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.

Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman from New York, pleaded guilty to transferring obscene materials to a minor in a federal court in Manhattan on Friday. The expected plea agreement capped an FBI investigation into Weiner’s relationship with a 15-year-old girl. Weiner, 52, could face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The judge said he will be required to register as a sex offender. Weiner also agreed to not appeal any prison sentence between 21 and 27 months.

In court on Friday, Weiner issued the following statement:

Beginning with my service in Congress and continuing into the first half of last year, I have compulsively sought attention from women who contacted me on social media, and I engaged with many of them in both sexual and non-sexual conversation. These destructive impulses brought great devastation to family and friends, and destroyed my life’s dream of public service. And yet I remained in denial even as the world around me fell apart.

Last September, the girl anonymously shared her story with British tabloid The Daily Mail. She said Weiner had sent her sexually explicit text messages and photographs. She said Weiner was aware that she was a minor. That report came just months after Weiner was embroiled in another sexting scandal that led to a separation with his wife, Huma Abedin, a close aide to Hillary Clinton.

The FBI’s investigation into Weiner’s communications with the 15-year-old girl also affected the presidential campaign–Weiner’s electronic devices contained emails pertinent to the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s private email server. Recently fired FBI Director James Comey sent a controversial letter to Congress, in the days before the November 8 election, saying that the FBI, while investigating Weiner, found new emails that “appear to be pertinent to the [Clinton] investigation.”

The FBI determined the newly-discovered emails didn’t contain any new information, but Clinton recently blamed the eleventh-hour disclosure as central to her election defeat.

Weiner’s political career crumbled in 2011, when his first sexting scandal went public. He had been a Democratic representative from New York since 1999. Despite his tarnished reputation, he ran for mayor of New York City in 2013. His bid was derailed by yet another sexting scandal.

According to an Associated Press report, Weiner was crying in court as he apologized to the girl, saying, “I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse.”

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 Anthony Weiner Pleads Guilty in Sexting Case with 15-Year-Old Girl appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton’s close aide Huma Abedin is separating from her husband, Anthony Weiner, in the wake of the latest scandal that arose on Monday. Weiner, already with a history of sex scandals under his belt, was caught sending loaded text messages and pictures to a brunette woman, this time with his son sleeping next to him in bed.

The woman in question is a Trump supporter and NRA fan who has used Twitter to criticize both President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Now Trump is using the latest scandal against Clinton. He said in a statement:

Huma is making a very wise decision. I know Anthony Weiner well, and she will be far better off without him. I only worry for the country in that Hillary Clinton was careless and negligent in allowing Weiner to have such close proximity to highly classified information. Who knows what he learned and who he told? It’s just another example of Hillary Clinton’s bad judgment. It is possible that our country and its security have been greatly compromised by this.

Huma Abedin Announces Split From Anthony Weiner https://t.co/BraW1uoD7I #philly pic.twitter.com/M6yJ6DpMt3

— Philly News Now (@phillynewsnow) August 29, 2016

Weiner, a former congressman, had to resign because of a different sexting scandal in 2011. After that, he promised he’d go to therapy and never do it again. But in 2013 he made headlines for sexting again, under the pseudonym Carlos Danger.

On Sunday night, the New York Post revealed that he started once more in January 2015 and kept the conversation with the woman in question going until this month. The pictures that are currently circulating the media were taken in July last year, while Weiner’s wife was touring the country working for Clinton.

Weiner admitted to the Post that he and the woman had “been friends” for a while, but never met. He also said that the pictures “were always appropriate.” However, the pictures that are now public prove the opposite. On Monday Weiner deleted his Twitter account.

Huma Abedin said in a statement:

After long and painful consideration and work on my marriage, I have made the decision to separate from my husband. Anthony and I remain devoted to doing what is best for our son, who is the light of our life. During this difficult time, I ask for respect for our privacy.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin to Separate After Latest Sexting Scandal appeared first on Law Street.

