Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
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.
Well if they recorded and student jerking it then the school made cp and. I doubt theor is a limitation on that.
Wouldn't the highest charge be all that child pornography they intentionally created?
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.
If you run always-on cameras in thousands of teenage bedrooms, you will get child porn.
Great answer
Why tf are your AGs allowed to just ignore crimes? Aren't there laws to prevent selective enforcement like this?
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.