05.20.09
Vermont Proposes Changing Laws on “sexting”
This article is an importnt addition to the my recent posts. (See, Girl Posts Nude Pics of Self and is Charged with Child Porn, Teens Sue Prosecutor over Racy Cell phone pics,and the Hypocracy of Law) It completes the circle in the variuos arguments for and against this conduct.
State legislators in Vermont are moving to decriminalize the practice known as “sexting.” “Sexting” is the sending of “erotic” (i use that term loosely) images taken with your cell phone and sent to another’s cell phone. When this is done between individuals who are under tha age of 18, the images, in the eyes of the law, become child pornogrpahy. Vermont legislators, unwilling to force teens to go through life as registered sex offenders because they foolishly used their cell phones and computers to exchange revealing photos of themselves with friends, feel that a change in the law is necessary.
As most states’ laws are written, no distinction exists between pedophiles who possess sexually explicit images of minors and underage teens who consensually exchange images of themselves. As more minors are being prosecuted as adults and being branded sex offenders for life, Vermont is among the first to consider legislation to separate what teens do among themselves from adult crimes.
The proposed legislation in Vermont would decriminalize consensual sexting between kids who are between 13 and 18 years old.
Clearly, this opens the flood gates of debate.
03.27.09
Girl posts nude pics, is charged with kid porn
Well, it looks like this is going to be a trend across the country. Not sure what the trend is; prosecuting kids for expressing themselves, or just kids expressing themselves. In any event, the debate will be good and many of the laws will be challenged.
The most recent case stems from a 14-year-old New Jersey girl who has been accused of child pornography after posting nearly 30 explicit nude pictures of herself on MySpace.com. (Source)
Just look at my other recent posts below…
03.26.09
Ohio college removes sculpture showing sex act
Ok, this will be tought provoking.
Is it art or is it offensive?
If it’s art, and offensive, should it be censored?
The piece by artist James Parlin, called “The Middle School Science Teacher Makes a Decision He’ll Live to Regret,” had been part of an exhibit at Bowling Green State University’s Firelands campus. The campus’ interim dean removed the sculpture last week. The sculpture depicts a girl and a teacher engaging in a sex act.
The National Coalition Against Censorship, based in New York City, condemned the university’s actions, saying it raised serious free-speech concerns. On its blog, the coalition said removing the sculpture was “an unacceptable violation of the academic freedom to openly discuss ideas and social problems in a public university.”
According to the AP story,
The university issued a statement saying it “strongly supports the right of free speech and artistic expression. However, we also have a responsibility to not expose the children and families we invite to our campus to inappropriate material.”
The coalition said the university could have taken steps short of removing the sculpture, such as posting signs for parents or closing the gallery during children’s productions at the theater next door.
Teens sue prosecutor over racy cell-phone pics
The Associated Press is reporting that three Pennsylvania teenagers are suing a prosecutor who wants to charge them with child pornography over racy cell-phone pictures of themselves.
The ACLU joined in the fight for the three girls suing Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. from filing charges. Two of the girls are 13-year-olds who were shown in their bras and say they were having innocent fun when a friend took their photo. Another picture shows a 16-year-old girl with a towel around her waist. The teens say the photos are protected speech, not pornography. (Source)
Is it true that teens finding more ways to express themselves? Expression? Isn’t that what we adults call constitutionally protected speech? Are we saying that teens don’t have the same constitutional rights as adults do to express themselves? Shouldn’t a teenager have the same right to expression? Or, do we follow the thoughts of Candice Kelsey, a teacher from California and author of Generation MySpace: Helping Your Teen Survive Online Adolescence, that “Adolescents are not known for thinking things through – that’s a generational constant.” (Source).
This is certainly bound to create debate. I’ve also written on this subject on more than one occasion, and actually been written about on the subject. See: The Hypocracy of Law, A Model Prisoner, and Kids for Sale.
03.07.09
Producers of “Terminator: Salvation” in Legal Battle
Imagine that…. a lawsuit in Hollywood! According to Variety:
“Terminator: Salvation” producer Moritz Borman has sued fellow producers Derek Anderson and Victor Kubicek and their Halcyon Co. banner, alleging fraud and breach for not paying him producing fees.
