As many of you already know, there has been a rush of late to charge random teenagers all over the country with child pornography because they are "sexting"--that is, sending naughty pictures of themselves to their friends and significant others. Now why is that so wrong, you may ask?
The laws against child porn are clear in that they all state that adult EXPLOITATION of a child for sexual purposes is to be prohibited and handled in the harshest manner. Offenders have to do time and, (no) thanks to Meghan's Law, register as sex offenders no matter what for the rest of their lives. None of the sexting incidents fall under that exploitation umbrella. In fact, in these cases, there is no legal adult involved at all.
These cases are about girls and guys showing off their ADULT bodies. And yes--they are ADULT bodies. If a girl is menstruating and a guy is able to maintain an erection with ejaculation, then they are physically adults with all the urgings that come with the territory.
One case involves a girl who posted pictures on her private MySpace page for her boyfriend and someone saw the pictures. Another case involves girls posting pictures of themselves at a slumber party in those stupid flannel pants everyone wears these days and bras (or bra-like tops). They weren't posted for adults to have one off to or for some perv to download. They were for specific people and someone else shared.
These girls (where are the boys' cases?) are facing serious jail time for TRAFFICKING in child porn. They would also have to register as sex offenders, which means that most jobs open to women even these days would be off-limits to them: nursing, teaching, store worker, flipping burgers at the local Mickey D's (kids come in there, plus work there).
OK. They were frakking stupid for sharing their stuff in places where others could stumble upon them. They were doubling stupid for thinking their "friends" would not download and share the pics. But criminals? No way on God's green earth!!! All they need is a good whoopin' and some down time working at the local kid shelter or something similar.
You may ask why I think what they did is not so bad. It's not. It's stupid because things come back to haunt people in the most importunate moments--like when one becomes famous. I personally know of a set of pictures still out there that would embarrass a prominent actress, but that's another story... But we ALL did something similar when we were that age.
When I was in HS, there was no digital media. You used film and hoped that the Walgreen's didn't actually look at your pictures. Lucky me--my dad was/is a photographer and I had my own darkroom to develop my stuff, so that was not an issue. OR... You used that magical invention called Polaroid!!! Many a party I went to back in the day featured at least four or five instant cameras and lots of pictures I would not want posted anywhere now. But we didn't think of that then. We wanted FUN MEMORIES. We wanted pictures to slip into the lockers, backpacks or math books of our "one true love" (for that week). Some of those pictures may well have been shown around in the gym locker room or on the bus going to the football games, but that didn't matter, either. We were sharing ourselves. FTR: no, there are NO pictures of me in the 100% altogether floating around from high school, although I have to say I did look great back then.
The other problem with these types of laws is that there are thousands of people out there, mostly young men, who are registered sex offenders for having CONSENSUAL relations with their girlfriends who might have been just a tad below "legal". So what? Those girls are not exactly innocent flowers, are they? In just about every case, these couples have been having it on for some time and the complaint came not from them but from parents (usually the girl’s) who refused to believe their little darling would be doing something like that.
Think about it—there is a young man still sitting in jail in Atlanta for getting a BJ from a girl at a party; someone with a cell phone recorded it and sent it to everyone at school. Apparently everyone knew about this girl’s—um—talent except her mother and that is who screamed “Rape!” Not the girl, not the other girls who were also doing “stuff”, not the young man… Only the mother who refused to believe her daughter was capable of knowing what sex was, let alone indulging in it themselves.
I sat on a grand jury once where every single person knew the people involved in a similar case. The girl had been “seeing” boy for a long time, but then mamma wanted a piece of the action. The boyfriend refused to share and mamma filed charges. No matter how hard many of us argued, there were some idiots who were more concerned with the letter and not the intent of the law. This kid was indicted and ended up doing time for not wanting to do someone’s mother along with his girlfriend. He also had to register as a tier 1 offender for “statutory rape”, as the charges were brought just AFTER the age of consent laws in Georgia were changed.
So we are back at the original point: some laws are really, REALLY stupid when they make major criminals out of young people who have discovered the life beyond Barbie and Ken going on “dream dates”.
Would I be angry if I discovered my daughter taking the more extreme pictures? You betcha!!! Her punishment would be to lose all the electronics for a while and a good butt-kicking. Would I want her going to jail for doing so? Criminal charges and a permanent blot that would keep her from holding down a job for the rest of her life? Hell, NO!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
On the topic at hand:
http://www.gocomics.com/drewsheneman/2009/03/27/
You mention amending laws against child pornography in the avenue of sexting, but make no defense of other kinds of child pornography where no victimization is involved. You say "These cases are about girls and guys showing off their ADULT bodies. And yes--they are ADULT bodies" yet previously you say offenders of child pornography laws "have to do time and, (no) thanks to Meghan's Law, register as sex offenders no matter what for the rest of their lives." You seem to be aware that anyone under 18 is a child legally but you say all offenders of child pornography aside from sexting should be prosecuted. If you really agree that not all sexting involves real child sexual exploitation, then so must logically not all real child pornography offenses necessarily involve them. A 16-year old girl consensually posing nude for a man in his 30s or 40s is no more child sexual exploitation than is the same girl for a boyfriend of around her age. My hope is that your scope is not specific only to those cases involving juvenile offenses such as sexting, which have received much medial attention in the past years, and relatively nonchalant toward other areas of child pornography, which remains still largely stigmatized by mainstream society.
It's also hard to say if you refer to child for legal purposes or for pubescent human beings. If it is the first, I agree with you when you say "The laws against child porn are clear in that they all state that adult EXPLOITATION of a child for sexual purposes is to be prohibited and handled in the harshest manner." If it is the latter, I'm not sure if the law is really clear on that it wishes to stop child sexual exploitation. It more seems to want to suppress overt adolescent and child sexuality, prevent age-gap sexual relations involving minors and adults, and moreover punish those adults who stain the chastity and innocence of the child disposition. For the first part, the sexting charge says that alone, although the nation is in hot debate about it.
You also say "None of the sexting incidents fall under that exploitation umbrella. In fact, in these cases, there is no legal adult involved at all." This is not true. There was a clipping in my newspaper of a 29-year old man to whom was given a ten-year sentence at a state prison for enticing a 16-year old girl to pose nude for and have sex with him. The girl was ordered to attend counseling. This case does involve sexual exploitation, though I do not think it to be harmful for it. A lot of things are exploitation but harmless. Teenagers can exploit other teenagers without harming them. I don't see why we ought to classify adult-adolescent cases are specifically harmful just because they involve an age-gap.
I agree that prosecuting sexting is wrong and silly. But sexting has stolen the show while other areas of child pornography remain neglected and are in dire need of amending.
Post a Comment