Michelle Carter, the Massachusetts woman who urged her boyfriend to commit suicide through text messages, was sentenced to two and half years in prison on Thursday. However, the now 20-year-old Carter won’t serve any time until her appeals are finished. If Carter still has to serve prison time after those appeals, she will only serve 15 months in prison at first, with the balance of that sentence suspended until August 1, 2022.

In June, Bristol County Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz found Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of her boyfriend, 18-year-old Conrad Roy III. Carter, who was 17 at the time, repeatedly texted her boyfriend as he contemplated suicide. Initially, she urged Roy to seek medical help for his suicidal thoughts and discouraged him from harming himself. However, a couple weeks later, Carter began urging Roy to kill himself and actually discussed how to use carbon monoxide.

On the day of his suicide, when Roy expressed that he was scared to go through with it, Carter “told him to get back in” the truck. Roy was found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning in July 2014 after he filled his truck with the toxic gas. When delivering his verdict back in June, Moniz said that “instructing Mr. Roy to get back in the truck constituted wanton and reckless conduct,” ABC News reported.

According to Buzzfeed, Moniz ordered Carter to abstain from any contact with Roy’s family and her friends who testified against her. He also ordered Carter not to try to profit off of the case, such as through movie or book deals, as part of her sentence.

Roy’s family members read statements in court before Moniz delivered his sentence.

“She exploited my son’s weaknesses and used him as a pawn in her own well-being,” Roy’s father said, according to Buzzfeed.

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 Michelle Carter Sentenced to 2.5 Years in Prison in Texting Suicide Case appeared first on Law Street.

Spectators let out audible gasps as Judge Lawrence Moniz announced the verdict for 20-year-old Michelle Carter, who was accused of encouraging her boyfriend to kill himself in 2014. On Friday, she was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and could face up to 20 years in prison. The sentencing phase of her trial will begin on August 3.

It may have been the first trial of its kind–dealing with the question of whether someone can be guilty of another person’s suicide. Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Justice Robert Cordy said at the beginning of the trial that it was the first case where words alone were the evidence, at least in that court.

Audible gasps come from the gallery when Judge Moniz finds #MichelleCarter guilty.

— Bob McGovern (@BobMcGovernJr) June 16, 2017

Carter was 18 when she encouraged her 17-year-old boyfriend Conrad Roy III to kill himself. Reportedly she wanted attention as the “grieving girlfriend.” But their conversations all happened via text messages–they lived many miles apart–and Roy had been depressed and suicidal for some time. Roy took his own life by pumping carbon monoxide into his truck.

Despite many legal experts who expected Carter to be acquitted, the judge said that Carter’s behavior was both immoral and illegal. He pointed to the fact that Roy previously had tried to commit suicide, but reached out to his family for help. His family responded by getting him treatment.

The messages I’m getting from attorneys are ranging from “Holy crap” to “Told you so.” #MichelleCarter

— Bob McGovern (@BobMcGovernJr) June 16, 2017

On the day that Roy committed suicide, he texted Carter, explaining that he was having second thoughts. He called her, but she told him to get back in the truck. “He breaks that chain of self-causation by exiting the vehicle,” Moniz said. He added that by telling Roy to get back in, despite “his ambiguities, his fears, his concerns,” Carter created a situation that would most likely cause severe harm to Roy.

“She admits in subsequent texts that she did nothing, she did not call the police or Mr. Roy’s family. And finally, she did not issue a simple additional instruction: ‘Get out of the truck,’” Moniz said. According to legal experts, this case could encourage Massachusetts lawmakers to write laws that will hold people accountable for what they say to each other online.

The ACLU of Massachusetts issued a statement disagreeing with the verdict, saying it is a violation of free speech. Basically the organization said that it could lead to the criminalization of other conversations, like end-of-life care between family members.

