You've likely heard about "sexting" - teenagers sending photos of themselves, naked or partially unclothed, to themselves via their cellphones, and then being arrested on "child pornography" charges in states ranging from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin and Alabama. A Google search today shows nearly 700,000 hits on "sexting". Mike Galanos raves about the horrors of sexting just about every night on CNN's Headline News.
Here is why is this public furor, in particular the arrests, arising from sexting are wrong - and dangerous:
1. Sexting does not entail an adult endangering a minor. Adults are not involved. If the photos were used by adults, or predators, then police involvement would be not only warranted but rightfully obligated.
2. Use of police authority to stop sexters reduces the police available for cracking down on dangerous predators who abuse, kidnap, and kill kids and teenagers - real crimes, in contrast to sexting, which is an act between consenting teenagers. Obviously, if the act was not mutually consenting - if a teen used such pictures for cyber bullying, public ridicule, etc - that would be a completely different matter.
3. The First Amendment prohibits the Federal government (and the Fourteenth Amendment extends this restriction to state and all other governments) from interfering with freedom of speech and press. A photograph is a kind of press (in this case, used for private, interpersonal rather than public purposes).
4. Parents have a right and obligation to know what their children are doing, and talk about it to them if the parents deem it objectionable. That's a far cry from being arrested!
5. What do these arrests teach our children? It says that, when they do something which brings them pleasure, which hurts no one, the government has a right to step in and arrest them. That stikes me as the kind of lessons the government meted out in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union - not in the United States of America.
I hope the courts throw each and every one of these cases out - a Federal judge already issued a restraining order on the Pennsylvania prosecutor last week. Give the prosecutors and police a stern warning: keep your focus on crimes, that's what the American people expect of you.
Barna Donovan & Ernabel Demillo interview me on Culture Wars about sexting;
starts a fews mins into interview
I talk to the Truth on Earth Band about combatting cyberbulling
11 comments:
Couldn't agree more.
Shouldn't be a crime BUT whenever it is found by school or law enforcement officials the parents should be advised.
I do think sexting is a very dangerous habit that could end up hurting the minor - not to mention that it could be seen as encouraging underage sex between minors. I know that if I were a parent I definitely would not like my child doing it.
Wow. Your argument is crap. Ahh the poor teenagers, they just wanna have fun. They ain't hurtin' nobody. Stop harassing them for breakin' the law Mr. Authority Figure. That is crap. Just because you don't see use for the law does not mean it does not have one. We can not pick and choose the laws that we want to obey cuz they're cool. If we did then more people would join in on assisted suicide. That's a cool law to break isn't it? Wake up and read your ethics and law books if you dare. They were published for a reason.
I'm glad to see a comment such as Jarob's, because it shows a lack of logic and evidence in those who oppose a rational position - when you have no logic or evidence, you resort to insult.
Jarob - my advice to you is that you should wake up, read the Constitution, learn about freedom and what it and human decency really mean.
Paul,
I was not trying to insult you, just your weak argument. What is your argument. Where is your argument? Based on the Constitution? What you try to base on freedom of press? Surely you jest, Mr. Levinson. Please come up with a more logical argument than the hippy craze that you have listed above.
I actually could not disagree more. In my opinion this is less about Free Speech than it is about Child Porn laws. 1.) The S.C. has long upheld variable obscenity rules, meaning children can have limited access to material adult's have a Constitutional right to view or consume. 2.) As you know, child pornography IS NOT an area of protected speech and does not have to rise to the level of "obscenity" per the Miller case. Most states and the Federal Law state that in order for a pic/video to rise to the level of child porn there must be a "lewd and lascivious" focus on the genitalia of a child under a certain age. The laws DO NOT carve out an exception for kids taking pics of themselves or other other minors. Why not? Look at the other side of the argument. Here, the girl was taking naked pics of herself. What if it was a full blown sex tape that three 15 yr old. boys took while having sex with a 13 yr. old girl? Well, under your rationale we would have to exempt those boys and not press charges because they are minors too. Most people would agree this is more outrageous than our NJ case, but how do you justify charging the boys and not the the self portrait taker? Do you exempt any picture taken of one's self?
Well, if so, then, it is important to remember that
is not a victimless act. Once a picture or video is put on the internet, it can never be taken back or deleted. It will be forever floating around cyberspace. What does this mean? I bet my life that the picture of this girl from NJ has made its way into the hands of a "real" pedophile by now and will continue to be viewed and traded by perverts for the rest of her life. She is now a victim by those "real bad" guys. That picture is also now a piece of the pedophile cycle of producers, traders, and travelers. This means it is sadly perpetuating some other pedophile's need to molest or exploit another child in this world. So any way you cut it, this girl is a victim, mostly of her ignorance, but now also of the scary world of the digital age. She is also helping perpetrate child molestation, rape and exploitation.
These are just some thoughts for all to consider!
SD
Jarob: Read the First Amendment, and tell me what you don't understand about it, or why you think it does not apply to this issue.
SD: Sexting in the cases I cited pertains to sending of pictures - like texting - through the cell phone to another cell phone. The Internet is not the issue in these cases.
As for teenagers having sex, that is also a different issue.
Now we can discuss those issues, as well, but this post has to do with just what the title says - sexting. Not having sex. Not sending photos anywhere out to the public, just from cell phone to cell phone.
PS to anon: yes, I know about the Supreme Court decisions you cite about obscenity.
Guess what?
I think they're wrong - just like Plessy v. Ferguson which said segregation was legal, and Mutual Film v. Ohio, which held that motion pictures were not protected under the First Amendment.
Both of those benighted decisions were eventually overturned.
are they children who need protection?
or adults that can make informed decisions?
if the issue is child endangerment. . .then charging the child him/her self would seem ludicrous.
and if we are charging them with something that will follow them the rest of their lives. . .then they are adults and it is their body.
to have it both ways is cruel and wrong. are we protecting them or condemning them?
I know the punishment should fit the crime. ..but if the crime is the potential to ruin a young life. . .isn't being labeled a sex offender their whole life or at least the rest of the teen years kinda gonna ruin their life?
In a highly oversexed society, these are the kinds of inappropriate behaviors teenagers get into. The culture sends all sorts of messages that this is okay. Its parents job to instruct kids in whats proper and to supervise and discipline them properly. I agree with the position that law enforcement action against kids in the PA situation, charging them under child porn statutes is over the top. These are kids acting extremely inappropriately, but labeling them sexual predators for the rest of their lives is a counterproductive approach. So I don't agree with on the grounds that its not effective or smart.
I don't agree with your view Paul that this behavior is somehow harmless, that its acceptable because it brings the kids pleasure. Its not appropriate behavior and its a precursor to even worse acting out that could get these young people seriously harmed, physically, mentally and spiritually.
That kind of loosey goosey oversight of our children is not going to keep them out of harms way or help to protect them from the consequences of their own foolishness. Children are immature humans, not fully capable of making good judgments or responsibly handling volatile life decisions such as to engage in sex, or the potential consequences of such decisions like pregnancy or disease or abuse.
Their parents should be notified and their should be some level of social sanction and monitoring placed on the behavior of children in such circumstances. Child porn charges are overkill, but advocating a position that suggests that this behavior is okay or not harmful to these young people is not a responsible approach to the issue either.
Whether or not the activity is harmful is not the main point of my post - which was, that the police and prosecutors are doing a very harmful thing by arresting these kids.
I'm glad we agree on that.
As to whether the activity is harmful - I think that is 100% for the parents and kids to decide. In other words, I as a parent decide with my kids, you with yours, etc - but I don't decide for your kids, and you don't decide for mine.
Post a Comment