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?