With the widespread use of cellphones emerging in the late 1990s, the last few generations have been the first to have their every move documented for public consumption. Since then, cellphones have been ever present at many important events: proms, graduations, college orientation, and for first relationships. Still, within the last decade or so, cell phones changed from portable phones to portable computers with cameras attached, giving people the ability to take, edit, and share photos instantaneously. This ability has led to an increase in something known as “sexting,” defined as “sending nude, sexual or indecent photos (or ‘selfies’) using a computer, mobile phone or other mobile device.” In some cases, it can also include written messages or even videos.

Some states have adopted laws that have severe penalties aimed at teenagers who send, receive, or save such photos. These laws are not as severe as if they were legal adults possessing photos of an underage teen, but they are still serious consequences of which to be aware.

Dawn of a New Legal Era

Sexting laws are a relatively new concept, so that’s why they are somewhat murky to most Americans. Since 2009, many states have adopted teen sexting laws, and each year more states consider bills on the issue. States that already have laws include: Wyoming, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and Indiana. Several other states are also considering introducing sexting laws through their legislatures. Most states focus on teen sexting, though there are a few that also legislate other aspects of the activity. As teen sexting spreads and becomes a worry among parents, it’s probable that these laws will be adopted on a wider scale. That doesn’t mean that it is entirely legal in those states without sexting laws, however. In the states without any sexting laws, teens who sext may still see consequences as a result of the pre-existing laws that target child pornography.

What are states doing about teen sexting?

There are some states that have adopted laws specifically for sexting. These laws have explicitly targeted the images sent among teenagers. For example, Connecticut’s sexting law targets teens who create, save, or spread photos of themselves or others.

Here’s an example of how Pennsylvania approaches sexting, as it is illegal for teens ages 12-17 to posses the naked photo of another person in the same age range. According to a Criminal Defense Lawyer resource page:

For example, both a teen who sends a photo of a nude classmate and one who receives the photo could be prosecuted under Pennsylvania law. Teen sexting is punished more severely if the defendant takes or shares a nude photo of another teen without the teen’s permission, and in order to harass that person or cause him or her emotional distress. For example, a boy who shares nude photos of his ex-girlfriend after they break up could be charged with a more serious crime. Pennsylvania’s teen sexting law does not apply to images taken or distributed for commercial purposes, or images of sexual intercourse, penetration, or masturbation, or any other hardcore sexual images.

State laws differ significantly, however, depending on things like ages of majority and previous cases. Louisiana won’t allow anyone under 17 to send or keep pictures. Texas is one of the states that makes some allowances: if the minor sexts another minor, it’s not considered a crime, as long as the recipient’s age is within two years of the sender and the exchange is consensual.

For more information on your state, visit Mobile Safeguard’s Comprehensive list.

What do you do if someone sends this type of message to you?

Teen sexting laws prohibit both sending and receiving explicit images, which can be quite a gray area for some people, as well as some courts. How can you stop someone from sending you a photo? There’s a definite difference between requesting a picture and simply receiving one from another teen. The difference also comes from what you do when you get that picture.

Because of the grayness and the ability for sabotage, sexting laws typically prohibit “receiving and keeping” any explicit images. This means that if a teen or adult receives an image from a teen, the receiver must delete the message immediately in order to avoid legal trouble. To protect oneself, it would also be a good idea for the recipient to send a message stating that the image is not wanted or requested.

Federal Law and Sexting

Depending on the circumstances of the images in question, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

According to Criminal Defense Lawyer:

Depending on the circumstances, sexting may also be a crime under federal law.

The Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today (PROTECT) Act of 2003 makes it illegal to produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to distribute any obscene visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Knowing possession of such material—without intent to distribute—is also a crime under the PROTECT Act. (18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1).)

Federal law also criminalizes causing a minor to take part in sexually explicit conduct in order to visually depict that conduct. Parents who allow this behaviorcan also be prosecuted. (18 U.S.C. § 2251.)

