Toronto-“Sexting” connotes youth electronically transmitting suggestive images of themselves. Since the Louisianan Senate judiciary committee progressed legislation to criminalize “sexting” last week, the growing neologistic phenomenon, has been a ubiquitous topic of discourse.
Rep. Damon J. Baldone’s House Bill 1357 would make “sexting” a misdemeanor with a minimum ten-day jail sentence. According to the bill’s supporters, this form of teenage sexuality constitutes child pornography. As such, culprits would be added to sex offenders lists.
Louisiana’s fight against underage e-sex is not unique. Last year, six Pennsylvanian teenagers were arrested for “sexting.” An eighth-grade Texan spent a night in prison for having a nude picture of a fellow-minor on his cellular telephone. In short, many states, including Florida and Alabama, have filed charges that, in retrospect, were harbingers for the continued crusade against “sexting.”
While we should warn our youth of the dangers that electronically sending explicit images presents, childhood immaturity should not warrant a governmental response. Legislative and judicial capricious hysteria is especially troubling.
The notion that a kid can be on the same register as an aggravated sexual assaulter or an adult possessor of child pornography is ludicrous. Indeed, a “child child pornographer,” legally, ought to be a gross misnomer.
Youths should not be prosecuted for consensual behavior. Not only are such measures a frivolous use of resources, they also represent governments which have excessive control.
Frankly, legislative authorities must not conclude that “the medium is the message.” In other words, the avenue through which one is exposed is insignificant to a child pornography charge. There ought to be no legal distinction between cyber-stripping and face-to-face nudity. Should Big Brother’s S.W.A.T. teams rip down the doors of imprudent teens?
Of course, e-transmission is less safe than old-fashion mediums. But, governments are not babysitters. Besides, teenagers should have freedom of expression, for it is a hallmark of a cultured society in which the government does not manufacture the people’s thoughts.
Children who “sext” ought to be given protection from prosecution. Their actions circumvent the spirit of child pornography laws, namely the indictment of adults who possess or distribute revealing pictures of minors.
Critics may contend that there must still be punitive measures for “sexting.” Child pornography charges may be too strong. However, they might argue, cyberspace should be deemed a public place, consequently making “sexting” indecent exposure.
This suggestion would present a myriad of problems. First, it would blur the distinction between the private and public sphere. A computer and webcam, for example, are in one’s (private) residence. Ergo, under the abovementioned proposal, a public place can exist inside one’s home, which creates an obvious contraction. Most notably, the majority of the issues that arose with the child pornography charge would reappear if the crime were reclassified as indecent exposure. Governments would once again exercise unreasonable power.
“Sexting” should not be officially vilified. Its merits must only be (constructively) discussed in educational institutions, as well as between guardians and their children.
Louisiana’s Senate, sadly, may be among many legislative bodies that believe they are everyone’s teacher and custodian. Surprisingly, TLC has not asked these large families to appear on a reality television show.
I could not agree more, Jake.
I think that authority figures are quick to jump on issues such as “sexting” and they are even quicker to ban them. Not only is your point about a nude picture being equivalent to face-to-face nudity true, but also, you tapped into a subject that I am quite passionate about – education is worth more than avoidance.
If parents would take more time to explain to their children the problems that could arise in the future from sending nude pictures to each other instead of banning everything that poses as a threat, I think we would all be better off.
I know that I have been informed well by my parents about the dangers of acts such as sexting – although maybe they didn’t specify this act, in particular, during our discussions – and I, personally, have never felt the urge to send anything even remotely pornographic to another person.
Roth: You are lucky to have intelligent parents. But, if your mother and father did not teach you about the nature of danger, maybe the best lesson would be a police officer smashing your door, stripping you naked to search for nude pictures of yourself that you may have hidden, and throwing you in prison. After all, you would be a hardened criminal.