Dumb Teens Outdone By Dumb Adults In Charge
Teens are getting stuck with the kiddie pornographer label and forced to register as sex offenders for "sexting," sending nude cell phone photos around. Okay, bad judgment, but shouldn't bad judgment be punished by a call from the principal's office to mom and dad and some days writing out the Gettysburg address on the blackboard? Dalia Lithwick writes on Slate:
The real problem with criminalizing teen sexting as a form of child pornography is that the great majority of these kids are not predators and have no intention of producing or purveying kiddie porn. They think they're being brash and sexy, in the manner of brash, sexy Americans everywhere: by being undressed. And while some of the reaction to the sexting epidemic reflects legitimate concerns about children as sex objects, some highlights pernicious legal stereotypes and fallacies. A recent New York Times article about online harassment, for instance, quotes the Family Violence Prevention Fund, a nonprofit domestic violence awareness group, saying that the sending of nude pictures, even if done voluntarily, constitutes "digital dating violence." But is one in five teens truly participating in an act of violence?Many other experts insist the sexting trend hurts teen girls more than boys, fretting that they feel "pressured" to take and send naked photos. Yet the girls in the Pennsylvania case were charged with "manufacturing, disseminating or possessing child pornography" while the boys were merely charged with possession. This disparity seems increasingly common. If we are worried about the poor girls pressured into exposing themselves, why are we treating them more harshly than the boys?
In a thoughtful essay in the American Prospect Online, Judith Levine, author of Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex
examines the dangers lurking online for children and concludes that the harms of old-fashioned online bullying--the sort of teasing and ostracism that led Megan Meier to kill herself after being tormented on MySpace--far outweigh the dangers of online sexual material. Judging from the sexting prosecutions in Pennsylvania and Ohio last year, it's clear the criminal justice system is too blunt an instrument to resolve a problem that reflects more about the volatile combination of teens and technology than some national cyber-crime spree. Parents need to remind their teens that a dumb moment can last a lifetime in cyberspace. Judges and prosecutors need to understand that a lifetime of cyber-humiliation shouldn't be grounds for a very real and possibly lifelong criminal record.
An excerpt from Levine's essay:
Enter the law -- and the injuries of otherwise harmless teenage sexual shenanigans begin. The effects of the ever-stricter sex-crimes laws, which punish ever-younger offenders, are tragic for juveniles. A child pornography conviction -- which could come from sending a racy photo of yourself or receiving said photo from a girlfriend or boyfriend -- carries far heavier penalties than most hands-on sexual offenses. Even if a juvenile sees no lock-up time, he or she will be forced to register as a sex offender for 10 years or more. The federal Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2007 requires that sex offenders as young as 14 register.As documented in such reports as Human Rights Watch's "No Easy Answers: Sex Offender Laws in the U.S." and "Registering Harm: How Sex Offense Registries Fail Youth and Communities" from the Justice Policy Institute, conviction and punishment for a sex crime (a term that includes nonviolent offenses such as consensual teen sex, flashing, and patronizing a prostitute) effectively squashes a minor's chances of getting a college scholarship, serving in the military, securing a good job, finding decent housing, and, in many cases, moving forward with hope or happiness.
The sexual dangers to youth, online or off, may be less than we think. Yet adults routinely conflate friendly sex play with hurtful online behavior. "Teaching Teenagers About Harassment," recent piece in The New York Times, swings between descriptions of consensual photo-swapping and incessant, aggressive texting and Facebook or MySpace rumor-and insult-mongering as if these were similarly motivated -- and equally harmful. It quotes the San Francisco-based Family Violence Prevention Fund, which calls sending nude photos "whether it is done under pressure or not" an element of "digital dating violence."
...A better-educated interlocutor, NPR's "On the Media" host Brooke Gladstone, defaulted to the same assumption in an interview with one of the Harvard Internet task force members, Family Online Safety Institute CEO Stephen Balkam. What lessons could be drawn from the study's findings? Gladstone asked. "What can be and what should be done to protect kids?"
