Mr. Morrell witch hunt

Without knowing what was actually found on the teacher's computers, it's a bit premature to talk about being responsible for "child abuse" or victimization. The US laws on child pornography are very expansive and include both media that people take of themselves, and media that has been altered to make it look like an underage person is in it. Hell, federal law even includes animations. None of those involve the coercion of the participant, yet they're just as illegal.

But what's a discussion board for if not to jump to conclusions?

drummerboy said:
Hell, federal law even includes animations. None of those involve the coercion of the participant, yet they're just as illegal.
But what's a discussion board for if not to jump to conclusions?

 BSABSVP

drummerboy said:

Hell, federal law even includes animations. 

 If you’re referring to the Protect Act of 2003, that’s an obscenity law, not a child pornography law, so the charge would be different.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

Hell, federal law even includes animations. 

 If you’re referring to the Protect Act of 2003, that’s an obscenity law, not a child pornography law, so the charge would be different.

Well, we don't actually know under what statute he was charged, do we? And what does NJ law say about animations? I don't know.

Anyway, shouldn't the charges filed be a public record? Can that be looked up?

drummerboy said:

Well, we don't actually know under what statute he was charged, do we? 

 Yes, we do. He was charged with third-degree possession of child pornography under state law, according to the Union County prosecutor (as reported in the Village Green).

Here’s the statute:

A person commits a crime of the third degree if he knowingly possesses, knowingly views, or knowingly has under his control, through any means, including the Internet, less than 1,000 items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child.

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection e. of N.J.S.2C:44-1, in any instance where a person was convicted of an offense under this subparagraph that involved 100 or more items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child, the court shall impose a sentence of imprisonment unless, having regard to the character and condition of the defendant, it is of the opinion that imprisonment would be a serious injustice which overrides the need to deter such conduct by others.

ETA:    "Item depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child" means a photograph, film, video, an electronic, electromagnetic or digital recording, an image stored or maintained in a computer program or file or in a portion of a file, or any other reproduction or reconstruction which :

   (a)   depicts a child engaging in a prohibited sexual act or in the simulation of such an act; or

   (b)   portrays a child in a sexually suggestive manner.

well, the statute clearly doesn't say that animations are not included, so I would say it remains to be seen whether that's covered or not. I mean, what does "depicts a child" mean? It says nothing about whether the child being depicted is real or not. An animation would clearly "depict a child".

It's a side issue though - the animation issue was merely to flesh out the point of how expansive the definition is in the U.S.

sender said:
Give me a freakin' break, who the hell cares what this teacher does on his private, off time, at home, on his computer.  This is what you should care about; if the Board of Ed lets this happen, this talented AP physics teacher from Columbia High School will no longer teach.  In other words, you, the parents of ultra-smart middle-schoolers and ivy-headed ninth and tenth graders, should be concerned.  My son had him for AP physics and guess what, this teacher somehow taught him well enough to get all fives on his AP exam and get into Cornell and other top tier computer science schools.  


But you parents who have truly bright AP kids should be concerned.  Let's see how easy it is to replace this caliber of physics teacher.  

 Are you f*cking kidding me?  Child pornography. Children. Underage. No consent. Exploited.

MOL sure gets technical and nit-picky when the perps are white and considered “valuable to society “. 

here's one thing for sure -- Mr. Morill hasn't been convicted of anything yet.  I'm willing to wait until such time as he pleads guilty or is convicted to come to any final conclusions.  In the meantime, his suspension from teaching duties is sufficient.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-Jersey-High-School-Teacher-Arrested-for-Child-Pornography-Prosecutors-Say-511252481.html

"Micahel A. Morrill, 55 and a teacher at Columbia High School in Maplewood for nearly 25 years, was charged with third-degree possession of child pornography after authorities found digital files depicting the sexual exploitation of children during a search warrant, acting Union County Prosecutor Jennifer Davenport said."

I thought you might say that, DB. The Supreme Court, however, has rejected anti-porn laws that include simulations (like animation), which is why the Protect Act is an obscenity law.

If you believe the government is overreaching when it comes to pornography, fine, but this case probably isn’t the best platform for your argument.

DaveSchmidt said:
I thought you might say that, DB. The Supreme Court, however, has rejected anti-porn laws that include simulations (like animation), which is why the Protect Act is an obscenity law.
If you believe the government is overreaching when it comes to pornography, fine, but this case probably isn’t the best platform for your argument.

I'm not arguing this is an overreach - how can I when I don't know what he was found to possess? I'm just saying that it's possible that whatever he possessed was in the outer-fringe area of what is declared illegal.

And I'm not really sure what the practical difference would be between an anti-porn and anti-obscenity statute, since they're both making certain, very closely related, materials illegal. Seems to be a rather fine distinction without a real difference.

drummerboy said:

And I'm not really sure what the practical difference would be between an anti-porn and anti-obscenity statute, since they're both making certain, very closely related, materials illegal. Seems to be a rather fine distinction without a real difference.

 The difference is that a child pornography statute, unlike an obscenity statute, involves exploitation of real children, not alterations or animation.

If you remain not really sure of this rather fine distinction, I’m afraid I can’t make it any clearer. 

ETA: I’m adding these links here for anyone who’s interested, rather than reply to drummerboy’s comment below, which would only extend this drift: 

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) protects “sexually explicit images that appear to depict minors but were produced without using any real children.”

United States v. Williams (2008) prohibits distributing or soliciting such images in the belief that they are real children. (Which the majority opinion acknowledged could be difficult to prove.)

