ST. PAUL, Minn – There’s this old saying which gets kicked around the legal profession quite a bit: “Hard cases make bad law.”
Well, hard cases aren’t the only thing which make “bad law;” bad law can also be a function of the way a good law is applied – like when you charge a teenage girl with dissemination of child pornography for sending a sexually-explicit selfie to an age peer, for example.
Making matters (much) worse, the young girl in question could be forced to register as a sex offender, should her prosecution succeed.
“I’m not a criminal for taking a selfie,” said the girl, who has been publicly identified only as ‘Jane Doe’ because she’s a minor. “Sexting is common among teens at my school, and we shouldn’t face charges for doing it. I don’t want anyone else to go through what I’m going through.”
The ACLU of Minnesota has taken on Doe’s case, which the organization sees as a serious departure from prosecutorial norms.
“To suggest that a juvenile who sends a sexually explicit selfie is a victim of her own act of child pornography is illogical,” said Teresa Nelson, Legal Director of the ACLU-MN. “Child pornography laws are supposed to protect minors from predators, and Jane Doe is not a predator.”
The ACLU-MN and me aren’t alone in thinking this sort of prosecution is senseless; according to the ACLU-MN, the prosecutor in this case is going against the thinking of Michael Freeman, the current president of the National District Attorneys Association, among others who have counseled against prosecuting teenagers for self-exploitation.
Doe will be represented in juvenile court by John Hamer of the Faribault, Minn. firm Hoffman, Hamer & Associates.
“Pursuing felony charges against victims will not deter teens from exploring their sexuality,” Hamer said. “It will, however, prevent victims facing exposure and bullying from coming forward. The message being sent to young women is that if this happens to you, it is more your fault than his.”
What Hamer appears to be referring to is the fact that after Doe sent the image at issue to a boy via Snapchat, he then shared it with others at the school – which is the real problem here, far more so than Doe sending the image in the first place.
While what Doe did can reasonably be described as unwise and unfortunate, does it make any sense whatsoever to prosecute her over it? Unsurprisingly, Doe’s family thinks the answer to this question is a resounding no.
“What my daughter went through at school with the other students was really rough,” said Doe’s father. “When we found out she was also facing criminal charges my first thought was, ‘Why are we victimizing the victim?’”
In the amicus brief filed by the ACLU-MN, the organization argues “Only an absurd interpretation and perverse application of this statute punishes the very children who the statute was enacted to protect.”
“Such and interpretation is plainly adverse to the legislature’s intent in enacting the child pornography law, violates (Doe’s) free-speech rights under the First Amendment, raises vagueness concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment, and jeopardizes thousands of minors across the state by criminalizing increasingly common adolescent behavior,” the brief continues.
Assuming the court doesn’t dismiss the charges against Doe, her trial will begin sometime this winter, the ACLU-MN said.
Here’s hoping the judge sees things the way the ACLU, Doe, Doe’s family, the NDAA and I do, and slaps down this ridiculous case before it has a chance to further ruin this poor girl’s life. Juvenile hall is no place for a kid who has committed a crime which can only be considered a crime in the first place because she’s a few years too young to legally engage in self-exploitation – and neither is the Minnesota sex offender registry.