Borman claims he help arrange for Anderson and Kubicek to acquire the rights to the Terminator franchise for their company Halcyon Co. in 2007. It gave the pair full rights over the production of Terminator Salvation and any future sequels, plus merchandise and licensing. Borman alleges financial backing for the movie was secured through investment fund Pacificor LLC in exchange for approval rights over the movie, involvement in all creative decisions, and a $5 million producing fee.
“Notwithstanding the fact that defendants obtained the substantial franchise rights and assets through Borman, Anderson and Kubicek failed to honor their assurances, representations and contractual obligations to Borman,” the suit said. “Defendants’ egregious fraud, bad faith conduct and refusal to abide by their contracts has led to the filing of this lawsuit.”
Borman alleges that Anderson and Kubicek “hijacked” the production last July as principal photography was being completed and refused to pay him the $2.5 million balance of his producing fee. “Soon after, it also came to light that Anderson and Kubicek did not have the means to finance the picture, had defaulted on numerous loans and owed over $1 million to creditors on the picture,” the suit added.
If I get a copy of the Complaint, I will post it here.
11.20.08
Naked Bike Ride Protected by the First Amendment
I hope I don’t ever see my good friend Marc Randaza riding naked on his bicycle, even if he can do it protected by the First Amendment. He has a great story about this topic on his Blog the Legal Satyricon. Read it here.
11.14.08
Student Blog — Mom wants adoption; Agency refuses
According to an article published onOctober 22, 2008, in the Ventura County Star newspaper in California, the Ventura County Juvenile Court of California, denied mother Misty Lopez the right to choose the family for her newborn daughter. (Read it here)
Lopez signed over her newborn daughter to Luke and Jozette Jacobellis of Newbury Park in late September. However Lopez, who already has eight children, is under investigation by the County Human Service Agency, for 10 cases of reported child neglect, general neglect or child abuse, and therefore has lost her rights to make decisions about what is best for her child, according to the Court.
Lopez argues that no evidence has been found to support the claims and she doesn’t want the child anyway and is trying to do what is best for her. A hearing has been set for Nov. 19th.
The article does leave out one key issue to be addressed, and that is whether investigations or assessments have been done with regard to the foster parents selected by Lopez.
Considering that Lopez already surrendered the rights to her other eight children and is making efforts to do so with her ninth, I think the mother should have a choice on which family can provide best for her child, rather than having the child get lost in the system and rotate from house to house.
According to the California Senate research, about 77,000 children in California live apart from their families in child welfare supervised out-of-home care; and nearly half of them remain in the system for two or more years. (Source) So instead of allowing for the baby to be adopted and become attached to a foster family immediately, it is possible that the infant will instead be placed in foster care until two years of age.
However, according to Hill v. Patton, 85 P.2d 75 (N.M. 1938), “consent that one person may adopt a child does not give the court jurisdiction to aware it to another,” and “In adoption proceeding mother who has abandoned her child cannot limit court’s selection of foster parent to any particular petitioner.” Comp.St. 1929, §§ 2-105, 2-112.
The Court should find that the contract between Lopez and the Jacobellis is void. Nevertheless, it will be very interesting to see how the Court rules. We will see.
Legal Grind Ends for Woman Accused of Dirty Dance
The Associate Press is reporting today that the small mountain town of Marshall, N.C., has agreed to pay $275,000 for banning Rebecca Willis from a community hangout after residents complained about her dirty dancing.
According to court documents, she was accused of gyrating and simulating sexual intercourse with her partner while wearing a skirt so short it exposed her underwear. Willis described her dance style as “exuberant and flamboyant” but not obscene.
She’s still not allowed to return to the refurbished train station where she once danced and socialized, but she said that’s OK with her.
11.13.08
Student Blog – Boeing Must Pay $462 Million in Damages to Satellite Firm ICO
By Dawn Moffit
The Star Tribune is reporting:
A jury ordered the Boeing Co. to pay $236 million in punitive damages Friday for breaching a contract to build and launch satellites for a company headed by cellular phone pioneer Craig McCaw. Boeing now owes at least $607 million to ICO Global Communications, including $371 million in compensatory damages the jury awarded last week. The total could top $700 million after the court adds interest, ICO said.