"There's no silver bullet that's going to solve this issue," Balkam replied. But "far more cooperation has got to happen between law enforcement, industry, the academic community, and we need to understand far better the psychological issues that are at play here."
It's unclear from this exchange what Gladstone believes kids need to be protected from or what issue Balkam is solving. But neither of them came to the logical conclusion of the Harvard study: that we should back off, moderate our fears, and stop thinking of youthful sexual expression as a criminal matter. Still, Balkam wants to call in the cops.
This was foretold by the great prophet Zappa I.
It is called "Total Criminalization". The theory is, that once everyone is guilty of some crime, then everyone will finally be equal, at least in the eyes of the government.
brian at February 17, 2009 6:48 AM
Oh, and also fear. If the school calls the cops, they can say "well, it's out of our hands. Policy, don't ya know"
Zero-tolerance may be zero-intelligence (for the implementer), but it's lawyer-proof armor for those in charge.
brian at February 17, 2009 6:49 AM
Yep, what we have is a bunch of 21st-century Miss Grundys getting the law to do their dirty work for them. It's just another proof of my contention that law is not and can not be morality; law can never be anything more than a tool for maintaining a minimum standard of civil order.
As for "why are the girls punished more harshly than the boys": Well, Glenn Sacks has also documented instances where the boys were punished severely, but the girls weren't punished at all. Can anyone really make a rational argument that a person who possesses a cell phone (which was still legal last time I checked), and simply receives a nude picture on it, has committed a crime the moment the bits hit the memory? Standard definition of the word "commit" implies that you have to take some action. If that's all it takes, then a talented spammer can make every person in the United States "commit" possession of child porn in a matter of hours, which goes back to Zappa's point. However, that's merely debating the logic of a crazy system. The point is, neither the girls nor the boys should be thrown into the tender loving mercies of sex law just for doing normal teenage stunts.
Cousin Dave at February 17, 2009 8:14 AM
I didn't know the Zappa prophecy, brian.
Bang on target!
Jody Tresidder at February 17, 2009 9:02 AM
Jody -
Read the liner notes for "Joe's Garage". It wasn't a direct pronouncement of what he saw for the future, but it's pretty obvious that he predicted that such a dystopia was not only possible, but something that a government might aspire to.
CD -
In fact, with the way the law is now structured, someone could create a bot that downloads child porn to your machine in the background with no user intervention or knowledge, and that will be sufficient to convict.
We had a substitute teacher almost go to prison in this state (she'll never teach again) because of an errant click on a web page that brought her to a site that started popping up porno ads all over the screen.
This country is schizophrenic about sex. On the one hand, we parade a 15 year old Miley Cyrus in front of everyone with her 21 year old "boyfriend", and put her in sexually suggestive poses in women's magazines, and on the other we tell someone that merely possessing a picture of a 15 year old with her shirt off constitutes felony child pornography.
Make up your fucking minds!
brian at February 17, 2009 9:08 AM
"digital dating violence"
Digital Dating Violence?
What the hell is that, anyway? It sounds like some made-up phrase that means whatever you want it to mean (no, I'm not going to look it up on the Family Violence Prevention Fund web site).
old rpm daddy at February 17, 2009 9:13 AM
ORD - I think that's when you finger-bang her too hard.
brian at February 17, 2009 9:16 AM
I remember seeing Judith Levine interviewed about her book, and one of the very interesting points she made was that American society is becoming more restrictive on teen sex, while at the same time prosecuting minors as adults.
She makes a good point. The message in America seems to be that teenagers are too young to have sex, but not too young to be tried as adults. Ugh.
Tyler at February 17, 2009 9:32 AM
"effectively squashes a minor's chances of getting a college scholarship, serving in the military, securing a good job, finding decent housing, and, in many cases, moving forward with hope or happiness."