Just in: @ACLU_Mass criticizes Michelle Carter guilty verdict as violation of First Amendment. pic.twitter.com/mgm14A5Yte

— Dan Glaun (@dglaun) June 16, 2017

Another facet of the case is that Carter has also struggled with mental illness herself. At the time of Roy’s suicide, she was on antidepressants that might have affected her actions. According to psychiatrist Peter Breggin, who testified in court on Monday, the medication Carter was taking could have affected her frontal lobe, impacting her ability to empathize with other people and make sound decisions.

“Someone who wouldn’t do anything outlandish or dangerous might when the frontal lobe is injured in some way,” Breggin said. He also claimed that Carter appeared supportive of Roy. He recounted that she tried to talk him out of committing suicide. But, when Roy claimed he didn’t want help, she supported him. “She’s not thinking she’s doing something criminal, she found a way to help her boyfriend,” he said.

No matter what, this is a tragic and complicated case. One young man lost his life, and one young woman could be facing a lengthy prison sentence. In the end, there is no winner.

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 Michelle Carter Found Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter in Texting Trial appeared first on Law Street.

The trial of Michelle Carter, the 20-year-old Massachusetts woman who urged her boyfriend to kill himself through text messages, is about to begin. Back in 2014, she sent dozens of text messages to her boyfriend Conrad Roy III, telling him that the time was right, and to just “do it.” He subsequently killed himself through carbon monoxide poisoning in his truck.

But Carter’s lawyer has argued that text messages are protected free speech. She also argued that Roy had been depressed for some time and that Carter couldn’t be responsible for his death. Jury selection was set to begin Monday, but Carter opted for a bench trial, which means her fate will be decided by the judge and not by a jury.

She is facing charges of involuntary manslaughter in Bristol County Juvenile Court. Although it’s difficult to convict someone for what they wrote in a text message, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court–which ruled that Carter must stand trial in an appeal of a lower court’s decision not to dismiss the case–said in a 2016 ruling, “But for the defendant’s admonishments, pressure, and instructions, the victim would not have gotten back into the truck and poisoned himself to death.”

NEW: Michelle Carter arrives at court for trial

Carter is accused of sending her friend texts encouraging him to kill himself@Boston25 pic.twitter.com/rQPqrDD8cQ

— Peter Wilson (@PetesWire) June 5, 2017

The police investigation after Roy’s suicide concluded that Carter had “strongly influenced” his decision to take his own life using carbon monoxide. The couple reportedly met online and mainly kept in touch over the internet, only meeting in person twice. They had apparently not seen each other for a year at the time of Roy’s death.

According to a court filing, Roy had a history of mental illness and had previously tried to kill himself. Later, after he expressed a wish to kill himself, Carter tried to persuade him to do it. “You already made this decision and if you don’t do it tonight you’re gonna be thinking abut it all the time and stuff all the rest of your life and be miserable,” she wrote to him.

Carter also wrote, “You have to just do it. You have everything you need. There is no way you can fail. Tonight is the night. It’s now or never.” She added that he always seemed to have an excuse to not do it and scolded him for not going through with it. It’s unclear why she urged him to kill himself rather than getting help. At one point Roy said he was scared and got out of his car to call her. But she convinced him to go back in and finish what he started.

It’s hard to say what the outcome of this trial will be, but the disturbing content and detail of the text message conversations have made it one that many will follow. Opening statements begin on Tuesday morning.

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 A Look at the Upcoming Trial for Woman Who Urged Boyfriend to Kill Himself appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, we took a look at New York’s proposed “Textalyzer,” a new PTSD report, and a first date from hell. ICYMI, check out some Law Street’s most talked about stories below!

New York May Legalize “Textalyzer” to Bust Distracted Drivers

Most of you have probably done it. You hear a ding or feel that all too familiar faint  buzz, and tell yourself there’s no harm in taking a quick glance at the screen–I mean it could be important. But as harmless as a quick text from behind the wheel might seem, texting while driving can be incredibly dangerous. Looking to put a stop to the trend, New York lawmakers are considering legalizing technology that would help police bust distracted drivers.