That doesn’t mean that we’ll likely see federal prosecution of juveniles for sexting. The Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA) generally posits that, where possible, juvenile cases should remain in state courts.

What happens in states that don’t have sexting laws?

For those states that do not specifically legislate against sexting, the act is usually covered under child pornography laws. This includes creating, possessing, or distributing the photos of anyone underage. This means that the child who takes the picture can be in legal trouble. Many people question the punishment for these young children, especially when they may have been coerced into sending the photos. There has been much debate about what the penalties should be for teenagers who send those photos. Some think they should not face the same penalties as those who are over 18, especially because it can impact everything from college choices to potential careers and living situations. Those who argue against this type of treatment want some of the lesser penalties listed below for teens who are caught sexting.

What are the possible penalties for sexting?

The penalties for teen sexting involve a lot of red tape, juvenile and adult courts, and also include various criminal laws. Overall there is a lot of coordination required anytime there are juveniles in the justice system, which is why some states have specific laws against sexting. Usually, it takes a contentious case to prompt the creation of a specific law.

Juveniles

When a juvenile commits a criminal offense through sexting, that offense is typically handled by the juvenile court system. Juvenile courts have wider discretion in the kinds of penalties they impose. Some of the penalties could include a warning, fines, having to serve community service, completing counseling, probation, or even a sentence to a juvenile facility.

Adults

If the person is 18 or older, he or she will be charged as an adult and could face incarceration, fines, or being entered onto the sex offender registry.

Conclusion

What many consider to be fun and harmless flirting online or over the phone can actually become a severe crime with consequences for both parties involved. It’s best to know where your state stands on the issue and to be smart about it. Sending pictures or messages via your phone opens up the doors for a world of trouble and heartache.

 Resources

 Primary

Connecticut State Police: Connecticut Sexting and Teens

National Criminal Justice Reference Service: Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act

Additional

Criminal Defense Lawyer: Teen Sexting in Pennsylvania

Daily Mail: Parents of ‘Sexting’ Teenagers Can Now Be Punished in Texas

Aggressive Criminal Defense: Sexting Laws and Legal Information

Washington Post: Stop Demonizing Teen Sexting. In Most Cases it is Completely Harmless

CNN: Chances Are Your Teen Has Sexted

 Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to credit select information to Criminal Defense Lawyer. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teen Sexting: What are the Legal Consequences? appeared first on Law Street.

Today’s “wow, people really suck” story comes straight to you from the California highways. Or, to be more specific, California’s Highway Police. Apparently, a few officers from Contra Costa County, California, have created a new, sick game to pass the time. They began accessing the cell phones of female suspects brought into custody, and then sending nude or semi-nude photos of these women to themselves. Allegedly, the pictures were then passed to the other officers playing the “game.”

The practice was uncovered when a 23-year-old woman from San Ramon, California, was arrested on DUI charges. While she was being processed, her belongings — including her iPhone — were in police possession. Five days after being released she noticed something strange on her iPad — nude photos that she had on her phone had been sent to an unknown number. While the record was deleted from her iPhone, the phone had synced with the iPad, and the record was not deleted from there.

It was discovered that CHP Officer Sean Harrington was the one who had the woman’s cellphone, and appears to be the center figure of this sick game. Dublin CHP Officer Robert Hazelwood is allegedly one of Harrington’s partners in crime, according to texts between the two. The text messages are lewd, and contain insulting and sexist remarks about the women whose photos were stolen. One exchange states, “Nudes are always better with the face,” and “Maybe she knows she has a jacked-up horse face?!?!?”

A third officer is believed to be involved, or at least was witness to the behavior. The case is now under serious investigation and scrutiny, and there is believed to be other women whose photos were stolen by Harrington.

