Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Ars Technica)   Indiana Supreme Court: "Yes, we agree that the law is pants-on-head stupid, but seeing as it is the law, off to prison with you"   ( arstechnica.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, Supreme Court, Indiana Supreme Court, Pornography, Supreme Court of the United States, Sexual intercourse, Jury, Law, child porn  
•       •       •

12686 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2017 at 6:39 AM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2017-10-06 07:18:14 AM  
5 votes:
Pants-On-Head-Stupid is not the courts purview.  If the law is dumb, change the law.

- Niel Gorsuch
2017-10-06 08:37:37 AM  
3 votes:
Instead of "illogical" the perp should have declared that sexting IS sex, therefore legal with a 16 year old. I mean, pictures on a computer screen is all the sex I ever get, so what the hell.
2017-10-06 08:20:39 AM  
2 votes:

MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.


Also, legal to have consentual sex doesn't mean legal to send photos the other isn't consenting to. I doubt this girl consented to being sent these photos. Thats a very different thing from her physically consenting to sex.
2017-10-06 08:19:23 AM  
2 votes:

MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.


If they were viewed on an UN-moored vessel would this be a case for the Admiralty Court?
2017-10-06 07:20:14 AM  
2 votes:
FTA:  Dissemination Statute

Phrasing?
2017-10-06 06:57:40 AM  
2 votes:

MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.


Wait, stop-- you mean I should have held off on my outrage because there was more to this story than the headline implied? I'm shocked!
2017-10-06 06:15:14 AM  
2 votes:
s.movie.as
"Well, there's the law; and, there's what's right.  I'm going to do what's right"

Too obscure?  Good!
2017-10-06 03:13:38 PM  
1 vote:

raygundan: Mr. Shabooboo: MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.

If they were viewed on an UN-moored vessel would this be a case for the Admiralty Court?

What if the pictures have gold fringe at the edges?


Then we have a Captains Mast ...
2017-10-06 10:16:47 AM  
1 vote:
I have no idea what the article said, I'm just here to post this image.

img.fark.net
2017-10-06 09:55:25 AM  
1 vote:

jpcerutti: Callous: pueblonative: The courts are supposed to protect us against Unconstitutional laws not stupid ones.  That's the job of the legislature (yep, we're all boned)

We have a legal system, not a justice system.  Everyone would be well served to keep that in mind at all times.

Laws don't have to be logical or morally acceptable, and often aren't.  Many laws are passed as a knee jerk reaction to a specific event often without consideration for how similar yet different situations in the future may be affected.  Remember that when people scream "We have to do something now" in response to some grievous event.  Often what gets passed isn't well thought out.  You end up with a 17 year old getting labeled a child pornographer for sending someone over 18 a dick pic.

Horse puckey. It's not like you can sit down and write something and in twenty minutes you have a new law. State laws are a patchwork of things and ages and because one law has a different age than another one here would not of been caught if they had another six months to think about it.


Are you saying that thinking a potential law over for 6 months and considering it's potential unintended consequences before passing it cannot produce a better law then just passing something produced quickly in a knee jerk reaction to a specific event?

<stupidestthingivereadallday.png>
2017-10-06 09:42:34 AM  
1 vote:

MmmmBacon: Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.


ARE we NOT doing PHRASING anymore???
2017-10-06 08:39:07 AM  
1 vote:
Huh. You'd think conservative states would pass conservative laws about sex, rather than the opposite.
2017-10-06 07:24:56 AM  
1 vote:
I see they pulled the legal equivalent of "It's the policy" defense. Man gives logical and sensible argument against it. The official response, "Oh, that does make sense. In fact we agree, but 'fraid that's not the policy/law, which is of course immutable and unchangable and definitely not selectively enforced by us."
2017-10-06 06:53:20 AM  
1 vote:
I read the headline as "India,"  and thought, "well yeah, but that's just India."
2017-10-06 06:51:45 AM  
1 vote:
FTA:
"The Indiana ruling is among a string of cases in which sexting laws are clearly nonsensical. Last month, for example, the Washington Supreme Court upheld the conviction under state child porn laws of a 17-year-old boy who sent a picture of his own erect penis to a 22-year-old woman"
&
"Then there was the 2015 case of two North Carolina teens charged with child porn accusations for consensually sexting one another. One of the teens was accused of possessing child pornography because he had nude photos of himself on his phone. The arrest warrant for the boy's girlfriend described her as both a victim and a perpetrator."
2017-10-06 06:08:39 AM  
1 vote:
I totally read that as "India" and not "Indiana" and thought it was some weird "it's okay to rape a girl if she's not a virgin" law.

This isn't THAT much better.
2017-10-06 06:08:17 AM  
1 vote:
Okay, so let me get this straight. In Indiana, it is legal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, but can't disseminate sexual content to them online (sexting, nude photos, etc) until they are 18. Okay, that's inconsistent law, and should be addressed by the Legislature, not the State Supreme Court. So I can see where they were coming from by reinstating the charges on this guy.

But here's the kicker: She's not just 16, but a former student of his. He's a 40-year old teacher. She's also in Oregon now, where it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old, and he sent the nude pic to her across state lines, which brings up why he isn't facing Federal charges? Now the whole thing is a whole lot more icky overall, and although he only faces up to three years in prison, he deserves a whole lot more in the Hole.
 
Displayed 17 of 17 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report