Soldiers Discharged for Misconduct Often Suffer from PTSD, Other Disorders

As many as three-fifths of soldiers that are discharged for misconduct actually have post-traumatic stress disorder or other types of brain injuries, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office. The report confirms a suspicion that has been talked about for a long time. “It is everything many of us believed for years,” said Iraq veteran Kristopher Goldsmith, who is an assistant director at Vietnam Veterans of America. “Now I hope Congress will direct the resources to making it right.”

Texas Man Sues His Date for $17 After She Texted During a Movie

A man from Texas was not happy with how his first date was going, and sued the woman he went out with–all because she was texting at the movies. Brandon Vezmar, 37, met his date online and invited her to go see the 3D version of “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” in Austin. But she apparently wasn’t as excited as he was to see the new blockbuster.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

A man from Texas was not happy with how his first date was going, and sued the woman he went out with–all because she was texting at the movies. Brandon Vezmar, 37, met his date online and invited her to go see the 3D version of “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 2” in Austin. But she apparently wasn’t as excited as he was to see the new blockbuster.

In the lawsuit, Vezmar says that the woman “activated her phone at least 10-20 times in 15 minutes to read and send text messages.” He is now trying to get the money for the movie ticket back, $17.31. He also said it is a matter of principle.

“It was kind of a first date from hell,” he said. “This is like one of my biggest pet peeves.” According to Vezmar, he asked his date to stop texting, but she didn’t comply. He then asked her to do it outside, after which she allegedly left and never came back. That left Vezmar with no ride home, as they drove there in the woman’s car.

Obviously the internet had a lot of feelings about the unusual lawsuit and many people called Vezmar petty.

The fees he’s paying to bring this suit (filing + service: $121) are 7x what he’s asking for ($17.31).

Ridiculous.https://t.co/6CY7LPMiyT

— Brian Powell (@briandpowell) May 16, 2017

Vezmar said he texted the woman a couple of days later asking for the ticket money back. He didn’t think he got the full experience of the movie because he was distracted by her texting. In his lawsuit he cited the movie theater’s policy of no texting, saying that the woman affected everyone’s experience.

That’s going to put a huge damper on the second date. https://t.co/MDKxR3Dipp

— MagnoliaPeach (@magnoliapeach) May 16, 2017

“While damages sought are modest, the principle is important as defendant’s behavior is a threat to civilized society,” the petition said. But the woman said she didn’t text more than two or three times, and only did it because her best friend had a fight with her boyfriend and was upset.

@NewsForrest Who takes a girl 2 a movie 4 a 1st date?! Umm ya can’t talk! Serves him right, she should counter sue him 4 being a self-centered douche!

— Asia McClain Chapman (@AsiaRChapman) May 17, 2017

The woman said she filed a protection order against Vezmar after he contacted her younger sister to get the $17 back. “I’m not a bad woman,” she said. “I just went out on a date.” It seems like Vezmar doesn’t mind the attention, as he started a Twitter account on Tuesday evening and started pushing out tweets about his case.

2/2 What contact after movie looked like: 1 text, 1 call, ignored > Text two days later getting serious > Lawsuit. pic.twitter.com/q4EOId868O

— Brandon Vezmar (@BrandonVezmar) May 17, 2017

Even the director of the movie weighed in. But he was probably the only one who took Vezmar’s side.

Why stop at suing? She deserves jail time! https://t.co/c41MWGz74M

— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) May 16, 2017

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 Texas Man Sues His Date for $17 After She Texted During a Movie 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.

As someone who grew up firmly entrenched in the era of technology, interpreting what people say via plain text on a screen is almost second nature to me. Emojis, elongated words, abbreviations, as silly as it sounds, all convey their own unique meaning. So, it follows that how to deal with those unique meanings is an important question that jurors and the legal system were going to have to deal with someday. Well that day is today, as an argument over the significance of emojis and other kinds of virtual language have made their way into the much-anticipated trial of alleged Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht.

