KTVB-TV, Boise, ID
They call it sexting but police say it's serious.
There's debate in Milwaukee because a 14-year-old boy is facing child porn charges. Police say the boy threatened to spread rumors about the girls he targeted if they didn't send him nude and semi-nude pictures. They did.
Police say they found 80 images from several girls on the 14-year-old's cell phone. One nude snapshot of a girl was found on hundreds of phones.
When you have 14-year-olds exchanging photos of sexually explicit activity involving 14-year-olds, that's child pornography, say Milwaukee police, not sexting. Investigators have also seized computers belonging to the group believed to have begun the forwarding.
The girls are believed to be between the ages of 13 and 15 years old when they sent the photos. Investigators are working to ID all of them.
One wonders where a 14-year-old gets the idea that this is okay to do, but his case is easy to decipher. What's the solution to the problem of teens sending nude photos when their intent is innocent and not criminal? The law doesn't seem to know. Should we have laws that make the distinction or is there no discretionary latitude in this matter?
Earlier this year three girls (ages 14 or 15) in Pennsylvania were charged with disseminating child pornography for sexting their boyfriends. That wasn't coercion. In a sense, it was a "willing buyer and a willing seller." The boys who received the images were charged with possession.
There are other cases: A teenager in Indiana faces felony obscenity charges for sending a picture of his genitals to female classmates. A 15-year-old girl in Ohio and a 14-year-old girl in Michigan were charged with felonies for sending along nude images of themselves to classmates. These seem to be cases where the natural response is, "What were you thinking!?" not, "This person is a child pornographer!"
As these teens plead guilty (or guilty to lesser charges; others have not) they face the prospect of being designated as sex offenders.
Similar charges have been filed in cases in Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin. That's just this year and that's just some of the cases, keeping in mind that in other instances, no criminal charges were filed because the law has yet to catch up with this behavior.
Depending on the jurisdiction, prosecutors have charged sexting senders, sexting recipients, those who save the photos, or the people who forward them, and all with the same crime: child pornography. Who is the victim here and who is the perpetrator? Everybody and nobody.
Police intervention certainly is needed in cases that involve a genuine threat or cyber-bullying, such as this case in Milwuakee. Is it the same as the cases in which tipsy teen girls send their panting teen boyfriends naughty Valentine's Day pictures? Would we define those people as producers and purveyors of kiddie porn and prosecute them thereby? Or are they just too dumb to understand that their seemingly innocent acts can hurt them? It's certainly evident that once an image is on a cell phone it can (and often does) make it to the internet for the whole world to see, including child porn addicts. So if the kid does something dumb, do we charge him or her with the same crime as the child porn addict?
Child pornography laws are intended to protect children and punish malicious or salacious intent. I'm picturing a parent discovering her daughter's transmission of that birthday suit picture to impress her boyfriend. Is that a police matter or a parental one? There was a time when kids did something like shoplifting and the cop took him home, told the parents and the parents took the kid out to the woodshed. Today, the parents learn of the crime only after the kid is arrested and booked.
School districts are equally inconsistent in handling the uptick in sexting. So far, instead of any crackdown, many simply prohibit students from bringing cell phones to school, but that just stops them from being caught at school. It doesn't stop students from sending nude photos, let alone sexting. The schools are sort of enacting what amounts to a don't-ask-don't-tell policy, but should we broaden the question: Is this a police matter, a school matter, or a parental one?
The irony here as well as the minefield, is that kids are tech-savvy whiz kids but they can be as gullible as a newborn. They're aware that the web is filled nooks and crannies and "you can find virtually anything" on the internet, yet they fail to appreciate that their naked pictures can roam free, completely beyond their control until a hard less is learned, like, "Hey, have you seen this website?"
An alarming stat from National Campaign To Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy: 20 percent of teens have posted a naked photo of themselves despite the fact that 71 percent of those asked understood that doing so can have serious negative consequences. Understanding the consequences of risky behavior but engaging in it anyhow? Sounds like teen spirit to me.
Perhaps the distinction that needs to be made is to distinguish between a brash teen and a predator. That's what kiddie porn laws ultimately are about: Protection from and punishment of predators. The teen in the Milwaukee case was acting in a predatory manner. That's not true of all teens, is it? Should we make that distinction before exacting full measure with the full weight of the law?
Comments
Juveniles (under 18) should not face felony charges for any type of sexting. If it's consensual, parents should take care of it. If threats and bullying is involved it should be a misdemeanor for the first offense. There is no need to ruin a childs life due to a stupid an immature act.
no one should face charges for sending naked pics.
parents should take care of it and if they are sending them cuz they want to leave them. no law can do anything bout it unless they are beeng forced to send the pics
That is ridiculos facing charges on such silly behavier like that.
do the govement have any real crimes to sort out instead of picking on school kids.
Yes alright get an officer to talk to that person and give a warning.
that i guess is the labour partys dum, ridiculous laws isnt it.
to you readers from labour "GET THE HEL OF THIS WORLD"
y is he bein charged wit child pornography if bouth of them are the same age
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!