Boston Police Sergeant Edwin Guzman’s lawyer has a curious defense to Guzman sending a photo of his penis to the sixteen-year-old daughter of a friend: “You can’t tell me someone her age has never seen a picture of a penis on the Internet.” Hmmm, even if it were true, it is hard to see that particular approach resonating with a judge or jury.
Guzman is charged with “annoying and accosting a person of the opposite sex” and “disseminating harmful material to a minor,” which carry a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $200 fine.
His lawyer, Kenneth Anderson, disputes that the photo was sent but added that, even if it was sent, it would hardly be a shock to a 16-year-old girl. The suggestion appears to be that it really was not “harmful” in today’s porn saturated world. This premise ignores that, even if she had seen such a picture, there is a qualitative difference in having such a picture sent from your Dad’s friend’s penis to you. Indeed, Guzman does not explain how this approach would not gut the use of the law in any case of exposure to a teenager.
Here is the provision on the second charge:
Section 28. Whoever purposefully disseminates to a person he knows or believes to be a minor any matter harmful to minors, as defined in section 31, knowing it to be harmful to minors, or has in his possession any such matter with the intent to disseminate the same to a person he knows or believes to be a minor, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 5 years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than 21/2 years, or by a fine of not less than $1000 nor more than $10,000 for the first offense, not less than $5000 nor more than $20,000 for the second offense, or not less than $10,000 nor more than $30,000 for a third or subsequent offenses, or by both such fine and imprisonment. A person who disseminates an electronic communication or possesses an electronic communication with the intent to disseminate it shall not be found to have violated this section unless he specifically intends to direct the communication to a person he knows or believes to be a minor. A prosecution commenced under this section shall not be continued without a finding or placed on file. It shall be a defense in a prosecution under this section that the defendant was in a parental or guardianship relationship with the minor. It shall also be a defense in a prosecution under this section if the evidence proves that the defendant was a bona fide school, museum or library, or was acting in the course of his employment as an employee of such organization or of a retail outlet affiliated with and serving the educational purpose of such organization.
Squash or strike the attorney? Like a cock roach?
Despite Me buying aca for my kid, car and car insurance…..do i really get no say on phone? I want A p phone that bl u rs porn. Where is that phone? Too busy taking away my right to driv e?
See i wont even watch your post..it could be a penis. I dont want to see any penis unlesss i get an app f o r that.
HIDDEN CAM: Gun Show “Loophole” Exposed!
Our technology is at the point it can distinguish us from our faces in a crowd of thousands even with ball caps sunglasses an fake mustaches. It can even id us from out gait if walking. But smart phones can’t figure out a penis and blur the naked part in the picture? It cant be a freespeech thing cause obviously he’s being charged. Maybe there should be a standard blur and an app to unblur. Where you have to be old enough on both ends.
It has nothing to do with today’s technology or who has seen what. The issue is universal and timeless. Sixteen year olds know just about everything there is about sex and probably always have, even in the backward Islamic states. The issue is and will always remain, what goes on between sixteen year olds is their property and when an adult involves him or herself, it gets ruined. The adult should stay in the adult world and not intrude on the world of the teenager. Any involvement by adults in the world of children should be for the benefit of the children, to teach, warn, mentor, etc. This guy is a sexual predator, perverse, and dangerous. The sixteen year old can say that she or he didn’t know. The adult knows.
Apple has absolutely nothing to do with it. Back in the late fifties and early sixties for us it was Gents magazine and other rags. Girls dropped out of school due to unwanted pregnancies and most of the stuff going on today went on then. Perhaps it is even more healthy today as the hypocrisy has diminished somewhat.
It’s a bad defense, a criminal act, and wrong and disgusting.
BUT the guy has a point. Cell phones and online porn are the world that APPLE and company has brought us; DMCA brings us reposting of all kinds of obscenity by online porn hosts that could care less what kind of criminal filth circulates over their bandwidth. This cop is the smallest offender and APPLE itself is the biggest. Who put these tools into the hands of the kids who are all now creating and circulating “child porn” themselves, habitually, for their own amusement? Go talk to any high school principal about the problem and see what is really going on.
Somehow I think his explanation did not go over well with the girl’s Dad.
“You can’t tell me someone her age has never seen a picture of a penis on the Internet.”
Yabut…..what makes you think she wants to see YOURS?
Brett Favre is this guys favorite QB.
Our culture is certainly progressing. We might want to consider putting down the shovels fairly soon though.
There has got to be some legal way of removing this bozo from a position of authority.
Sadly, the officer may have a point. Porn is so freely distributed by cellphones that you would have a hard time proving this was more harmful or even harmful, at all.
I guess he thought it was particularly pretty. What did the friend think? He probably frowned at the event. No wonder Muslims want to blow us up. Holy cannoli, if the penis offends thee cut it off!
He showed it to a sixteen year old. He needs to be sentenced to community service. That should be sixteen months of cleaning outhouses. If they do not have any outhouses in Boston then have him clean the toilets at the county jail and that includes all the cells. It there is a second offense of the weeny nature then castrate him.
Kind of like the “Twinkie” and “affluenza” defenses. Oh and don’t forget the impeachment of B.C.—-not for the affair with an intern in his govt office—for lying about it.