Register Now!
LOG IN  |  SIGN UP
4

12 Year Old Girl Arrested For Distributing Nude Photo

Jun 25th, 2008

 

A twelve-year-old girl in Westport, CT, which is one of the richest towns in the country, was busted for possession of child pornography. Well, not specifically for child pornography... but technically, the photo of her classmate she had been sending around is illegal child porn, but that's not what the cops nabbed her for...

The investigation began on May 12 when the incident was reported to Westport police after word circulated throughout Coleytown Middle School that a nude snapshot was taken during a video chat and distributed to others.

The authorities, as usual, are skirting the First Amendment by charging her under "disturbing the peace," must as they used the same argument for busting vagrants in the Olden Days. We have a feeling that this is not going to last as a criminal case (if this is a rich family, as we can suspect, given her location, they may get a decent attorney who can get the case thrown out, no?), though, if it's the pictured student who helped launch the investigation, this may turn into an ugly civil suit.

Although, of course, we're pretty sure whoever had their picture taken either a) consented to it or b) may actually not have cared and that it was parents who alerted the police without his/her agreeing to it or c) didn't consent to have his/her image saved and is learning a valuable lesson about internet privacy, end of story.

The girl is being referred to Juvenile Court in Norwalk on a charge of second-degree breach of peace, which involves the distribution of offensive and indecent material.

"In light of how sensitive this case is for all the families involved, I don't feel it's appropriate to comment at this time," said Mark Sherman, an attorney for the girl.

The arrest comes amid growing worries among parents about teenagers snapping naked pictures of themselves on their cell phones and sending them to their boyfriends and girlfriends. Many of the pictures are falling into the wrong hands or being posted on the Internet, leading to criminal charges.

Via The Norwich Bulletin. 

Comments ( 4 )

The girl should have been charged with making and distributing child porn. But because she is a young girl, probably well connected, she is treated differently than other people. Throw the book at the kid...slap her with a sexual offender label for life...put her away for as long as the law allows. There should be no double standards when applying child porn laws just because the person who made and distributed it is a minor and a girl. The law should apply equally to all. I doubt that any lawyer who represents older Child porn makers or users would dare say "in light of how sensitive this case is for all the families involved, I don
Anonymous commented on Jun 25 08 at 10:02 am
*Consenting* to having one's photo taken is not equivalent to consenting to having it distributed. Unless the truth is option B and the subject of the photo really didn't care, you seem to be blaming the victim. How is this any different (other than in the obvious sense of degree!) than saying "well that will teach her to wear such an outfit at a place like that..."? It's still a story that's good fodder for a light-hearted post, but blaming the victim leaves a sour taste in my mouth instead of a smirk on my face.
Anonymous commented on Jun 25 08 at 11:10 am
I'm not familiar with the specific statute that the Court is referring to, laws in that category usually require the INTENT to "breach the peace" or recklessly acting in a way that would breach the peace. I agree that it is unlike the prosecutors will be able to convict a 12-year old given what will be seen as her lack of truly understanding what she did. I doubt the girl's attorney will have to bring up First Amendment issues in this case mainly for the reason explained above. Also Scanner Brian's comment that linked the First Amendment with vagrancy cases is incorrect; vagrancy laws (also known as loitering laws) are Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment issues - namely arresting people without probable cause.
fitandfun71 commented on Jun 25 08 at 6:13 pm
What Mr. Fairbanks seems not to realize is that legally, a 12-year old *cannot* consent to have pornographic images taken of her (I don't know whether the image in question is pornographic or not, and I don't really care to).
balok commented on Jun 27 08 at 4:14 am

Leave a Comment