Freedom of Impropriety?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/us/08muskegon.html?pagewanted=1&ref=us&src=me&adxnnlx=1299682840-FWU238xhdI2NVWfWQQjKgg

I saw this article today and it really exemplified what I think is an interesting and, often times troubling, legal issue that is developing with the advent of a more technological society.

In this instance, a young 21 year-old musician in a small Michigan town decided to take on a musical project with some major shock value....not a novel idea for musicians, nor for guys in their early 20's...and in this case, not too smart.

He sang age-appropriate songs to a classroom full of first graders. Afterwards, he sang a far more (sexually) inappropriate song, this time to an empty room, and later edits a video to give the appearance that he sang the second song to a room full of innocent kids.

Inappropriate? Yeh, pretty much. But the response was equally inappropriate. The kid has now been arrested on charges of Child Pornography, facing a lifetime labelled as a sexual predator. A condition of his bond? He can't perform music...adding insult to this First Amendment injury.

The Supreme Court has decided that child pornography is not protected by the First Amendment... But this is continuously misapplied. Another example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28679588/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/

I actually saw this story first on Oprah. Again, it presents what is probably a real issue that needs to be addressed with the young ladies of society (hello, not everyone is Kim Kardashian, and nude photos of you circulating around the playground is not-so-cute)- but, again, is inappropriately addressed by the State.

Young girls were charged with sex crimes for sending nude photos of themselves to their male classmates on their cell phones. Dumb? Totally. Sexual predators? Notsomuch.

The ACLU agreed, and actually took on this case, in an attempt to bar the prosecution from even going forward with the case
(http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/aclu-sues-da-ov/).

Just seems to me that these are all examples of local governments trying to legislate morality. Certainly these young people (essentially children themselves) are not the boogiemen we are so well-trained to fear, lurking in minivans with sugary lures. What then, is the purpose, other than to teach quite a costly (and unfair) lesson?