Children are supposed to be innocent, and child porn laws were made to stop pedophiles from sexualizing the image of children. They also were made to protect minors from being used by child predators. keyword PROTECT, as in HELP. Because it’s typically an adult looking at it.
So it’s sadly ironic that these laws are being used against teenagers that consensually send nude images of themselves to other minors, and harm these kids by making them sex offenders by life, even though there is no victim. It’s like charging two 16 year olds for child molestation. There was a girl who got charged with possessing child pornography because she had images of HERSELF on her OWN COMPUTER. :smack: I wouldn’t be surprised if looking at yourself in the mirror is viewing child pornography, too. Or if making a nude snow angel in the ground is making child porn. Or even building a sexually explicit snowman. Or arranging grapes and a baby carrot to make a fake *****. I’ve lost all faith in the judicial system by now.
The real problem with sexting is when they include their faces in the image, and get their life ruined when it spreads around in school. Which can be solved by not showing your face.
I agree that a lot of weird things fall out of these laws because minors are not able to give consent. If a minor sent nude pictures of himself or herself, then, yes, he or she is legally the “victim” of a “crime.”
I can cope with the idea of penalizing others for keeping such pictures. If they aren’t, then this opens a kind of sneaky work-around to a ban on such pictures. Canny 13 year olds could be tricked (by being paid large amounts of money) into taking pictures of themselves and sending them to collectors.
Since we don’t accept that 13 year olds can make that decision, then the deal is illicit, and the photos constitute victimization.
If a 16 year old “texts dirty,” posting the equivalent of written pornography – some of the same rules should apply.
But…no, I wouldn’t treat possession of smutty text in the same way as the possession of photographs. There might still be some kind of victimization, but not exactly the same kind.
To my mind, this is what judges are for. Judges are the interface between law and reality.
Although I generally agree with the OP, I have to play Devil’s Advocate here. It’s kinda hard to make a law making allowances for the creation or possession of child pornography if we view to child pornography to be evil in and of itself. Abusive adults will clearly exploit whatever loophole you create. Find child porn on a family computer? Blame it on your children.
There is also the issue of when we deem pornography to be unacceptable even amongst children. Sure a 16 year old sending another 16 year old a naked pic is probably not worth involving the police, but what about a 13 year old sending it? Or an 11 year old? At what point do you draw the like that images that sexualize children at a given age are bad regardless of who possesses them or creates them?
I am not saying some more common sense couldn’t be utilized in these scenarios, but I think it’s a harder problem to fix than it initially seems.
The problem is, the younger you go, you also have to go with how legally culpable they are for their actions. A thirteen year old sending a sext to another thirteen year old may be something we don’t like, but who are you going to punish? It’s not as if the parents can watch their kids every moment of every day.
I think this only goes away once the anti-porn tech, which is based on the same tech as facial recognition, can block images from being sent in the first place. And, even then, you’re going to have some enterprising kids that work around it.
The person charged did not have the consent of the person who was naked. Girl A broke up with Boy A. Boy A moved and then started dating Girl B. Boy A showed Girl B the pics of his ex-girl Girl A, and Girl B then sent harassing texts to Girl A, along with distributing the naked pictures of Girl A.
Whether or not you agree with what each legislature is doing to address the issue is irrelevant. You blanket ignorant statement that laws are not changing is wrong. The subject comes up often in the monthly Megan’s Law meetings I sit in. And the Juvenile Officer’s Association conferences. And multiple other meetings and conferences. Sorry, I can’t link to real life. But I assure you the issue is well known in juvenile justice circles and in state legislatures. It is realized that pictures sent between girlfriend and boyfriend should be treated differently than some kid getting a naked picture of a classmate and sending it to the whole class. Or someone getting their hands on real porn and distributing it. Legislatures are moving towards changing those laws. Some faster than others. Some probably will never change and juveniles will be crushed by the system there. I know that here even before the law was changed juvenile court judges used their discretion to steer such cases to alternate outcomes.
I think we can, as a society, keep the idea that this stuff is very bad while still accounting for the individual level of moral culpability that should be imposed on offenders.
I’ll admit it is hard, but it’s good to know that it’s being worked on. Kids caught sexting should not be on the sex offender registry for life, unable to get a job and subject to random vigilante “justice” from “concerned” neighbors. That doesn’t mean, however, that we just let them go with no penalties - there should be more moderate penalties inflicted that are commensurate with their maturity levels. Put them on kiddie probation, make them have an internet filter, and make them see a shrink to verify that they don’t have serious sexual hangups that are likely to make life difficult as an adult. Then, let them put their life together and enter adulthood as a mature adult. If they screw up again, maybe they are one of those whacko perverts who needs to be on the sex offender registry.
Hadn’t the U.S. legal system(s) long ago recognized that nude photos are not automatically pornographic photos? It seems that with the rise of smartphones, we’ve sort of lost this distinction.
Of course, there’s always been that problem that the definition of pornography is “I know it when I see it”. Certainly there are some poses that seem quite clearly intended to elicit a sexual response, but most “selfies” aren’t quite so explicitly pornographic- in my estimation.