Golden Gate Division Chief Avery Browne responded to his officers’ disgusting behavior at a press conference late Saturday night in which he claimed the practice was limited to the Dublin office. That being said, this may not be as isolated of an incident as Chief Browne claims. According to Senior Contra Costa district attorney inspector Darryl Holcombe:

Harrington said he first learned of this scheme when he was working in the Los Angeles office. Harrington said when he was assigned to the Dublin office, he learned from other officers that they would access the cell phones of female arrestees and look for nude photographs of them. Harrington said if photographs were located, the officers would then text the photographs to other sworn members of the office, and, to non-CHP individuals. Harrington described this scheme as a game.

There’s a lot that’s disturbing in that comment. Harrington could just be trying to cover his ass, yes, but I also think that it’s a real possibility that this is a systemic issue. After all, earlier this year a Long Island woman sued the NYPD arguing that photos of her were taken off her phone while she was in custody.

In a world where an average women can easily find herself fired because her photos are posted on a “revenge porn” site and celebrities’ nudes are stolen and shared on the internet with no regard for personal privacy, I suppose this isn’t too surprising. There’s something about a woman choosing to take nude photos in private that apparently renders her right to privacy null and void. And a woman who commits some other transgression — in the case of the San Ramon woman, driving under the influence — apparently loses any other right to privacy she had. The San Ramon woman committed a crime, yes, and she deserves to receive whatever punishment for that crime that justice decrees. However, that does not mean that Harrington and Hazelton suddenly became entitled to invade her privacy — her crime does not render her any less human. Harrington and Hazelton committed a crime, and they deserve to pay for it.

—

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 [Gordon Mei 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 California Police Officers Found Stealing Suspects’ Nude Photos 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.

“10, 9, 8, 7…” you count back as you begin to drift into an anesthetic haze. Soon you’re completely unconscious, and your surgery is underway. The surgeon begins to open you up for a complicated procedure, and your anesthesiologist is…sexting? Well, that’s not so unfathomable. Last week, Seattle anesthesiologist Dr. Arthur Zilberstein’s medical license was suspended due to allegations that he was sexting during surgery. According to the Medical Quality Assurance Commission, Zilberstein repeatedly sent sexually explicit text messages while acting as the lead anesthesiologist in surgeries. The Washington State Department of Health has reported that the doctor had “compromised patient safety due to his preoccupation with sexual matters while he was on hospital duty between at least April and August 2013.”

This was not just a quick, one time thing. The doctor sent dozens of messages on numerous occasions. On June 17, 2013, Zilberstein sent 64 texts over the course of seven surgeries. Most of these messages were sent minutes apart, including one that read, “I’m hella busy with C sections.” It’s clear he wasn’t “hella busy” enough to put down the phone. During an August 6 surgery Zilberman exchanged 45 sexually explicit text messages.

Swedish Medical Center, the hospital where Zilberstein worked, released a statement shortly after the allegations were made public: “Respondent’s lack of focus on patient care while providing anesthesia services for hospital-based surgical procedures routinely fell below the standard of care and put patients at unreasonable risk of harm.” The statement also read:

The safety of our patients is our number one priority, once we learned that the State had suspended this physician’s medical license, the physician’s Medical Staff membership and privileges were immediately suspended. We just recently learned of these allegations and are conducting our own internal review of the physician, who is not directly employed by Swedish.

While naturally there are going to be distractions in the operating room, they have skyrocketed over the past several years with the increased reliance on technology. We are constantly texting and checking our phones throughout the day. But what place do cell phones have in the operating room where lives are on the line? A panel of surgeons, organized by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, discussed distractions in the operating room and their potential impacts on patient safety. According to Dr. Daniel White, electronic distractions in the operating room are reaching “epidemic levels.” The combination of natural and electronic distractions are making both communication and concentration, which are key for performing a successful surgery, extremely difficult.

