A 72-year-old British man was convicted on Monday of importing a child sex doll that was “anatomically detailed and correct,” according to Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA). Over the past year or so, British authorities have been dealing with an increasing number of such cases, which are difficult to prosecute under British law, as it’s not illegal to own a child sex doll. But importing one could amount to a criminal offense under the 1959 Obscene Publication Act.

Judge Simon James ruled on David Turner’s case at the Canterbury Crown Courthouse in Kent, a city southeast of London. Turner was found guilty of importing a 3-foot-11-inch doll from China. He also bought clothes for the doll, and owned others he used for sexual purposes.

At Turner’s home in Kent, police uncovered more than 34,000 images of children ages three to 16, along with two other child dolls, and 29 stories that “described sexual abuse of children,” according to the NCA. Turner was arrested last November, when customs officers at Stansted Airport seized a doll, which was mislabeled as a mannequin.

The importation of child sex dolls is an emerging trend in the UK. Since March 2016, the Border Force has seized 123 dolls. Those previously charged in similar cases pleaded guilty to importing obscene objects, but Turner asked the judge whether or not using the doll for sexual purposes was considered “indecent or obscene in law.” In a first, the judge ruled that it was. Turner’s sentencing is scheduled for September 8.

“Our front line officers and intelligence teams are vigilant to emerging criminal trends such as the importation of obscene dolls,” Dan Scully, deputy director of the Border Force’s Intelligence Operations said in a statement. “Through our work with law enforcement partners like the NCA, we are committed to preventing the smuggling of obscene articles and bringing those responsible to justice.”

Hazel Stewart, operations manager of the NCA’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection wing, said “Importers of such obscene items should expect to have law enforcement closing in on them.”

Some doubt that child sex dolls can be a therapeutic tool for would-be abusers. “There is no evidence to support the idea that the use of so-called child sex dolls helps prevent potential abusers from committing contact offenses against real children,” Jon Brown, head of development at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said in a statement. “And in fact there is a risk that those using these child sex dolls or realistic props could become desensitized and their behavior becomes normalized to them, so that they go on to harm children themselves.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 72-Year-Old British Man Convicted of Importing Child Sex Doll appeared first on Law Street.

YouTuber Austin Jones was charged with two counts of child pornography production in a Chicago federal court on June 13.

Jones, 24, allegedly solicited pornographic videos from two underage fans, according to a criminal complaint. In an affidavit, Special Agent of Homeland Security Investigations Michael Ploessl said Jones had communicated separately with two girls who had each identified themselves as 14 years old.

Ploessl said that during a videotaped interview with HSI, Jones waived his Miranda rights and admitted to having sexually explicit chats with the girls over Facebook in which he instructed them to make and send videos of themselves “dancing in a sexually explicit way” and performing sexual acts, despite knowing that the girls were underage.

Ploessl said Jones directed both girls, identified as Victim A and Victim B in the affidavit, to send him videos of themselves dancing in a sexual manner. According to Ploessl, Jones coached the girls on what to do, wear, and say in the videos, including telling each girl to explicitly identify her name and age at the beginning of the videos.

Ploessl said Victim A repeatedly told Jones that she was “tired and wanted to stop,” but that Jones pushed her to continue. Ploessl said Victim B also expressed her discomfort with what Jones was asking her to do, but Jones continued to pressure her, repeatedly calling her his “biggest fan.” Victim A sent Jones approximately 15 videos; Victim B sent approximately 25. According to the affidavit, several of the videos depicted Victim A and Victim B dancing nude from the waist down.

If convicted, Jones could face up to 30 years in prison.

People on social media reacted to the news about Jones. Some condemned him for “[abusing] his position as a public figure.”

dont ever say that those girls who sent austin jones those videos are at fault. he abused his position as a public figure who many young

— reanne (@plediswon) June 14, 2017

girls idolized, as a way to manipulate and guilt trip them into sending him videos. those girls were 14 years old, young gullible children

— reanne (@plediswon) June 14, 2017

One ex-fan burned some of their Austin Jones memorabilia, including an Austin Jones poster and shirt.

I used to be one of Austin Jones’ biggest fans. I met him twice. I couldn’t even look at this poster anymore, so I burned it (1/2) pic.twitter.com/UUeIbx2V5s

— sky☾ (@skylarstillwell) June 14, 2017

I also knew I could never wear this Austin Jones shirt again either, so I burned that too. ‍ (2/2) pic.twitter.com/j3guskwnDD

— sky☾ (@skylarstillwell) June 14, 2017

Another said they were not surprised by the news after similar allegations surfaced a few years ago.

