Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould teens face criminal child porn charges for "sexting"?
Results so far:
| Yes | 37% | 91 votes | Total: 247 votes | |
| No | 63% | 156 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesSexting is an emerging trend among teenagers. Recently, two girls from North-East Pennsylvania were threatened with child pornography charges after nude pictures appeared on their classmates cell phones. At the core of the issue are the legal implications of sexting. Pressing criminal charges on distributors of x-rated photos is one solution to the ongoing trend. Should teens face criminal charges for sending x-rated photos on their cell phones? Yes.
Sexting is the mass distribution of x-rated pictures through a cell phone. In most cases, the picture taken is first distributed to the people within the owner's social circle. Problems arise when the picture circulates outside the owner's social circle. Once the picture is in the hands of others, the owner loses the ability to control the distribution of the picture.
There are legal ramifications with sexting particularly in the case of minors. A picture of a nude minor, a person under the age of 18, is considered to be child pornography. The legal charges for the possession and distribution of child pornography are severe.
The cell phone is no different than any social networking website. In both cases, the owner can choose to distribute x-rated pictures. Distributors of x-rated contents face many consequences. Several people have lost their jobs for putting compromising pictures of themselves or of others on social networking websites and from cell phones as illustrated in the case above. But there is a difference between both communication outlets. Social networking websites verify the content that is being published on their websites. Facebook does not allow its users to publish pornographic content let alone child pornography. However, cell phones users are not restricted by their telecommunication providers.
Furthermore, particularly in the case of minors, the minors photographed are not coerced to take pictures. In both cell phones and social networking websites, the owners of those pictures are responsible for the content they share. The distributor of those pictures is at fault and should rightly pay for the consequences even if it is criminal charges. The legal implications arise when the receiver of the content is not a pedophile or does not seek x-rated material. While one would agree that the content should not put the receiver at fault, it inherently does. We can only assume that the recipient is not a pedophile; but what happens if he or she is? What do we do when the content was sent to an unwilling recipient? The criminalization of sexting ensures that there would not be any legal loopholes of this kind.
Teenagers will find other ways to distribute x-rated photos and criminalizing the distribution in one technological outlet will not stop the distribution of these kinds of pictures. Sexting is just a start!
Learn more about this author, F.M.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
charging a teenager with possession or distribution of child pornography for "sexting" is a unjust and unlawful punishment. sexting defined as explicit pictures sent via text. child pornography is defined by http://www.law.corne ll.edu as:
"any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct." (http://www.law.corn ell.edu/uscode/html/ uscode18/usc_sec_18_ 00002256-000-.html)
T he comparison of the act and the punishment result in multiple unlawful repercussions for a illogical crime. Child pornography defined by http://www.law.corne ll.edu must contain a minor, as in anyone under the age of 18. However sexing often takes place between couples, and the age of consent in every state in America is under the age of 18 many of which are as low as 16 (http://www.avert.or g/aofconsent.htm). What this means is that a perfectly legal couple who can legally see each other in person and have intercourse can be charged with child pornography for looking at or sending pictures of themselves to each-other. the logical error is obvious and only becomes stressed when one looks into the possible punishments of distribution/possess ion of child pornography. Punishments for possession of child pornography can go so far as two hundred years jail with no pardon or release as in the case of Berger, charged with the possession of 20 pictures which he downloaded off the internet his punishment of 20 ten year sentences was upheld by the supreme court (http://www.lawsocie tyblog.com/archives/ 207). other less sever sentences are still life crushing especially in the case of young adults who have broken no reasonable law, punishments recommended by congress include 15 to 20 years or more
(http://blogs.ws j.com/law/2008/10/23 /child-porn-prosecut ions-does-the-punish ment-fit-the-crime/) . Even if the child is not imprisoned for the rest of their life, under current law they would most likely have to register as a sex offender for the rest of their lives which can constraint their ability to work and live in a normal life as Mark Rasch said in a New York Times article "'"Imagine in the year 2063, a 70-year-old woman having to post a notice that she is a registered sex offender because of a camera-phone picture she snapped of herself in 2009,'" (http://gadgetwise.b logs.nytimes.com/200 9/03/26/sexting-may- place-teens-at-legal -risk/).
Because the punishments for sexting in no way compare with the nearly none existent crime, because under current law at least 20% of America's teen population could spend their lives in prison or lose the ability to work high class and even low class jobs, possibly crushing the economic future of America, Because of the unjust and unlawful and unreasonable repercussions of being charged with child pornography for texting. It is clear that to charge a teenager with possession or distribution of child pornography for sending pictures of themselves to their loved one's or significant others is immoral, unethical, and detrimental to the future of America's youth.
Learn more about this author, Max Baseman.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Family Law
- Abortions: Should the father have some say?
- Should abortion for underage children require parental consent?
- Are age-based curfew laws effective in reducing teenage crime rates?
- Should US citizens accused of domestic abuse lose the right to bear arms?
- There should be restrictions on the availability of abortion, except when the mother's life is at stake
- Should parents who leave (unharmed) children alone in cars face charges?