In particular, anesthesiologists need to have perfect timing and focus in order to perform their duties correctly, meaning that any small distraction could become a huge problem. The doctors on the panel compared the duties of an anesthesiologist to those of a pilot, and suggest that the “sterile cockpit” rules that pilots use should be followed by surgeons and anesthesiologists. According to Dr. Dwight Burney, “the sterile cockpit means that no tasks are to be undertaken by the flight crew during the critical phases of taxi, takeoff, and landing in any operation below 10,000 feet above ground level other than level flight and cruising.” Essentially, during these “critical phases,” the pilot’s complete focus should be on flying the plane and under no circumstances should he or she be doing anything else. He explains how “several articles in the anesthesia literature talk about the critical phases of anesthesia — induction and emergence — that are analogous to critical phases in aviation — take off and landing.” If these rules were to be adopted by surgeons, there would be no avoidable distraction, like cell phones, allowed during these phases of surgery.

This story has received a lot of buzz on the internet, and many people are wondering the same thing that I am: how was this allowed to go on for so long? Didn’t anyone notice him using his cell phone during surgery? Jan Mannino, in a comment on a Huffington Post article said, “as a long practicing nurse anesthetist, I am here to tell you that you can’t be playing on a cell phone and closely monitoring the patient at the same time. And to think he was billing for his anesthesia.” Joan Lemme commented, “And how long has this been going on? It was not obvious to the surgeon that he was using his cell phone? Sounds like many were ignoring it for some time.”

So why was it ignored? Well, the truth is that there are no laws banning cell phones during surgery. As a result, no one had any reason to speak up. Some individual hospitals, such as Torrence Memorial Medial Center in Los Angeles, have rules regarding cell phones in their hospitals. After an incident in 2009 where a staff member was caught taking pictures of a naked patient, the hospital made a rule prohibiting cell phones in all patient areas. With a higher prevalence of these incidents due to increased cell phone use, one has to wonder why these rules regarding cell phones have not yet been turned into laws. Perhaps this situation will be a wakeup call and we will finally see the necessary changes to these laws. While, thankfully, no patients were injured or killed as a result of Zilberstein’s actions, he compromised their safety and was completely inappropriate. If something had happened, Zilberstein and Swedish Medical Center could have been looking at a huge malpractice suit costing them millions of dollars. Technology is advancing, and the laws need to keep up.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Pro Juventute via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sexting Anesthesiologist’s License Suspended appeared first on Law Street.

Revenge porn is now legal in New York. The issue occurs when a person posts nude photographs of an ex-lover on the internet as a way to embarrass and degrade the ex. The photographs are often exchanged willingly while love blossoms, but when that same love wilts, the images change from intimate gifts to dangerous weapons that can seriously damage a person’s reputation.

For example, in the New York case People v. Barber, the defendant tweeted a nude photograph of his ex-girlfriend and shared it with her sister and employer. While the court acknowledged the “reprehensible” nature of the defendant’s conduct, it nonetheless found him innocent of any crime.

The problem concerns the specific language of New York’s law. In most states, you cannot take a nude photograph of a person without that person’s knowledge or consent. This rule does not apply, however, to situations where a person willingly gives a naked photograph to another. The New York court latched onto this distinction and dismissed the case.

While this particular dismissal was based on the language of the statute, some critics wonder if legislation specifically targeting revenge porn might violate freedom of speech rights. The American Civil Liberties Union opposed a draft to California’s revenge porn bill on the grounds that “the posting of otherwise lawful speech or images even if offensive or emotionally distressing is constitutionally protected. The speech must constitute a true threat or violate another otherwise lawful criminal law, such as stalking or harassment statute, in order to be made illegal.” Those who oppose a statute criminalizing revenge porn highlight the fact that the photographs were freely given and are, in essence, the property of the receiver to do as he wishes.

In contrast, another angle to the problem concerns the ubiquity and permanence of the internet and anything posted to it. Search engines allow anyone to instantly access everything ever posted about a person. Employers, colleagues, and friends all have the ability to discover information about you posted online. This makes a naked photograph in the hands of a scornful ex-flame particularly dangerous and powerful. Put simply: there is no real way to remove something from the internet, and search engines organize what is on the internet with terrifying accurateness and efficiency. An individual risks permanent reputational damage from revenge porn.

