• Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      181
      ·
      3 months ago

      Settled for $610,000…so no. I feel like, given that minors were involved, the settlement should have been on top of criminal charges.

      • Juniper (she/her) 🫐@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Usually when you hear about a settlement (and not a plea deal) that means this was a civil case and not a criminal one. A civil case doesn’t weigh in on whether or not criminal charges will be brought.

        If enough people push the Attorney General of that state to pursue charges they still could (Edit: it’s been 14 years and the Statute of Limitations is 5 years for wiretapping which I think is the highest possible charge). But there is a higher standard for evidence in criminal trials. Not to mention the defense’s argument would likely be that schools have the right to wiretap students’ issued laptops, so the AG probably doesn’t want this to go to court and end up enshrining such a right when it currently holds civil liability due to the civil case succeeding.

        • joel_feila@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well if they recorded and student jerking it then the school made cp and. I doubt theor is a limitation on that.

        • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          wiretapping which I think is the highest possible charge

          Wouldn’t the highest charge be all that child pornography they intentionally created?

          • RecallMadness@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Is there any evidence of it? The Wikipedia page says “which may include unclothed or partially clothed photos” but doesn’t necessarily mean there is any.

            • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              If you run always-on cameras in thousands of teenage bedrooms, you will get child porn.

          • Septimaeus@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            In our court system, precedent (an existing ruling by a higher court on a similar case) often weighs heavily in future court cases. IIRC the point of this doctrine is fairness and legitimacy by consistency of rulings.

            Its weaknesses, however, include the ability to set a bad precedent. For this reason, our AGs sometimes ignore potential cases if they’re not sure they can win.

            In other words, this case might not have been quite the slam dunk the headline would suggest.