Are lots of teens really ‘sexting’?
Published March 26th, 2009Remember “wilding” — the homicidal hellraising that poor kids of color were alleged to be doing in Central Park? It turned out to be an invention of some journalist or cop — a name for racist anxieties about invasions by the Other into a perceived redoubt of “civilized” (read: white) New York City.
“Sexting” may be the latest invented scary youth trend — a name for adult hysteria about the alchemy of teen sex and technology. The Internet and other wireless means of mysterious kid-to-kid communication, are the 21st-century version of the corrupting Street, which I talked about in Harmful to Minors.
The story, casting doubts on “sexting,” originally ran in the SF Chronicle.
The good news about “sexting” is that it is finally getting the ACLU off its ass to take on the rampaging enforcement of ever-broadening child pornography laws, something it has been shamefully reluctant to do for the last 25 years. The organization is assisting in a lawsuit against Pennsylvania for civil rights violations in the prosecution of some teenage girls who took naked pix of themselves & the boys to whom they sent them.
I just read the times article out loud to my mom, where I’m visiting her in PA. This is happening in a town about half an hour from my hometown. The good news, if there is any, is that the judge in the case was one who ruled against the Mayor of Hazleton (my hometown) in his efforts to deprive illegal immigrants of jobs and homes.
wonder if youve seen my webseries and if this is a topic i can understand more to perhaps give some time to it in a future story.
S
Comment by Susan Miller — March 27, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Possible First Amendment protection for teen “sexters?”
The justification for not protecting child pornography under the First Amendment is that it is necessary to take prurient advantage of a child to make the picture. Hand drawn or computer generated child porn is not illegal (unless they use a live child for an artist’s subject I suppose) — one thinks movie scenes in “The Glitter Dome.”
A sexting teen who transmits her own is not being taken advantage of by an adult or anyone else. If she sends nude pictures to an 80 year old her part in the transaction might very well be protected under the First Amendment — once the first principles of the scenario are considered. Ditto for her side of sexting to a friend.
There is an outside chance a child possessing such the “sext” should be considered to be taking prurient advantage of a minor under the First Amendment (depending on which generation of judges gets hold of it maybe) — but does it make sense to make a teen boyfriend — who may even have made legal sexual contact with the girl — the equivalent of an adult who possesses child pornography?
The free speech crossover seems to be when boys distribute nude pictures of girls among themselves without the girls permission — certainly not free speech. But to begin with no child was hurt making the image. The kind of personal damage to a child making pornographic images may be much more devastating than that of having the image passed around (again, once thinks of “The Glitter Dome”) — at least most of the time.
Wouldn’t we feel more comfortable with law that punishes such a gross invasion of privacy in a case for case damage way — not rounding up dozens of students and plastering them all with sex offender status and heavy jail time — but treating the offense as the privacy offense it really is?
Comment by Denis Drew — April 18, 2009 @ 8:21 am
I just read the times article out loud to my mom, where I’m visiting her in PA. This is happening in a town about half an hour from my hometown. The good news, if there is any, is that the judge in the case was one who ruled against the Mayor of Hazleton (my hometown) in his efforts to deprive illegal immigrants of jobs and homes.
wonder if youve seen my webseries and if this is a topic i can understand more to perhaps give some time to it in a future story.
S
Comment by VA — October 5, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
I notice how the news media is trying to make it sound like children ending up on the sex offender registry for “sexting” is a rare thing.
But in reality, this injustice is going on all the time in America. Many teens are on the registry already and many more will be forced to register for this trivial offense if far-reaching sex laws do not change soon.
The original intent of Megan’s Law was to only list real predators on registries and that is what the law should go back to.
Excellent blog Judith and thanks for raising awareness to this growing problem.
These misguided laws do need reform.
Comment by Brian Yates — October 7, 2009 @ 4:40 am