Absolute ZERO shock about Austin Jones & the charges against him. I haven’t forgotten about the sketchy claims involving girls 2 years ago.

— glitterdick (@danger0usperson) June 14, 2017

These are not the first allegations of Jones pressuring underage girls to send him videos. In May 2015, screenshots of alleged messages, as well as more detailed explanations of those message interactions, between Jones and a girl named “Ashley” were posted on the website PupFresh. In that article, “Ashley” said she and Jones started talking during a Facebook Q&A at which point they began messaging one another privately and Jones asked her to send him videos of her twerking. Other women have made online posts and videos accusing Jones of similar actions, but thus far only two unnamed individuals are referred to in the complaint.

In June 2015, Jones uploaded a video on YouTube in which he responded to the accusations against him. Jones apologized for his conduct but denied that anything went beyond twerking.

“Nothing ever went further than twerking videos,” Jones said in the video. “There were never any nudes, never any physical contact.”

Jones’ case is one among a growing number of allegations against YouTubers–most of whom are white men–who have allegedly used their status as internet personalities to coerce fans and other individuals into uncomfortable situations, abusive relationships, and incidents of sexual assault and/or rape.

In 2014, at least four women came forward to accuse British YouTuber Sam Pepper of inappropriately touching them and/or sending them inappropriate messages. Three of those four women were under the age of 18 at the time of their alleged interactions with Pepper, according to BuzzFeed News.

Also in 2014, several individuals accused another British YouTuber, Alex Day, of pressuring them into sexual situations and having inappropriate relationships with fans. Day initially denied the allegations, but eventually admitted to having “occasionally manipulative relationships with women” in a Tumblr post from his account that his since been deactivated. However, Day maintained in another Tumblr post that “at no point in my life have I ever had a sexual relationship with someone under the age of consent.”

Organizations like Thorn, an international anti-human trafficking organization, are working to address the sexual exploitation of children and to eliminate the production and spread of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). In addition to providing resources for trafficking victims, Thorn is advocating for increased intelligence sharing among organizations that are fighting child trafficking to decrease redundancy and inefficiency. Thorn also communicates with people searching for CSAM to encourage them to seek help and deter them from exhibiting harmful behavior.

Ploessl’s affidavit did not say that Jones had circulated the videos he had received from the girls. While Thorn is working to end sexual exploitation of children by tracking the circulation of CSAM, it can be difficult to track CSAM that perpetrators are keeping solely for themselves.

Unlike television and film celebrities who are largely unreachable to fans, YouTubers and other internet stars often establish more personal relationships with their fans and are able to connect with their viewers in real-time thanks to social media. For many, YouTube is a community where fans and creators can have meaningful, appropriate interactions with one another. But the combination of YouTubers’ perceived relatability and celebrity status can result in some creators abusing that fan-creator relationship.

In his conversation with Victim B, Jones allegedly asked her, “do you realize how lucky you are?!?!” and told her that she needed to “prove” that she was his biggest fan. Jones allegedly told Victim B things like “I guess you really aren’t my biggest fan…..ok then” and “I’m just trying to help you! I know you’re trying your hardest to prove you’re my biggest fan. And I don’t want to have to find someone else,” according to the affidavit.

By reinforcing the idea that they should be placed on a pedestal and worshiped, some celebrities have forced fans into situations in which they do not or cannot consent to. If the allegations of YouTubers manipulating and abusing their fans are any indicator, increased accountability within the YouTube space is a necessary step in ending certain internet personalities’ predatory behavior toward vulnerable, underage fans.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YouTuber Charged With Child Pornography Production appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks ago, the House passed H.R. 1761, a bill aimed at punishing child pornographers. At first glance, this legislation seems like a common-sense child protection law, but the text’s language is so vague that it could include minors who are caught sexting each other and subject them to a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison.

Freshman congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA), introduced the bill last March to close alleged loopholes in existing child pornography laws.

Johnson’s move is largely a response to a botched legal case involving a man accused of the sexual abuse of his seven-year-old neighbor. The man couldn’t be convicted by federal prosecutors because the only available evidence was a single photo of the abuse, which was deemed insufficient by the court.

The bill, which will soon make its way to the Senate, seeks to “criminalize the knowing consent of the visual depiction, or live transmission, of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.” While this would prevent additional cases of digital sexual exploitation of minors, the definitions used also criminalize explicit photos being shared among consenting teenagers in a relationship, for example.

A 2014 Drexel University study found that 54 percent of its respondents sexted as minors, with 28 percent of those saying the sexts were photographic. The study also showed that most of these kids were not aware of the legal ramifications their sexts could bring about. If this bill passes, millions of teens across the country could inadvertently slip into criminality.