In any case, in the matter at hand, we’re still talking about a state possession law, cited earlier.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

And I'm not really sure what the practical difference would be between an anti-porn and anti-obscenity statute, since they're both making certain, very closely related, materials illegal. Seems to be a rather fine distinction without a real difference.

 The difference is that a child pornography statute, unlike an obscenity statute, involves exploitation of real children, not alterations or animation.
If you remain not really sure of this rather fine distinction, I’m afraid I can’t make it any clearer. 

Not really. As I explained in my initial post, there are other categories which clearly do not exploit anyone that are part of the pornography statute. Animation was only one of three categories that I pointed out. 

even if it was just animation, that shows an inappropriate mindset and just poor judgement.  a teacher should be intelligent enough to know it is wrong and he could be caught and be able to control himself...

I don’t really want to go back and read this whole thread so I will just ask. Do people know that the material in question was animation or is that just complete speculation?

Klinker said:
I don’t really want to go back and read this whole thread so I will just ask. Do people know that the material in question was animation or is that just complete speculation?

 Just unnecessary speculation.

nohero said:

Klinker said:
I don’t really want to go back and read this whole thread so I will just ask. Do people know that the material in question was animation or is that just complete speculation?

 Just unnecessary speculation.

Exactly.  The title of the thread says "witchhunt" which implies something other than a fact-based procedure.  Unless you are deranged Donnie, of course, in which case, "witchhunt" is any investigation where he is the target.

Yup.  At this point nobody knows anything beyond the fact that he was charged with possession of "less than 1,000 items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child." (According to the statute posted by DaveSchmidt).

So according to the accusation and charge, they might have found several hundred images or videos depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child.  Or they might have found one image with an underage person engaged in a sexual act or depicted in a sexual way.  If I read it correctly, in both of those situations the suspect could be charged with the same offense.

In the latter case he could claim he had no idea the person in the image was underage. I don't think that matters in terms of prosecuting the case.

Michael Jackson was phenomenally talented.

".....charged with third-degree possession of child pornography after authorities found digital files depicting the sexual exploitation of children during a search warrant, acting Union County Prosecutor Jennifer Davenport said."

mrincredible said:
Yup.  At this point nobody knows anything beyond the fact that he was charged with possession of "less than 1,000 items depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child." (According to the statute posted by DaveSchmidt).
So according to the accusation and charge, they might have found several hundred images or videos depicting the sexual exploitation or abuse of a child.  Or they might have found one image with an underage person engaged in a sexual act or depicted in a sexual way.  If I read it correctly, in both of those situations the suspect could be charged with the same offense.
In the latter case he could claim he had no idea the person in the image was underage. I don't think that matters in terms of prosecuting the case.

While possible, I really don’t think this works this way. I’d like to think the investigation of this kind of stuff weeds out potentially accidental opening of an inappropriatiate website or viewing of a single image where you weren’t aware it was child porn. If they went around charging people who accidentally opened something or viewed one image unknowingly good lord, 90% of the population would be arrested. 

Now, I’m all behind this not being a witch-hunt and not accusing this person or any person without due process. But when it involves something like child porn and the person has a job with access to children all day long, well, I vote you err on the side of caution and suspend this person until he’s found guilty or not. 

conandrob240 said:
While possible, I really don’t think this works this way. I’d like to think the investigation of this kind of stuff weeds out potentially accidental opening of an inappropriatiate website or viewing of a single image where you weren’t aware it was child porn. If they went around charging people who accidentally opened something or viewed one image unknowingly good lord, 90% of the population would be arrested. 

 

Well, he was under investigation for a year, which means his internet traffic was probably being carefully monitored.  Most of us don't have someone looking over our digital shoulder 24/7. 

We won't know for a while what the evidence is against him and how it was obtained.  

ETA: I was wrong. The investigation started "earlier this year." I'm leaving my mistake but pointing it out.

yahooyahoo said:
".....charged with third-degree possession of child pornography after authorities found digital files depicting the sexual exploitation of children during a search warrant, acting Union County Prosecutor Jennifer Davenport said."

 So at least two pictures then.

mrincredible said:

Most of us don't have someone looking over our digital shoulder 24/7. 

 Not a government entity anyhow. 

Klinker said:

mrincredible said:

Most of us don't have someone looking over our digital shoulder 24/7. 

 Not a government entity anyhow. 

 True.

This guy likely had a police officer or detective reviewing his internet traffic on a daily basis.  That's something A.I. could probably do in the future (or now) and flag the kind of activity they can arrest someone for.

mrincredible said:

 True.

This guy likely had a police officer or detective reviewing his internet traffic on a daily basis.  That's something A.I. could probably do in the future (or now) and flag the kind of activity they can arrest someone for.

 What a depressing job. I read an article a while back on all of the mental health problems experienced by human content monitors on social media. 8 hours a day of dark, dark stuff. 

Klinker said:
 What a depressing job. I read an article a while back on all of the mental health problems experienced by human content monitors on social media. 8 hours a day of dark, dark stuff. 

 I wonder if it's the same for a law enforcement agent.  If you're watching social media for the few depraved posts worthy of being blocked or deleted you're going to see a lot of awful stuff you can't do anything about.

Probably the police see lots of things they'd like to arrest people for that technically against the law.

Okay folks, how's this scenario?  We find that Morrill never did touch another human being, and our president who has been accused by 23 women for sexual misconduct continues to go on vacation,  eat dinners out, and oh yeah here's the kicker, remain as president.  Just spend a few minutes pondering that one instead of flaying Mr. Morrill.