Regarding yesterday’s item “Lied about her age to get into wet T-shirt contest”, reader James Ingram wrote to say:

Actually, I think you are off base on the case of the young woman who sued for use of her semi-nude pictures taken when she was only sixteen years old. Protecting minors from the negative consequences of their poor judgment and immaturity is a very traditional function of the law and one that makes good sense. This is why the law sets minimum ages for making life altering decisions such as entering contracts, getting married, having sex or dropping out of school, for purchasing potentially harmful products like alcohol, tobacco and firearms and for engaging in activities like driving and operating heavy machinery that could be dangerous to the minor or others. It is also why we have juvenile courts. Children need to be protected from themselves because they are children, and not fully responsible for their own actions.

Generally we require the adults who interact with minors to verify their age before allowing them to engage in these sorts of activities, and hold them legally responsible even if the minor lies about his or her age. No bartender who served a sixteen year old would be excused because she told him she was “of age”; he is legally responsible to verify her age by seeing proper ID and liable to punishment if he does not do so. The same rule ought to apply to the makers of skin flicks. The film producer took advantage of the poor judgment of an immature (and probably intoxicated) girl and deserves to be held accountable. (I give you that suing the hotel was silly.)

To which I replied:

I can see some point in your comments as regards the possibility of other legal sanctions aimed at the organizers, and perhaps even giving her some sort of right to obtain an injunction against further distribution, but the idea of letting her rake in cash over the incident strikes me as more than a little foolish. The result will be to set her up in an affluent position above her peers who had the good sense not to commit such follies, the sort of young women who are saving fifty dollars a week out of their paychecks as store clerks and waitresses. What sort of lesson does that send? And of course there’s also the grasping nature of the selection of defendants in the case, as you acknowledge.

And Ingram wrote back:

Good point. And you are right that a legal system that has only one answer — award money damages to the plaintiff — creates perverse incentives and rewards bad behavior. Kind of like the AGs’ tobacco litigation in a way. They “punished” the tobacco industry by taking a cut of the take; she punishes her exploiters by making them cut her in on the revenue from her strip show.

Interestingly, in the case of the underage drinking example I used the law would have remedies against both of the parties who behaved badly. The bartender who served the underage girl would face a fine or loss of license, while the girl would face juvenile court proceedings for underage drinking. I think my larger point — that the law should protect children and teenagers from their own folly and sanction the adults who facilitate it — is valid. Your larger point — we shouldn’t reward bad behavior with money even in circumstances where that behavior may be excused by youth and immaturity — is also valid.

Filed under: family law, tobacco