While anyone can suffer from revenge porn, the pernicious practice more often negatively affects women. Drafters of revenge porn statutes must also analyze this issue focusing on how it relates to sexual harassment and the discrimination of women. The issue does not affect men in the same way, and drafters need to scrutinize whether or not their stance on revenge porn has any latent sexist, misogynistic, or patriarchal impulses.

Revenge porn constitutes a particularly modern problem. Numerous themes percolate, including changing mores, technological advancement, sexual harassment and discrimination, freedom of speech, and the chaos of unreciprocated love. In New York, the court has signaled to the legislature to fix the problem. Whether and how the state chooses to draft a statute speaks to which themes the state decides to value.

—

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Court OKs Revenge Porn; Will the Legislature Act? appeared first on Law Street.

Snapchat is a smartphone app designed to show timed pictures and videos that are not permanently saved to the recipient’s phone. The amount of time for which a recipient can view a photo is dictated by the sender, but is somewhere between 3-10 seconds. Usually the app is used for quick but relatively silly communication with friends–pet pictures, selfies, or just a life update in photo form.

Snapchat has received some criticism for possibly making “sexting,” the sharing of suggestive or explicit photos, easier. Because pictures automatically disappear after a few seconds, it may be easier for young people to send inappropriate photos without fear of later distribution. The problem is that it’s not that hard to save snapchats–there are apps to secretly save snapchats. Or for the more brazen, it is possible for a recipient to screenshot a snapchat, but the sender does receive a notification. You can easily take a picture of a snapchat on one phone with another phone or camera. For the most tech-savvy, there can be ways to access secret files on a smartphone. There have been dozens of cases of people posting their sexting partner’s compromising snapchats to the internet.

Now in all fairness, the trend has not been quite as widespread as feared. A recent poll found that only about 15% of Snapchat users admitted to using it for sexting purposes. The creators of Snapchat won’t reveal how many people have downloaded their app, but given its popularity, it’s safe to say that 15% of users is probably a fairly large group.

Now, if snapchat was just an app used by adults, this wouldn’t be too problematic. Moral and ethical issues aside, it is legal for adults to send nude photos back and forth, if they so wish. The problem that arises with Snapchat is that it may be being used by teenagers to send pictures back and forth, which can be considered distribution of child pornography.

There have been actual alleged cases of child pornography sent through Snapchat. In November, ten boys near Montreal aged 13-15 were investigated for peddling child pornography. They convinced their girlfriends to send them nude or partially nude photos, and then shared them among themselves. The girls did not know that the pictures were being distributed. The boys are due back in court on January 20th.

Teen-to-teen transmitted photos are one thing. But now an even creepier use of Snapchat has resulted in a new arrest. This week in Missouri, a mother has been charged with misdemeanor child endangerment after she sent snapchats of both herself and her 14-year-old daughter topless. She claims that she didn’t take the picture herself, but one of her other daughters did. That claim is contentious, because according to Prosecutor Tim Lohmar, it seems that the woman and her daughter are posing for the photo.

There have also been cases of adults sending explicit snapchats of themselves to minors, such as Joseph Johnson, a middle school teacher in Florida.

Snapchat might make sexting more guilt-free, but I can’t imagine it makes it that much so. It really is pretty easy to save a picture sent through the app. I think the bigger issue at play that warrants discussion is the use of social media to send inappropriate content. As children get smartphones, tablets, or computers at younger and younger ages, lines become fuzzier. The truth of the matter is that teens will always push the envelope, and science tells us that they’re quite not as good at making sound decisions as adults.

While snapchat is undoubtably fun, it can be dangerous, and teens sending pictures among themselves can have serious consequences. The Missouri woman being charged absolutely deserved it, but as for the teens, I think the issue is a little fuzzier. I know I’ve cautioned this before, but I truly think that as our technological abilities change, our laws need to keep pace.

—

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 [Summer Skyes 11 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 The Dark Side of Snapchat appeared first on Law Street.