Cops investigating in Shamong, New Jersey, charged a school bus driver with Obscenity for Persons Under 18. Indeed, the cops claim the bus driver allegedly watched porn in front of children. This man’s ordeal began when two elementary school students told their parents about it. The children allegedly saw the driver watching pornography on his cell phone before they got off the bus. But the media does not appear to have reported a detailed description of the alleged pornography. Instead, one piece of double hearsay to emerge in the news comes from a mother of a student. This unreliable information alleges the child told the mother that the driver, “had naked people on his phone.”

Thus, the news reports are inherently untrustworthy for lacking in specificity and reliance on hearsay. And much of this appears to come from the New Jersey State Police Facebook Page. Furthermore, the news media omitted the final sentence of the Facebook post. In particular, it says, “Charges are mere accusations, and the accused is considered innocent until proven guilty.”

Meanwhile, this man’s name has been dragged through the media mud. Additionally, he faces charges for Oscenity for Persons Under 18. Of course, members of the public who believe the news and everything on Facebook should know that he is probably not guilty. Additionally, if State’s evidence is consistent with the news reports, then the grand jury would probably not return an indictment. Furthermore, if the grand jury were to indict, then a judge would probably dismiss it.

This is because there is nothing in the news to indicate the driver showed this material to the students. Instead, if the news reports are to be believed, the students claim he was watching it. To be certain, assuming the truth of the news reports and the Facebook post is an incredibly generous assumption. But even if the driver should have known better, and even if he should have exercised better judgment, the reports claim he watched it. They do not include any evidence that he knowingly showed it to the students. The reasons that follow demonstrate why this distinction matters.

Obscenity for Persons Under 18, N.J.S.A. 2c:34-3

Under New Jersey law, a person who knowingly sells, distributes, rents or exhibits to a person under 18 years of age obscene material is guilty of a crime of the third degree. N.J.S.A. 2c:34-3b(1).

Additionally, a person who knowingly shows obscene material to a person under 18 years of age with the knowledge or purpose to arouse, gratify or stimulate himself or another is guilty of a crime of the third degree if the person showing the obscene material is at least four years older than the person under 18 years of age viewing the material. N.J.S.A. 2c:34-3b(2).

Furthermore, any person who knowingly admits a person under 18 years of age to a theatre then exhibiting an obscene film is guilty of a crime of the third degree. N.J.S.A. 2c:34-3c(1).

Moreover, a person who knowingly shows an obscene film to a person under 18 years of age with the knowledge or purpose to arouse, gratify or stimulate himself or another is guilty of a crime of the third degree if the person showing the obscene film is at least four years older than the person under 18 years of age viewing the film. N.J.S.A. 2c:34-3c(1).

There is nothing in the news reports to indicate the bus driver knowingly exhibited or showed the alleged material to the students.

Follow