where the prosecutor has to make the charges first, and the party involved has a chance to challenge the pleadings on their merits, for there may be no merit at all, and ONLY then should a person have to select between doing a pre-trial intervention or going to trial.

[cepe10-2009]

The prosecutors "threats" should be treated as "extortion" as they fit the description of that crime well.

He should bejudged by a jury and jailed for extortion and disbarred immediately.

[loyalto1]

I thought the same way as many of you when I was younger - HOWEVER when these kids get hurt HOW YOU SAY -( DISEASE'S ) then you idiots will say why didn't someone protect them. truth is anyone who says just leave them alone is a FOOL.

[kansas1946]

The prosecutor is an idiot. He just wants to be on TV. Leave the kids alone.

[DocD--2008]

Again....I suggest a Reading Comprehension 101 class sometime.


From the article:

-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.


-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.
Posted by snarkysnark at 4:07 AM : Mar 31, 2009

Continue reading comprehension 101...

"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."

If you had read the previous stories, the three who said no and filed the suit were the ones in panties and bras, not nude. The ones that accepted his extortion offer were the ones topless or nude. Having all the facts is important when spewing opinions..

[tomanyt]

watkinsjr2000...Would you feel the same if it were boys?

[tgusa]

Children can't sexually exploit themselves. Period.

[watkinsjr2000]

Prosecuting these teenage girls for this is in my opinion a waste of taxpayer's money.I'd guess that the DA is probably seeking to advance their own career on this one.I live in Durham,N.C. and saw firsthand in the Duke Lacrosse case how destructive unwarranted prosecutions can be (not only to those charged, but to entire communities). I just can't see potentially putting felony convictions on the records of young teenage girls for these actions. Were I the parent of one of the girls I would surely punish them severely & take away their cell phone for a long time. I think some good old-fashioned parental discipline is a better option here than a criminal prosecution.

[J_G_H]

The trivial nature of the pictures does not justify the prosecutor. As described, he is using the threat of prosecution to force the girls to attend his pet course. To me, the man is differentt from your ordinary blackmailer only in that he is not asking for money. There is such a thing as abuse of power, and this is a prime example.

[rsmik]

The judge just needs time to study the pictures in detail before he can make a ruling.

This is all about interloping into American families by a government made up of pedophiles (Mark Foley, R-Fla and his hot emails to teen pages) and perverts (Barney Frank and the Steve Gobie incident) who write our law to hide their activities. I am surprised no one has discovered what secrets Skumanick is hiding.

[rickstas]

It could only happen in hypocritical Amerika.

[rickstas]

No more wasting tax dollars on sex policing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[formrusmcsgt]

Posted by snarkysnark at 2:49 AM : Mar 31, 2009

The girls weren't nude.

Nor were the pic sold.

Your comment has no bearing whatsover on the issue at hand.

[formrusmcsgt]

Got a bare-assed baby pic of junior on a rug?

Don't ship it to anyone or some dogma drone DA like this fool will have you charged.

Stupid.

[formrusmcsgt]

The girls were in bras and panties, just like we see on TV ads every single day revealing no more than would be revealed wearing a bikini.

This DA is obviously some self-righteous Bible thumper with not enough to do.

[gramto8]

...snip... And why is he all the way over in Wyoming when the girls live in PA? ...snip...
Posted by omded at 10:05 PM : Mar 30, 2009

They are talking about Wyoming COUNTY, in PA. It is in the Pocono Mountains.

[mljohns00]

Nude photographs of anybody of any age are not pornographic by definition. Otherwise, a photo of a naked baby or a family at a nude beach would be child pornography, which they are not.

[edward1975-2009]

It is child porn, no matter what the intention. Use the device for it's intended use, not as a way to achieve cheap thrills. It speaks tons to the moral fiber or lack of, in todays youth. That young girls would even allow these to be taken, no matter who took them. If it gets the point across and maybe makes the next person think, then going forward with this is what should be done.

[MICdunson]

Do any one know how to get a copy of those pics.