Washington State Supreme Court Proves Itself Inept Once Again: The Washington Supreme Court has continually come out with absolutely ridiculous interpretations of law on a regular...

Chameleon12

The Washington Supreme Court has continually come out with absolutely ridiculous interpretations of law on a regular basis. Sometimes they follow the letter of the law while abusing the spirit of the law, other times they have thrown out both the spirit and letter of the law and acted like thought police. Still other times, they have thrown out the law altogether and decided based on what they think the law should have been. Time and time again, I have wondered if these justices have ever really attended an actual law school. This is just another case of their ridiculousness. Children are not supposed to be held to the same level of accountability as adults. Furthermore, a majority of minors have participated in "sexting" which, a lot of times, tends to include pictures of themselves. I guess, the majority of adolescent minors will now have to be classified as child pornographers.

Minors who take nude pictures of themselves are now pornographers
Jazz ShawPosted at 5:31 pm on September 16, 2017

You might think that the courts could make a distinction between predatory, monstrous criminal behavior and youthful, foolish ignorance. You would, apparently, be wrong.

See Also: A****a loving professor explores exciting new job options

The Volokh Conspiracy brings us news of a case out of the state supreme court in Washington which could have alarming implications down the line. After covering some of the previous case law in this area, we hear the results of State v. Gray. In it, a 17 year old boy had used his phone to take pictures of his… well, I’m sure you can guess, and sent them to someone without their consent. The boy is clearly guilty of something, but… distributing child pornography? In the view of Washington State’s highest court, apparently so.

The dissenting justices argued that the statute shouldn’t be read to apply here, because, “when the legislature enacts a statute designed for the protection of one class — here, children depicted in sexually explicit conduct — it shows the legislature’s intent to protect members of that class from criminal liability for their own depiction in such conduct.” The majority disagreed: That principle, the majority suggested, applies only to victims who are working together with (and presumably under the influence of) their victimizers, not to solo offenders such as this.

The case itself involved a 17-year-old sending “an unsolicited picture of his erect penis” to an apparently unwilling recipient, but the logic of the court’s reasoning applies even when the recipient is pleased to receive the photo. The court does say that, “because [Gray] was not a minor sending sexually explicit images to another consenting minor, we decline to analyze such a situation,” but I think that — given the logic of the majority opinion — the analysis would have to end up the same way; nothing in the majority’s reasoning turns on the presence of an unwilling recipient.

Unlike other forms of visual “entertainment” the possession and distribution of child pornography is not covered under free speech and is, beyond question, one of the more damaging, sickening and horrible crimes imaginable. But it’s always been my understanding that the purpose of the laws we have against this vile behavior is to protect the child being victimized. What if the child, through stupidity or poor upbringing, is the one creating the banned content and he or she is the subject of the content? Can a person actually victimize themselves?

It seems that the boy in this case clearly did something wrong. Sending a x-rated picture of himself to an unwitting (apparently adult) recipient surely constitutes some sort of harassment. Perhaps sexual harassment? But that’s a far different class of crime to have on your record than being a child pornographer.

In some ways, this case is reminiscent of the bizarre case of Levar Allen from last year. That one was originally portrayed as a story of r****m due to a massive mistake by Shaun King at the New York Daily News, but it also involved a 17 year old boy and a 16 year old girl, both of whom sent naked pictures and videos of themselves back and forth. The girl was charged under a “sexting” law, but the boy was brought up on child pornography charges.

Again, if the only content being sent is comprised of images of the sender taken by themselves, isn’t some sort of “sexting” charge ( a few degrees down the scale from child porn) a more appropriate way to handle it? This seems needlessly harsh to me.

Mr Bombastic

Chameleon12 wrote:

The Washington Supreme Court has continually come out with absolutely ridiculous interpretations of law on a regular basis. Sometimes they follow the letter of the law while abusing the spirit of the law, other times they have thrown out both the spirit and letter of the law and acted like thought police. Still other times, they have thrown out the law altogether and decided based on what they think the law should have been. Time and time again, I have wondered if these justices have ever really attended an actual law school. This is just another case of their ridiculousness. Children are not supposed to be held to the same level of accountability as adults. Furthermore, a majority of minors have participated in "sexting" which, a lot of times, tends to include pictures of themselves. I guess, the majority of adolescent minors will now have to be classified as child pornographers.

Minors who take nude pictures of themselves are now pornographers
Jazz ShawPosted at 5:31 pm on September 16, 2017

You might think that the courts could make a distinction between predatory, monstrous criminal behavior and youthful, foolish ignorance. You would, apparently, be wrong.

See Also: A****a loving professor explores exciting new job options

The Volokh Conspiracy brings us news of a case out of the state supreme court in Washington which could have alarming implications down the line. After covering some of the previous case law in this area, we hear the results of State v. Gray. In it, a 17 year old boy had used his phone to take pictures of his… well, I’m sure you can guess, and sent them to someone without their consent. The boy is clearly guilty of something, but… distributing child pornography? In the view of Washington State’s highest court, apparently so.

The dissenting justices argued that the statute shouldn’t be read to apply here, because, “when the legislature enacts a statute designed for the protection of one class — here, children depicted in sexually explicit conduct — it shows the legislature’s intent to protect members of that class from criminal liability for their own depiction in such conduct.” The majority disagreed: That principle, the majority suggested, applies only to victims who are working together with (and presumably under the influence of) their victimizers, not to solo offenders such as this.

The case itself involved a 17-year-old sending “an unsolicited picture of his erect penis” to an apparently unwilling recipient, but the logic of the court’s reasoning applies even when the recipient is pleased to receive the photo. The court does say that, “because [Gray] was not a minor sending sexually explicit images to another consenting minor, we decline to analyze such a situation,” but I think that — given the logic of the majority opinion — the analysis would have to end up the same way; nothing in the majority’s reasoning turns on the presence of an unwilling recipient.