Though the legislation passed the House with a comfortable and bipartisan 368-51 margin, Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) called the measure “deadly and counterproductive,” according to Reason. A letter signed by Jackson Lee and six other House dissenters concluded that “no child pornography offense should go unpunished. HR 1761, however, would subject more individuals to mandatory minimum penalties at a time when the federal criminal justice system should be moving away from such sentencing schemes. While well-intentioned, the bill would exacerbate a problem that is clearly unfair and unnecessary.”

The ACLU took to Twitter to object to the bill’s passing, once again emphasizing its good intentionality but poor anticipation of real-life application.

The purpose of child pornography laws is to prevent minors from being abused, not criminalize young people for sexual experimentation. https://t.co/2Nvbhs3u3N

— ACLU National (@ACLU) June 1, 2017

Director of federal legislative affairs at Families Against Mandatory Minimums Molly Gill told Broadly: “You’re talking about 18-, 19-, 20-year-olds—young people who are being certainly reckless, but do they need to spend 15 years in prison? At that young age, their brains are not even done developing yet. They have all the potential in the world ahead of them and a 15-year prison sentence is the fastest way to kill their future.”

After the bill was debated, two amendments were proposed to make the language more specific regarding who the bill is targeting. The first would have removed the possibility for teens to be punished as sex offenders for sexting. The second eliminated the mandatory minimum penalties. Neither amendment passed.

In response to his colleagues’ concerns, Johnson said that “in Scripture, Romans 13 refers to the governing authorities as ‘God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.’ I, for one, believe we have a moral obligation, as any just government should, to defend the defenseless.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Aimed at Pornographers Could Subject Teens to Jail Time for Sexting appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Fogle, former Subway spokesman, experienced an incredibly quick plummet from grace after he pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography and sexually assaulting minors. He was sentenced to over 15 years in prison, and is currently serving out that sentence, but civil suits against Fogle are still making their way through the court system. Fogle is fighting one particular civil suit against a girl whose photos he allegedly had possession of, and has a particularly gross countersuit–Fogle is claiming that her parents are responsible for the emotional anguish she is currently experiencing due to their divorce.

His alleged victim is reportedly seeking $150,000 in damages because she was unknowingly photographed nude and semi-nude by hidden cameras when she was a child by Fogle’s known accomplice Russell Taylor. Taylor–as well as his wife, who allegedly knew about the creation of child pornography–are also named in the lawsuit against Fogle.

But Fogle’s argument is what’s making the news, because it’s particularly upsetting. Fogle is claiming that she was neglected by her divorced parents. He claims that that supposed neglect and the fact that her parents fought in front of her are the root causes of her emotional distress. According to his lawyers, via court papers obtained by the Daily Mail:

B.T. and J.T. maintained a hateful and abusive relationship toward each other, which included, but was not limited to, engaging in frequent fighting and arguing between themselves; abusing alcohol and getting drunk; and engaging in frequent fighting, physical abuse, and arguing with Jane Doe, which caused Jane Doe to suffer from emotional distress, anxiety, and major depression before she learned of any allegations [about Fogle and Taylor].

Another section reads:

B.T. and J.T., by their actions, caused Jane Doe to suffer from emotional distress and depression which then resulted in Jane Doe engaging in destructive behaviors, including, but not limited to alcohol abuse, substance abuse, self-mutilation, and suicidal ideation with regard to which B.T. and J.T. are liable.

If you thought Fogle couldn’t get any more hated…this may do it–there’s  been a lot of understandable outrage over these claims.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jared Fogle Sues Alleged Child Pornography Victim’s Parents appeared first on Law Street.

The story of Rehtaeh Parsons was a compelling one that hit the media, particularly North American media, last year. She was a young woman from Nova Scotia who was raped in 2011 by four teenage boys while at a party when she was fifteen. A photograph of the assault was taken, and then actively passed around her high school. After the abuse she suffered at the hands of her peers, Rehtaeh Parsons committed suicide last year, but the trial of those involved in her assault and the circulation of the photograph is going on now.

Now if I were in Canada, I could be in a lot of trouble for writing that previous paragraph. The reason why is that there’s a Canadian law that bans the identification in the media of anyone involved in a child pornography case. The media has had to refer to Rehtaeh Parsons’ case essentially in code, writing things like “the victim” or the “the girl” and then describing the case against the young men who sexually assaulted her and then distributed the picture.

