The Kids Are Alright

The horror of sexting! The Wall Street Journal lays it out there for us...but too frequently seems to bob away from the real point of the thing. If only an internet world wide web logging system, or "blog" existed to right such wrongs.

First off, the premise (for those reading from Mars):

The practice of teens taking naked photos of themselves and sending them to friends via cellphones [is] called sexting

Except it turns out that Upstanding DA George Skumanick Jr. has a somewhat broader definition of the "crime":

He has threatened to charge kids who appeared in photos, but who didn't send them, as well as at least one girl who was photographed wearing a bathing suit. One of the accused is 11 years old.

So pretty much anybody under 18 not wearing a burkha, then, is clearly and brazenly guilty of the dread crime: sexting. The WSJ seems to sense as much, and comes back with Louis Natalli's (why, he's a perfessor of something or other!) opinion on the matter:

"The whole tawdry episode seems to call for a little parental guidance and a pop-gun approach, not a Howitzer approach with a felony prosecution,"

Indeed. However, what might you imagine that DA Skumanick Jr. is proposing? (Where did you get that Howitzer? Found it!) Why prosecute (and lose, but we'll get to that) when you can just intimidate? It's the much more personally rewarding approach:

Mr. Skumanick is giving the teens an opportunity to avoid charges [by taking some forced re-education], which he could have filed immediately

Emphasis mine. Translation: charges could have been filed, but Skumanick knew he'd likely lose the case in court. In fact, he already has. But he plans to appeal. Honest. While we're doing that, let's cast our intimidation net as wide as possible, holding out the nuclear CHILD PORNOGRAPHER label over the lives of these, uh, children; then you make sure the media is well aware of your doings. Next step? You hold an assembly:

With the help of school officials, Mr. Skumanick convened a series of assemblies, from fifth-graders to seniors. For the youngest students, he asked them to conjure how they would feel if their grandparents saw a photo of them that is "not nice." He warned the older students that sexting could damage their college or job prospects and could result in felony charges.

I think we've all attended one of those at some point, complete with the requisite runaway authoritarianism:

At one of the assemblies, a student interrupted and accused Mr. Skumanick of trying to ruin the teens' lives. "This isn't a debate," Mr. Skumanick told the senior boy, who was escorted out of the auditorium.

God, that kid was straight out of Central Casting. But then, so was the response.
Next step: Send The Letter to The Parents. How should we word it, though?

On Feb. 5, with the [forced re-education] course outline mostly in order, Mr. Skumanick sent a letter to parents of the students involved, saying their children had been "identified in a police investigation involving the possession and/or dissemination of child pornography." The letter summoned the parents to a Feb. 12 meeting at the Wyoming County Courthouse.

That ought to do. Simple and to the point; no need to panic anyone. Now we get them downtown, tell them their kids are going straight to Statesville for the felony, then stretch out the long pause before the "but...":

...joined a group of about 50 [parents] at the courthouse. Before showing the photos, Mr. Skumanick explained his offer to the crowd, answering one father's question affirmatively, that -- yes -- a girl in a bathing suit could be subjected to criminal charges because she was posed "provocatively."

Mr. Skumanick told them he could have simply charged the kids. Instead, he gave them two weeks to decide: take the class or face charges.

Inconvenient and complete lack of actionable evidence of any crime in otherwise front-page case: solved. Oh, wait:

MaryJo Miller was dumbstruck when she opened her letter, which targeted her daughter, Marissa. Mr. Skumanick later told her he had a photo of Marissa that showed her from the waist up wearing a bra. [...] Neither Marissa nor her mother knows how it got circulated but they don't see the photo as explicit. "It was like an old grandma bra. Nothing skimpy," says Marissa.

Uh oh. Troublemaker alert. Indeed, those pesky bastards at the ACLU subsequently took up the cause:

In the end, parents enrolled 14 teens in the course. But the parents of three other girls, including Marissa Miller, recruited the ACLU's help to sue Mr. Skumanick. At a hearing March 26, a federal judge indicated he thought the girls may be successful in their suit and temporarily blocked Mr. Skumanick from filing charges, pending a June hearing.

That is probably the end of that. But, Skumanick did manage to intimidate 14 families into the courses. Well done, sir. I can only hope you also skimmed a fine or course tuition of some kind.

To its eternal credit, the WSJ includes one extra tidbit; it seems Skumanick included a show-and-tell at his little felony intimidation service:

He then told the parents and teens to line up if they wanted to view the photos, which were printed out onto index cards. As the [anonymous] 17-year-old who took semi-nude self-portraits waited in line, she realized that Mr. Skumanick and other investigators had viewed the pictures. When the adults began to crowd around Mr. Skumanick, the 17-year-old worried they could see her photo and recalls she said, "I think the worst punishment is knowing that all you old guys saw me naked. I just think you guys are all just perverts."