This sounds a lot like the dumbasses that let high school athletes get away with shit just to not ruin their future career. Maybe if the "kids" worried about it more, they'd do less dumb shit?
momof3 at February 17, 2009 11:32 AM
How is this any different from some dumb little teenage girl flashing somebody at a party? Yes, stupid, immature behavior. But behavior deserving the stigma of sex offender status? Good god, no!
And momof3, what kind of "shit" are you referring to high school sports stars getting away with which should instead possibly ruin their future careers? Some pretty severe offenses, I'd hope. Does flashing somebody really compare to that "shit?" Is it as dangerous as vandalism or violence or driving drunk? Do we WANT kids worried that oh my god, a mere picture of them or someone else naked has the power to ruin their entire lives?
Let's just make America MORE prudish! This is a fucking great way to start.
Debra at February 17, 2009 11:54 AM
Yes Debra, here in texas-football worshipping capital that it is-they can get away with anything from vandalism to cheating to DWI to rape. We'd hate to keep a felon out of the NFL.
Nude sex pictures of minors are, in fact, illegal. Do you want the idiot government trying to discern which are harmful and which aren't? teens can be pedophiles you know. Longer more detailed laws ie: nude kiddie pics are only illegal if you are over 18 or more than 4 years older than the subject of the photo or nonrelated or paid for the pic or requested it.... versus no nudie pics of kids. Which one is easier to enforce, and catches the people that really need catching?
How many thinking it's so stupid to the point we need to completely overhaul kiddie porn laws actually have kids? Any?
momof3 at February 17, 2009 1:40 PM
" ... How many thinking it's so stupid to the point we need to completely overhaul kiddie porn laws actually have kids? Any? ..."
OK, I'll take the bait. I have three children: a 15 y.o. daughter, a 13 y.o. son, and a 1 y.o. daughter; and I think that the kiddie porn laws (and any other laws that treat middle-teenagers as 'children') are stupid. And laws that treat a teenager as a criminal for taking a nude self-portrait of himself/herself are *mind-numbingly* stupid.
john-q at February 17, 2009 3:14 PM
Hey momof3 what if one of your kids gets a photo forwarded to them by accident
Do you really think being labeled a pedophile for the rest of their lives is worth it to 'teach a lesson'?
lujlp at February 17, 2009 3:27 PM
Heaven forbid the people whose tax dollars are spent enforcing these stupid laws actually have a say in the matter. I'd rather the police spend their time dealing with people who are a real threat to others. If you're kid's just acting like a retard, I want YOU to deal with it.
Pirate Jo at February 17, 2009 3:51 PM
Drudge linked an even crazier story tonight. These geniuses have arrested a 14-year-old simply for texting in class:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0217092samsung1.html
kishke at February 17, 2009 6:57 PM
Would someone let me know when it becomes permisable to kill the criminally stupid?
lujlp at February 17, 2009 7:43 PM
That won't happen until we define "criminally stupid". Unfortunately, the people tasked with crafting such definitions tend to leave themselves out of them.
brian at February 17, 2009 7:46 PM
My son and his girlfriend took a sexual/racey photo. He is a convicted sex offender.
His crime: "Attempted Pandering Obscenity Involving a Minor".
The photo was taken via cell phone......but never shared with ANYONE! It also had a locked code on it that the police had to unlock.
She is 18 and he just turned 23.......IN PRISON!
JacquelynHorst at February 26, 2009 11:15 AM
Certainly the biggest problem throughout this entire "sexting" controversy is the fact that child/teenage boys and girls are being sent to jail as recorder sex offenders--a status that will haunt them for the rest of their lives--just by sending around naked photos of their friends (or, more likely, ex-friends). While this is not a great activity, it is undoubtedly not on the same par as those horrific felonies committed by child porn producers or child molesters. Therefore, yes, the law does need some careful examination here. Honestly, I see these convictions as being out-of-touch with the original intent of the law. I watched an interesting video on all of this at newsy.com earlier today. It summarizes the "sexting" controversies and gives a few different opinions:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/sexting_flirting_with_felony/
Kt D at March 16, 2009 4:25 PM
Leave a comment