Really, for those so inclined, I suggest you turn safe search off and do a Bing image search for Naked Selfie. Almost all the images are of a woman holding one arm up and outstretched holding her phone aimed at a mirror. She’s got one hip cocked to the side with her other hand on that hip. Do we designate every one of these photos as pornography?
I imagine the popular response to that question is going to be “C’mon! Obviously that photo was taken with the intent to appeal to prurient interests!” Supposedly “obviously” because we’re expected to recognize that nudity = sexual = pornography. But we had already established that nudity does not automatically equal pornography. Why have we lost that distinction in the age of smart phones? A person can take a nude selfie simply as an expression of pride at how their body looks- and can share that photo with the exact same intent: I like how my body looks and feel good about myself and I pity any girl who isn’t me tonight.
Sure, some other person may find that photo and may masturbate to it.
This same person could masturbate to a catalog featuring swimsuit models. A more topically relevant example: a person could masturbate to nude photos of children from a nudist lifestyle publication. That doesn’t make the material pornography. There are plenty of legally available photographs of nude children and adolescents and these photos are legal exactly because we have the distinction that nudity does not automatically equal pornography.
Still, once a phone is used to take the photo somehow we lose that distinction.
Sexting, by definition, is taking an image for prurient interests–those of the recipient.
No, mere nudity is not porn by U.S. definitions. But you have an uphill battle saying you sent multiple nude images to multiple people of your preferred sex but were not appealing to their sexual interests. Especially if aren’t a nudist and you say something around the photo declaring your intent.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t think sexting is child porn, because I think that term requires someone to be being exploited. But it’s not simply nudity with no sexual overtones, either. Sexting is sexual.
Yeah, but then (and I recognize from your eloquent post that you have a mind for nuance) we are put with the question “does sexual = pornographic?”
I do not equate sexual with pornographic and yet I recognize the unfortunate reality that I live in a society in which a jury of my peers more likely than not will equate sexual with pornographic.
In terms of defining pornography, we’ve not done, and may never do, better than “I know it when I see it.”
You say “Sexting, by definition, is taking an image for prurient interests”.
By whose definition? “Sexting” is an extremely new word. By definition it means for prurient interests? Has this already been codified into law? In what jurisdictions?
To share a photo of your nude body because you feel good about how your nude body looks, because you feel sexy and desirable- I would agree that this act of sharing is sexual . . . but is it pornographic??? Is it solely appealing to prurient interests?
Again, BigT, I’m responding to you because I think you made an intelligent post and see that you are capable of recognizing nuance, but I really worry that- in the global digital age- any code of “community standards” (as has traditionally been the yardstick for evaluating pornography) is going to be very troublesome for anyone whose predilection for self expression leans toward the sexual.
For many people, sexual does not equate to pornographic.
For others, sexual absolutely equates to pornographic.
Part of the issue here is that some in the (alleged) grownup community have decided to use the threat of the CP/offender index sanctions as a way to scare the teens away from sexting one another, as long as we have no law banning nude selfies per se. Yes, it may be “sexual but not pornographic” but many members of the community hold to the position that for adolescents, even that Is. Not. Acceptable; and/or to the presumption that if someone does that, “someone must have put her up to this”.
We are facing a generation where a large segment is growing up NOT internalizing the former mores that said “no sexually suggestive nude pictures of you should EXIST outside your private personal possesion unless you’re an adult professional model”. And that disturbs many people, not insignificantly because of how those can later be used against the subject.
Just make 16 the age of consent for everything legal and this solves it. A 15 year old who does it should be treated as a minor with social/psychological issues and go through counseling if their parents want them to, but other than that, no legal repercussions for them.
Pretty much any selfie or pictures sent between two people with consent will be free of exploitation. However, the problem is that those images don’t disappear. How do you feel if those same pictures wind up in possession of a 3rd person or on the internet? The problem is that the laws as written are often too black and white and leaves no middle ground for pictures just shared between two people. However to be honest, the police and courts rarely get involved until someone does something wrong like spreading those images around.
And that is way too black and white the other way. Some juveniles commit heinous sexual crimes to include child pornography.
We are facing a generation of juveniles that know but don’t really understand that the internet is forever. I have dealt with many young girls that are devastated that images they thought were private were spread around by stupid or angry boyfriends. The next generation is not that far off with their mores. They just grew up with different technology.
Back before Facebook opened to high schools, all the kids used Xanga. A friend of mine had a daughter in a Catholic school, and one of the nuns managed to find the Xanga accounts of various kids, which led to accounts of other kids, etc.
The nuns then printed out each kids Xanga page and mailed it to their parents.
My friend found out that her 15 year old daughter Silvia’s Xanga handle was “SilviaLovesTheCock” (name changed to protect the guilty).
I was called over to explain the Internet Facts of Life to her daughter - how anything she posted was going to be findable pretty much forever.
Hey what do you expect at 15. (Uncomfortable thought: Maybe she was trying to quell rumors to the contrary.)
I suppose you are right and it’s largely a matter of youthful cluelessness, not expecting that the content may ever go beyond the intended recipient in the indended context, and a cad is a cad, whether he writes her name in toilet stall walls or posts her pic online. Still, I can’t imagine myself back in the day saying “hey, wouldya get for me some nude Polaroids of yourself?”.