Unlike other forms of visual “entertainment” the possession and distribution of child pornography is not covered under free speech and is, beyond question, one of the more damaging, sickening and horrible crimes imaginable. But it’s always been my understanding that the purpose of the laws we have against this vile behavior is to protect the child being victimized. What if the child, through stupidity or poor upbringing, is the one creating the banned content and he or she is the subject of the content? Can a person actually victimize themselves?

It seems that the boy in this case clearly did something wrong. Sending a x-rated picture of himself to an unwitting (apparently adult) recipient surely constitutes some sort of harassment. Perhaps sexual harassment? But that’s a far different class of crime to have on your record than being a child pornographer.

In some ways, this case is reminiscent of the bizarre case of Levar Allen from last year. That one was originally portrayed as a story of r****m due to a massive mistake by Shaun King at the New York Daily News, but it also involved a 17 year old boy and a 16 year old girl, both of whom sent naked pictures and videos of themselves back and forth. The girl was charged under a “sexting” law, but the boy was brought up on child pornography charges.

Again, if the only content being sent is comprised of images of the sender taken by themselves, isn’t some sort of “sexting” charge ( a few degrees down the scale from child porn) a more appropriate way to handle it? This seems needlessly harsh to me.

The Washington Supreme Court has continually come ... (show quote)

Projection, I'd say. The judges are probably guilty of things that are just as bad, if not worse. So they punish others for the same things they do in order to...I don't know what. And isn't it unconstitutional for judges to legislate from the bench? I hope this goes before the SCOTUS. Someone needs to do something. Lives are being ruined by liberal activist judges. It has to stop. I look forward to a day when the people get fed up and hang the lot of them. God knows, they deserve it.

pafret Loc: Northeast

Chameleon12 wrote:

The Washington Supreme Court has continually come out with absolutely ridiculous interpretations of law on a regular basis. Sometimes they follow the letter of the law while abusing the spirit of the law, other times they have thrown out both the spirit and letter of the law and acted like thought police. Still other times, they have thrown out the law altogether and decided based on what they think the law should have been. Time and time again, I have wondered if these justices have ever really attended an actual law school. This is just another case of their ridiculousness. Children are not supposed to be held to the same level of accountability as adults. Furthermore, a majority of minors have participated in "sexting" which, a lot of times, tends to include pictures of themselves. I guess, the majority of adolescent minors will now have to be classified as child pornographers.

Minors who take nude pictures of themselves are now pornographers
Jazz ShawPosted at 5:31 pm on September 16, 2017

You might think that the courts could make a distinction between predatory, monstrous criminal behavior and youthful, foolish ignorance. You would, apparently, be wrong.

See Also: A****a loving professor explores exciting new job options

The Volokh Conspiracy brings us news of a case out of the state supreme court in Washington which could have alarming implications down the line. After covering some of the previous case law in this area, we hear the results of State v. Gray. In it, a 17 year old boy had used his phone to take pictures of his… well, I’m sure you can guess, and sent them to someone without their consent. The boy is clearly guilty of something, but… distributing child pornography? In the view of Washington State’s highest court, apparently so.

The dissenting justices argued that the statute shouldn’t be read to apply here, because, “when the legislature enacts a statute designed for the protection of one class — here, children depicted in sexually explicit conduct — it shows the legislature’s intent to protect members of that class from criminal liability for their own depiction in such conduct.” The majority disagreed: That principle, the majority suggested, applies only to victims who are working together with (and presumably under the influence of) their victimizers, not to solo offenders such as this.

The case itself involved a 17-year-old sending “an unsolicited picture of his erect penis” to an apparently unwilling recipient, but the logic of the court’s reasoning applies even when the recipient is pleased to receive the photo. The court does say that, “because [Gray] was not a minor sending sexually explicit images to another consenting minor, we decline to analyze such a situation,” but I think that — given the logic of the majority opinion — the analysis would have to end up the same way; nothing in the majority’s reasoning turns on the presence of an unwilling recipient.

Unlike other forms of visual “entertainment” the possession and distribution of child pornography is not covered under free speech and is, beyond question, one of the more damaging, sickening and horrible crimes imaginable. But it’s always been my understanding that the purpose of the laws we have against this vile behavior is to protect the child being victimized. What if the child, through stupidity or poor upbringing, is the one creating the banned content and he or she is the subject of the content? Can a person actually victimize themselves?

It seems that the boy in this case clearly did something wrong. Sending a x-rated picture of himself to an unwitting (apparently adult) recipient surely constitutes some sort of harassment. Perhaps sexual harassment? But that’s a far different class of crime to have on your record than being a child pornographer.

In some ways, this case is reminiscent of the bizarre case of Levar Allen from last year. That one was originally portrayed as a story of r****m due to a massive mistake by Shaun King at the New York Daily News, but it also involved a 17 year old boy and a 16 year old girl, both of whom sent naked pictures and videos of themselves back and forth. The girl was charged under a “sexting” law, but the boy was brought up on child pornography charges.

Again, if the only content being sent is comprised of images of the sender taken by themselves, isn’t some sort of “sexting” charge ( a few degrees down the scale from child porn) a more appropriate way to handle it? This seems needlessly harsh to me.

The Washington Supreme Court has continually come ... (show quote)

The law is an ass.

This proverbial expression is of English origin and the ass being referred to here is the English colloquial name for a donkey, not the American 'ass'. Donkeys have a, somewhat unjustified, reputation for obstinance and stupidity that has given us the adjective 'asinine'. It is the stupidly rigid application of the law that this phrase calls into question.