Nail meet head. Perhaps Skumanick Jr. should be prosecuted as a repeat kiddie-porn consumer?

We were doing it before we had a name for it

One Kimber VanRy was ticketed to the tune of $25 for sipping a beer on his stoop (not a party, not a nuisance, just sitting out there quietly enjoying a beer in the great urban out-of-doors).

Clyde Haberman reports on the long-term outcome of that event while simultaneously showing us how serious journalism is done:

[VanRy was sitting on] the short stoop of the four-story co-op building on Sterling Place in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, in which he owns an apartment. The stoop is set well back from the curb, but does not lie behind a gate, as some other stoops on that block do.

There Mr. VanRy sat, on what was private property — minding his own business, working his BlackBerry and nursing a beer. For the curious, it was a 12-ounce bottle of Sierra Nevada.

Twist top or crown cap?

Anywho:

Last week, a judge tossed out the case on a technicality. The matter had dragged on too long, he said.

For Mr. VanRy, the victory was less than satisfying. Larger questions about stoop sitting and sipping were not addressed.

Agreed.

I can only assume editors cut out the explanation of Mr. VanRy's fucked up last name capitalization schema. Perhaps he's big into R (or perl, perhaps) and wanted his name to reflect a delightful air of utterly random and insanity-making camel-casing conventions. Haberman does mention:

Neighbors drinking beer on their front steps get these “quality of life” summonses, but not people sipping wine at New York Philharmonic concerts in Central Park or knocking back frozen daiquiris at summer movie screenings in Bryant Park.

Rest assured, these people will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Insect Authority and 9/11

Has there been any greater boon to / more effective accelerant thrown upon the eternal flame of Insect Authority than that of the pervasive fear, uncertainty, and doubt that 9.11 implanted and Bush et al. carefully husbanded and amplified? Today's example comes from the New York Times, where a fellow was (legally) photographing the subway in action at a particularly godforsaken stop somewhere in the Bronx:

“[...]According to the rules of conduct, we are allowed to take pictures,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “I showed him the rules — they’re bookmarked on my BlackBerry.”

Rule 1050.9 (c) of the state code says, “Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used.”

Then a police sergeant arrived.

“He tells me that their rules and the transit rules are different,” Mr. Taylor said. “I tell him, ‘If you feel I’m wrong, give me a summons and I’ll see everyone in court.’ The sergeant told them to arrest me.”

[...I've found the quickest way to an arrest is pointing out a policeman's error in this way; but anyway...]

[Taylor] got a batch of summonses.

The first was for “taking photos from the s/b plat of incoming outgoing trains without authority to do so,” abbreviating “southbound platform.” It cited Rule 1050.9 (c).

The second was for disorderly conduct, which consisted of addressing the officers in an “unreasonable voice.”

And the third was for “impeding traffic” — on a platform that is about 10,000 square feet. “I don’t know if you can impede traffic with 15 people per hour coming on the station,” Mr. Taylor said.

(Emphasis added.)

So, the man here is illegally arrested and held, charged with a bunch of nonsense entirely designed to prevent him from ever asking a question again (nothing here is meant to see to the public safety or even the grudging enforcement of some law that everyone involved in the situation might agree is outdated or silly; this is pure intimidation, and was premeditated intimidation at that: guy asks too many questions, guy goes to jail and subsequently has to appear in court as many times as possible. That all these charges will likely be dropped is immaterial to the officer; the entire punishment is the combination of intimidation and inconvenience.).
And just how many people get arrested for "impeding traffic" or some variant of same every year? Millions? I personally know several in vaguely similar circumstances: police can't actually charge them with anything, and the soon-to-be-arrested know it and have used that knowledge against The Authorities, so they're going downtown for, uh, impeding traffic! Six weeks later, the charge is dropped by a dumbfounded judge, probably at a cost not too far off the $1,500/minute quoted in the piece.

This same pattern extends everywhere, it would seem. I've been questioned by security for looking at a building. From the outside (but on their property, by God, which, to their mind, more than likely extends several feet into the street as well). It seems no structure is sufficiently innocuous to avoid Fort Knox level security measures and potential deportation to Gunatanamo for anyone so much as even slightly stepping out of line. Only when we all decide to start fighting each and every one of these incidents like Mr. Taylor did here will we ever make any progress.