The jury’s decision follows a four-week trial in which Reston, Va.-based ICO accused the aerospace giant of hindering the launch of its satellite network by fraudulently raising prices for the project. Boeing “was extremely hurtful and harmful to the company and almost destroyed ICO,” said ICO attorney Barry W. Lee.
Boeing spokeswoman Diana Ball said the company will appeal the case, citing “fundamental flaws throughout this trial.” She said the process could take several years.
ICO’s lawsuit, filed in 2004 in Los Angeles County Superior Court, stems from the company’s decade-old plan to launch a fleet of satellites that would broadcast video and other services to mobile device users around the world.
ICO contracted with El Segundo-based Hughes Electronics Corp. in the mid-1990s to build and launch 12 satellites. Boeing acquired Hughes in 2000 and inherited the ICO contract, but only finished two satellites — one of which was lost because of a failure aboard a Boeing Sea Launch rocket. ICO sued Boeing and its satellite division four years later over breach of contract after Boeing allegedly demanded ICO pay another $400 million to finish the job. Ball said costs of producing the satellites increased as ICO tried to delay the project during a major slump in the telecommunications sector.
ICO attorneys argued during trial that once Boeing got into the satellite communications business, its former customer became a competitor. Boeing’s attorneys argued the aerospace company attempted to keep the deal alive and accused ICO of canceling the contract for convenience.
The jury found Boeing acted with fraud and malice and awarded ICO $59 million from Boeing Satellite Systems, which is based in El Segundo, and $178 million from the Chicago-based parent company. The judge will determine whether $91.6 million in compensatory damages related to a separate contract with the parent company is already included in the $371 million award or should be added to the total.
This is just an example of how slow the justice system works and how long it actually takes to settle a case and how much can happen in the meanwhile. The case filed in 2004, brought to trial in June and the jury finally finished the damages’ verdict this past week.
ICO probably used anticipatory breach to sue Boeing since Boeing didn’t complete performance on the contract and demanded $400M more to finish the project. Since this is a sale of goods agreement, the UCC would apply. ICO also claimed Boeing didn’t fulfill the K since Boeing now considered them a competitor not a customer in the satellite communication business.
11.11.08
FCC v. Fox Television Stations (07-582)
The United States Supreme Court recently heard arguments on a case dealing with indecent speech on television.
At issue in the case
* “fleeting expletives” on broadcast TV
* The government aiming to clamp down on indecent language on the public airwaves
* But broadcast networks say government inconsistently regulates indecent speech
* Case concerns dirty words from celebrities such as Bono, Cher, Nicole Richie
According to CNN’s recording of events in this case:
A federal appeals court in New York last year ruled in their favor, calling the FCC’s policy “arbitrary and capricious.”
The commission then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking restoration of its power to penalize the networks airing “indecent” speech, even if it is broadcast only once, and even if it does not describe a specific sex act.
Such language is seen with greater, albeit varying, frequency on cable television, the Internet and satellite radio, which do not use public airwaves.
But the federal government is charged with responding to viewer complaints when “indecent” language reaches television and radio, which is subject to greater regulation.
The crux of the issue concerns a number of fleeting expletives by celebrities and indecency on television shows.
The commission specifically cited celebrities Cher and Richie’s potty-mouth language during the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, which aired on Fox. Richie, in an apparently scripted moment said, “Have you ever tried to get cow s–t out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f—ing simple.”
The complaint against ABC involved “NYPD Blue,” a now-canceled scripted police drama, and the one against CBS involved “The Early Show,” a news and interview program.
The Appeals Court ruling stated that the FCC did not adequately explain amendments to and enforcement of its “vague” policy on broadcasts of profanity. Now, the US Supreme Court will weigh in on the “isolated” use of such words — politely referred to as “fleeting expletives” — and the power of government to clamp down on what it sees as pervasive indecent language on the public airwaves.
