by Max Baseman

Created on: April 28, 2009   Last Updated: May 04, 2009

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.cornell.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.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc _sec_18_00002256-000-.html)

The comparison of the act and the punishment result in multiple unlawful repercussions for a illogical crime. Child pornography defined by http://www.law.cornell.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.org/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/possession 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.lawsocietyblog.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.wsj.com/law/2008/10/23/child-porn- prosecutions-does-the-punishment-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.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/sext ing-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.