Miller v. Skumanick

Miller v. Skumanick
Court	United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case name	Mary Jo Miller, Individually and on behalf of her minor daughtor, MM; Jami Day, Individually and on behalf of her minor daughter GK; Jane Doe, Individually and on behalf of her minor daughter, ND v. Jeff Mitchell, District Attorney of Wyoming County, Pennsylvania
Date decided	March 15, 2010
Judge(s) sitting	Thomas L. Ambro, Michael Chagares, and Walter King Stapleton

'Miller v. Skumanick' was a 2010 Third Circuit Court of Appeals case regarding the practice of sexting and its legal relationship to child pornography.

Background

In October 2008, school district officials confiscated several students' cellphones and found photographs of nude or partially nude female students, and gave those photos as to District Attorney Skumanick. Skumanick promised to file charges against those posing in and possessing the photographs for distributing child pornography unless they completed a six to nine month educational program which would, among other things require participants to submit an essay explaining why their actions were wrong. Eventually, the program was reduced to ten hours over five weeks, and all the parties involved agreed to this agreement, except for three families. These three families collectively filed for a temporary restraining order in district court to prevent the prosecution from taking place while they seek an injunction. The restraining order was granted, and Skumanick appealed.

Decision

The plaintiffs argued that prosecution would amount to retaliation against their children's First Amendment right to free expression and against compelled speech, and the parents' Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to direct the upbringing of their children. The appellate court upheld the temporary restraining order based on the second and third claims. Specifically, the court affirmed that the students' First Amendment right against compelled speech would be violated by the program's requirement that the student involve explain why their actions were wrong, and the parents' Fourteenth Amendment rights would be violated by the program's moral nature.

The appellate court opinion in this matter did not address whether the pictures in question were pornographic in nature, as it instead ruled that there was no evidence that the plaintiffs ever possessed or distributed the photos.

See also

Sexting

Notes

References

External links

• District court ruling
• Circuit court ruling