It has also forbid the media from mentioning her parents’ names, and the names of the two young men currently on trial for the actions they took against her. But the ban didn’t go into effect until recently, when certain points in the proceedings were reached against the young men. Well after many people around the country had heard Rehtaeh Parsons’ terrifying story.

The ban exists to protect those who are involved in child pornography cases — obviously an incredibly sensitive subject. But in this case, Rehtaeh Parsons’ name was already out there, and her parents think that the ban is actually in place to protect the authorities, who they claim did not do nearly enough to protect her from the beginning.

When the Parsons family first approached the police about a week after her assault and after the photograph was taken, they looked into it for almost a year before deciding to not press charges. They allegedly didn’t do anything to try to stop the spread of the photo. The Parsons family claims that at the time they were told that the photo didn’t even qualify as child pornography. Now their daughter’s name can’t be published anywhere for that exact reason.

The Parsons family also argues that Rehtaeh’s name has taken on a life of its own, and that she would have wanted to be able to speak up for herself and on behalf of future victims. Her parents emphasize the potential strength that Rehtaeh’s name, picture, and identity have as a rallying cry. Leah Parsons, Rehteah’s mother, stated that not being able to use her identity “diminishes the impact and the connection people have with the issue. When people hear her name and see her face, they realize it could be anybody’s daughter.”

The Parsons brought the gag rule before a judge who decided that while Rehtaeh’s name has reached a status much different than the usual child pornography victim, the law stands.

If the facts are indeed what the Parsons allege, I have to agree with them. The law does make sense — in the correct context. This is not the correct context. In an already highly publicized case where the victim’s name has inspired legislation and advocacy, the law seems unnecessary and cumbersome.

But most importantly it takes away Rehtaeh’s voice, which when you think about it, is the exact same thing that happened when her rapists assaulted her, spread that picture, and tortured her. They took away her identity. She deserves it back — even in memoriam — and this gag order law is doing nothing to help her or other rape victims who could find strength in her story.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [val.pearl via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Does the Gag Order on Rehtaeh Parsons’ Name Really Help? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s any teen’s worst nightmare: your girlfriend’s mother discovers the sexually-explicit video you sent to her phone and she reports it to the cops. That’s horrifying enough, but the cops in a recent incident are trying to take a 17 year old’s humiliation to the next level.

This week, a Manassas, Virginia teen was charged with distributing pornographic material in the form of a video of his own sexual endeavors. This in itself sounds a bit strange, to charge one for distributing material about him or herself. Doesn’t he have a right to that material, despite being 17?

Ready for the truly disturbing element of the story? Brace yourselves, especially my male readers.

In order to identify the teen in the video, the cops in charge of the investigation want to (ready for it?) induce him to have an erection for them all to observe via an injection in a hospital. I can see you all grabbing your crotches in terror now.

I would say “I’m left speechless,” because this is the kind of situation that that saying is generally reserved for, but I actually find I have heaps to say. My mind simply cannot fathom that conducting such an emotionally-scarring procedure is legal. Not to mention the legality of obtaining the video via a search of his phone in the first place. According to the Washington Post, only one individual has attested to seeing the alleged warrant that grants permission for this.

As noted by Carlos Flores Laboy, the teen’s appointed guardian, the cops’ desire to take photos of his erect penis more or less equates to trying to combat child pornography with child pornography. There’s some nice hypocrisy for you.

They’re using a statute that was designed to protect children from being exploited in a sexual manner to take a picture of this young man in a sexually explicit manner. The irony is incredible. 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.

-Flores Laboy

After obtaining the photos, analysts would need to use “penis to penis” software, or, as one man commented on the article, “penis identification hardware.” Get it?

Let’s take this case at face value — it is an attempt to wildly blow out of proportion a “sexting” conversation between a girlfriend and her boyfriend and morph it into a child pornography case that would instantly land the teen with two felonies and the requirement that he register as a sex offender. Lesson to all those lovers under age of 18 — don’t send sexy videos to each other. Just wait like, a couple of years. I really hope she doesn’t dump the poor guy for this…

It sounds almost like a police department soap opera. You’ve got drama, child pornography, underage lovers, and major hypocrisy. I feel pretty confident that the police department could spend its time doing something far more productive, like trying to nab legit sex offenders like the creepy old dudes that prey on little kids.

Thankfully someone other than just me came to that conclusion, as the department decided to forgo its forced-erection project. The public, expressing these strange things called logic and reason, seems to have convinced the cops planning to take the graphic photos of the teen’s privates to drop their perverted plan.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Alton via wikimedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Combating Alleged Child Porn by Compelling a Minor to Drop His Pants? appeared first on Law Street.