Silk Road was an online site where many illicit transactions took place–particularly the sale of illegal drugs. It was a virtual black market, hidden under layers of secrecy and encryption. In November 2013, the website was shut down and Ulbricht, 29, was arrested and accused of being “Dread Pirate Roberts,” the founder of the site.

Ulbricht is now on trial, facing charges of money laundering, computer hacking, conspiracy to traffic narcotics, and procuring murder. That last one refers to the fact that “assassins” allegedly advertised their services on Silk Road.

His trial has taken a weird turn though. It was more common when I was younger, but every couple of years someone writes a reactionary article claiming that today’s teenagers are using emoticons and abbreviations to set up giant orgies (or whatever it is that kids do these days). These articles are usually much-ridiculed by anyone who’s ever seen a computer before, like this CNN piece from December entitled “28 Internet Acronyms Every Parent Should Know.” Choice abbreviations from this article included: “IWSN – I want sex now” “GNOC – Get naked on camera,” and “KPC– Keeping parents clueless.”

Well, parts of Ulbricht’s trial kind of sounds like a real life reenactment of an article warning parents about the acronyms that those darn kids nowadays are using.

pic.twitter.com/5YGWmqi0jA

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

That brings us back to the whole emoji issue too, because apparently this happened “IRL”:

He said “emoticon” literally every time there was an emoticon pic.twitter.com/deisI0nSEH

— Sarah Jeong (@sarahjeong) January 23, 2015

There was also a  particular message at issue in which a “smilie face” was used, and the prosecutor didn’t mention the smilie face after reading the message to the jury.

Essentially, the issue here is that the attorneys in this case are realizing that they can’t treat Ulbricht’s emails, chats, texts, or whatever other form of online communication like they’d treat a letter or an audio recording. The ways in which we communicate online have developed their own nuances, such as elongating certain words like “soooo” or using multiple question marks. Both of these were discussed in Ulbricht’s trial so far.

That’s why Joshua Dratel, Ulbricht’s attorney, wrote a letter to the judge asking that any forms of written communication–including emails, chats, and texts–be shown to the jury, not read aloud. He argued that the danger of different inflections, or ignoring parts of the message altogether (like just saying “emoticon”) was too high. The prosecution, obviously, disagreed.

Eventually Judge Katherine B. Forrest allowed a compromise. She allowed the chats and other text-based communications to be read into the record, but also instructed the jury to read them on their own and take note of any symbols.

This is just one part of a trial that in many ways deals with a world that has the potential to be utterly foreign to some of the jurors. Judge Forrest even recommended to both sides of the case that they develop a glossary for the terms that jurors may never have heard of, like Bitcoin, IP address, and Tor.

It’s a division in our society that is as inevitable as it is ubiquitous–knowledge of technology divides people of different ages, different social classes, and even different interests. That being said, it’s clear that the ways in which we communicate are ever-changing, and not as easy to interpret as they used to be. It’s easy to tell if someone is sarcastic from their tone when you listen to a recorded voicemail; it is not as easy when reading an email. The jurors will have to weigh these changes in technology along with the charges against Ulbricht, and moving forward, I bet we’ll see a lot more cases where the meanings of different facets of technological communication are up for debate.

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 Emojis in Court: Does a :) Really Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

Whether near your home or on the other side of the country, you’re responsible for knowing the driving laws wherever you go. Many drivers may not realize that these laws frequently change as you cross state lines, especially those relating to cell phone usage. Some states still allow text messaging while driving, whereas others ban cell phones, even in hands-free mode.

The following infographic breaks down some of the most pertinent driving laws and how they differ among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. And in case you accidentally mix up any of these laws, make sure to check out these tips for what to do when you get pulled over.

—

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 [Lord Jim via Flickr]

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 Infographic: State-by-State Driving Laws 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.

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.