No

by Victor Mikulin

Created on: May 31, 2009   Last Updated: June 02, 2009

Arresting and charging a teen with child pornography charges for "sexting" images of themselves is beyond the rational and reasonable application of laws that were intended for predatory adults. It amounts to inflicting an austere, life-damaging and life-altering adjudication on an immature action that can best be ascribed to sexual precocity and sexual curiosity. While it is at its very worst a form of electronic exhibitionism, it is in no way criminally comparable to the production and distribution of child pornography, and therefore should in no way be approached using the same laws and attendant punitive measures.

The production of child pornography involves the misuse and abuse of children in either sexual imagery and/or sexual activity. It is devoid of any sense of morality, and appeals to only the most prurient and deviant of sexual offenders: the pedophile. Children are incapable of giving informed consent, and totally lack the physical, psychological, and emotional maturity necessary for sexual physical relationships. It is at its very best coerced and forced activity that serves to destroy the child's body and mind all in the name of making a profit.

Sexting does not involve forced or coerced activity. The images being transmitted or "shared" are done so at the behest and usually on the initiative of the person seen in the image. The images being transmitted are done so with one of a few goals, none of them being criminal. The person sending the images is typically: either attempting to impress the receiver, seeking a reaction, or making a horribly bad attempt at pubescent humor. The sexting images are usually inadvertently discovered by an adult authority figure (parent, teacher, parent of a friend), and are not made public by the recipient. While this certainly constitutes immature behavior, it does not constitute a violation of child pornography laws.

Rather than refer the person who produced and transmitted the images to law enforcement, the more appropriate action should involve education and counseling. The teen should be educated on the inadvisability of "broadcasting" personal images that can be stored and used and/or misused at any point in the future. What may seem like a harmless or humorous prank now could have long-term consequences or repercussions. Not only could the sexting message be misused by the intended recipient, but a person or persons who were not the intended recipient may manipulate the images to their own end. The misuse could range from something as simple as being fodder for online slander, to something as potentially dangerous as becoming the fixation for a pedophilic stalker.

What is not being said is that this debate is evidence of insufficient or non-existent parental supervision. The internet and telecommunications capabilities are something that has to be discussed openly and honestly between parents and their children. As children physically and emotionally mature, those discussions have to evolve to include all negative aspects and behaviors. Just because our children have gone through or are going through puberty, it doesn't mean that they don't need our supervision. As much as they might protest "I know", their inexperience and naivete belies itself.

Learn more about this author, Victor Mikulin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.