Three teen girls are suing after being threatened with prosecution for 'sexting'
We read:
"Three teenage girls are suing a US prosecutor who accused them of peddling "child pornography" after semi-nude pictures of them were sent by phone to friends. The complaint is the latest legal wrangle over "sexting" - the practice of sending nude or semi-nude photos to friends by mobile phone.
Teachers alerted the authorities after discovering a waist-up image of two girls covered just by a bra, and another image of a girl topless.
District Attorney George Skumanik called for the girls to undergo five weeks of behaviour courses and take a drug test or face prosecution, according to a letter apparently sent to the teenagers' parents.
The American Civil Liberties Union, a co-signatory to the complaint, said Mr Skumanik's threat was unconstitutional, and prosecution could have landed the girls on the sex offenders register, blighting future job prospects. "In many states these charges would land these kids on (sex offender) databases ... for ten years or more, and prevent them from getting many types of jobs," said Witold Walczak, Legal Director for the ACLU in Pennsylvania. "That's a heck of a lesson for a kid who probably doesn't even realise she is doing something wrong."
In the letter, Mr Skumanik described the pictures as "provocative" and insisted the teens need to "gain an understanding of how (their) actions were wrong" as well as "what it means to be a girl in today's society".
According to a survey by a US family planning organisation, published in December, 20 per cent of American teenagers said they had participated in sexting.
Source
I can see no reason for prosecutions over "sexting". Adult porn is freely available so the only excuse for these prosecutions is that they involve "child" pornography. But why is child pornography banned? It is banned to protect children from harm. But clearly nobody has been harmed in these cases. The kids did it themselves. Nobody stood over them or forced them to do anything. So I applaud the ACLU in this case.
13 comments:
In my humble opinion, this is not child porn. Child porn drudges up the idea of young children coerced or drugged and taken advantage of in order to produce the material. This is a really dumb move by anyone who takes a photo of him/herself and sends it. Once you send it, the person you send it can send to everyone they know, who then sends it on and so on.
If you have kids, especially daughters, this age, and they have cell phone cameras, please take ten minutes today to talk to them about what could happen.
The threat was only to teach the girls a lesson, all it take is one friend to send it to someone else who sends it to someone else who send it to someone else now its all over the internet and it gets to some sexual preditor...NOW WHAT HAPPENS???
Gary
While I agree this appears to be a "victimless crime," the larger issue is what happens to those pictures when they leave the girls' control.
A recent case where a girl became the subject of sexual harassment and bullying after some pics she took of herself for her boyfriend got into the "wild" of her high school is an extreme case - but an example nonetheless of what can happen. Regardless of the reasons behind her suicide, she was still bullied and harassed.
It brings up an interesting point - what are society's responsibilities to protect children and young people when they choose not to protect themselves?
No young lady taking such pictures thinks "In 10 years, I'm going to be googled by a prospective employer, he's going to see these pictures, and I'm not going to get hired," any more than she wonders who's going to drive her to the mall this afternoon. Young people generally do not think.
Was this particular case a "criminal offense" where the punishment fit the crime? No. Do these girls need protection from themselves? Probably - at least until they get some life experience and some perspective on how their actions now can permanently affect their future.
"In 10 years, I'm going to be googled by a prospective employer, he's going to see these pictures, and I'm not going to get hired"
---I don't think there's much chance of that happening. Her boyfriend might save her picture as "Stacy," not "Stacy Smith."
What's more dangerous is writing on a site like this one using your real name, google can find that!
It's ridiculous to charge the girl with child porn, the penalty of that could be registration as a sex offender, a fate worse than death in my opinion. Cops should be going after real criminals and not slutty teenagers.
It shows how "adults" are obsessed with sex and transfer their neurosis over all of current "culture" (either as addicts or pc-prudes) and sadly make the next generation victims caught in the middle!
The parents can buy phones with no texting or photo abilities! I blame this on the parents. My children were 18 before they had phones and they paid for them!
If I'm interpreting this right, the girls could be charged as adults for texting pictures of themselves that are considered to be pictures of children. Does anyone else see the irony?? Either they are 'adults' and therefore it is not a crime, or they are juveniles and therefore should not be required to register as sex offenders and the records should be sealed.
"The parents can buy phones with no texting or photo abilities! I blame this on the parents."
---Either parents are clueless about technology or a lot of phones already include the camera.
Besides, if it isn't sexting, it's putting nudie pictures on facebook, videotaping a fist fight and putting it on youtube, and just having no shame whatsoever.
I'm 33, this new generation shocks me. Generation X did bad things too, but we didn't advertise them!
What is the legal definition of "child porn"?
If it is nudity of minors, a very broad brush, then what the girls did is child porn.
Yes, these photos can easily follow these girls. It only takes one person to know and attach the girls' last name to the photos. Lots of people hold on to photos for years. Plenty of political scandals have demonstrated this occurrence.
So as long as the girls says that it is OK, it is OK?
I guess that if the girl signs a contract, without any force being used, then the picture would be “legal”?
It looks like the Federal Judge in Iowa ruling is going nationwide! When a 16 year old girl, snuck into a Nudie bar with a fake ID, and got up on stage, danced, and stripped. This judge ruled that Nude Dancing is an Art Form and there is no age limit on Art!
So all laws on a age requirement for sexual pictures must be throw out, and the children now through these pictures and misc rulings now have to right to sign a binding contract, before hitting the minimum age?
However the rules against force are still valid, both for underage people as overage people.
The slippery slope just went vertical!
Mobius
In this instance, i find myself doing something i "never" do, agreeing with the ACLU. This seems to be yet another case of policital correctness gone wild.
Stan B: This is not a "victimless crime". In fact, it's not a crime at all. Extremely poor judgement? Without a doubt, but no crime. I also agree with the comment about the parents lack of oversight being partially responsible here.
Today, many young people are raised to think that simply because this is America, they have a "right" to do anything that comes into their clueless minds. To that, add the day-to-day, greed-induced, advance in electronics and you've got the potential for serious problems. But, it does make the lawyers happy!
"Teachers alerted the authorities after discovering a waist-up image of two girls covered just by a bra, and another image of a girl topless."
Wow...covered just by a bra. It seems Muslims were right and females should be covered from head to toe.
"Teachers alerted the authorities after discovering ...".
How pathetic! My daughter noticed some similar "underwear" pictures of a teenager from our church on Facebook. Realising the distinct lack of wisdom shown by the girl concerned (who is a lovely girl, but in this case rather thoughtless), and the possible consequences, we had a quiet but loving word with her mother. That is how it should be done - actually protecting children from harm they could do themselves.
The "authorities"!!!
Post a Comment