Sexting as Enforcement of Child Pornography - Essay Example

What Is Sexting, and What Does It Mean To the Current Enforcement of Child Pornography Laws? Are Minors Putting Themselves At Risk for A Lifetime Of Hell? [Name of Student] [Name of Institution] [Date] Abstract Technology has really changed the manner in which youth interact and communicate amongst themselves, especially in the last two decades. Research shows that more than 75% of adolescents own cell phones with a third of them sending more than 3,000 text messages a month (Lenhart, 2010). As a result, new methods of electronic communication and social media such as Facebook, Twitter, and texting have made parents, health care professionals, educators, and law enforcers concerned about the harmful conducts and tendencies by young people who are increasingly engaging in harmful activities via these modes of communication (Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2011; Mitchell, Finkelhor, Jones, & Wolak, 2012; Wolak & Finkelhor, 2011). These harmful behaviors are cyberbullying, public posting of sexual images, and soliciting for sex online. Even though the legal definition of the term "sexting" vary across jurisdictions, most state laws focus on images relayed through mobile telephony. However, images are also transmitted through computers, web cameras, and digital cameras among other gadgets (Sacco et al., 2010). Current studies apply broader definitions of sexting, which defines it as the sending and/or receiving of sexually suggestive images or messages by mobile phones, in measuring the prevalence of sexting behaviors among the youth (Mitchell et al., 2012). Introduction The youth have extensive access to modern communication technologies, with a reported 25% of them owning mobile phones (Lenhart, 2009). This ease of access enables them to stay in regular contact with parents and friends. Consequent to this ease of access and use, sending and receiving text messages via mobile telephony has become easy and popular, especially among adolescents. A recent study estimates that the youth send and receive approximately 3,000 text messages monthly. In addition, many mobile phones also allow users to send pictures and video. Although there are many positive attributes of mobile telephony such as the ability to instantly connect, communicate, and share, it also has several potential problems, including “sexting.” Sexting and Its Implications for Child Pornography Enforcement The different definitions of sexting have resulted in conflicting findings by researchers on the actual prevalence of sexting among the youth. For example, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com conducted a study to examine the prevalence of teen and young adult sexting behaviors in 2008. In this study (Sex and Tech) sexting was defined as the relaying of nude or semi-nude photos or videos. The study established that 20% of teenagers admitted to sexting in the past, whereas 33% of the responding youths reported having engaged in this behavior. Another researcher, Lenhart (2009) used a different definition and asked respondents whether they had sent or received sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude photos or videos of someone through their mobile phones. The study found out that that 4% of teenagers had sent sexually suggestive image of themselves. It was also confirmed that males and females were equally likely to send such images. In a study that defined sexting as images of naked breasts, genitals, or bottoms, the rate of participation among youth dropped to 1%. This finding changed to 9.6% when the definition of sexting was outlined as the creation or receipt of nude or nearly nude images of people in bathing suit, people posing in a sexy manner with clothes on, or images focused on clothed genitals (Mitchell et al., 2012). Sexting has potential harms. Whereas some of these harms are immediate, others are more remote. Some involve only family and friends and others pertain to larger populations. The instantaneous harm arises from the humiliation when a parent, an authority figure, or an unintended recipient discovers that a youth is involved in sexting (Mitchell et al., 2012). Besides humiliation, a person may be punished or lose mobile phone privileges. In worse cases, he or she may be suspended or expelled from school. The recipient of a sexting image may also not be pleased and may feel he or she is being bullied or harassed (Mitchell et al., 2012). In extreme cases, recipients or senders could become suicidal. Some cases of sexting have resulted in criminal prosecution, particularly when sexually nude images of children, which constitute child pornography, are involved. An example is the case in which six Pennsylvania high school students were accused of manufacturing, possessing and distributing pornography. The students, three girls, allegedly sent nude and semi-nude photos to three boys. Another Pennsylvanian case of pornography saw sixteen students being charged for sexting. The other case is that of 18-old Phillip Alpert. He distributed nude photographs of his former girlfriend and he was convicted of distributing pornography. The judge placed him on probation for five years. He will also stay on Florida’s sex offender list for 25 years. Such forms of unwanted notoriety may have long-term consequences. A conviction for a felony or a serious misdemeanor, for example, may create obstacles to college admissions. Sexually explicit photos on social media pages may come to the attention of prospective employers. Such photos may also prove embarrassing for future romantic relationships. The trend of sexting presents numerous challenges for society, which must develop appropriate and effective responses. In particular, schools and other institutions face First and Fourth Amendment rights issues relating to students with potential criminal and civil liability. School staffs who respond to sexting incidents also face associated challenges (Mitchell et al., 2012). Although child pornography laws vary across states, the statutes generally forbid the production, receipt, distribution, and possession of sexually explicit images of minors. The law also covers data, which can be converted into a visual image. The US Federal law defines “sexually explicit” as encompassing actual or simulated sexual intercourse, be it through genital‐genital, oral‐genital, anal‐genital, or oral‐anal for people with the same or opposite sex. The acts covered in the statute are bestiality, masturbation, sadistic or masochistic abuse and lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person” under eighteen (Wolak et al., 2012). Generally, child pornography laws demand that the defendant must have knowingly produced, received, distributed, or possessed the image and must have or should have known that the individual depicted in it was under 18. What is more, the statutes have defenses that the defendant may raise. These defenses are referred to as “affirmative defenses.” In federal law, defendant in a child pornography case can raise an affirmative defense if he possessed less than three images or reported the images to law enforcement as soon as he or she accessed the images. That a defendant permitted only law enforcement agents to access to the images and took reasonable steps to destroy the images could also form basis for defense (Wolak et al., 2012). Under federal law, the punishment for violating child pornography statutes is significant with the mandatory minimum prison terms for first time offenders range between 5 and 15 years Corrective and Preventive Measures The national attention on high profile sexting cases has caused legislative reaction to this type of sexual interaction among the youth. Other legal and educational interventions have been largely ignored (Ryan, 2011). Recently, sexting legislation has picked pace in many states. However, these laws have less stringent penalties, with the sustained goal of sexting prevention and curtailing harsh punishments toward youth offenders. Legislative reform is perhaps the most shared alternative in response to sexting under child pornography laws. These laws provide for less severe punishments, for misdemeanor offenses only, exclusion from sex offender registries, and juvenile rehabilitation (Sacco et al., 2010). Texas, for example, passed legislation permitting courts to implement less extreme charges and penalties that still discourage the practice of sexting without the life-altering consequences of the possibility of felony conviction and sex offender status. An alternative is the Sexting Prevention Educational Program, developed by the Texas School Safety Center. In this program, minors convicted of sexting are required to take an online educational sexting course. In addition to legislative reform, researchers propose that educational resources be allocated for the implementation of education programs for minors, parents, and school personnel that focus on the short and long-term psychological consequences of sexting (Ryan, 2011; Ostrager, 2010). For an illustration, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) (2012) developed a campaign, “Think Before You Post,” to educate youth on the consequences of posting images on the Internet. NetSmartz Workshop is an interactive, educational program by NCMEC that provides online safety education for youth, parents, educators, and law enforcement. As the convenience of technology for youth improves, the probability for such access can result in more oversight or supervision to prevent inappropriate communication among the youth. Parent education need to emphasize the establishment of limits on minors mobile phone use and monitor their phone behavior (Lenhart, 2009). Lenharts (2009) study discovered that parental monitoring of text messages significantly decreases the likelihood of a teenager sexting. It was also found that 28% of teenagers who reported not to have sexted indicated their parents limited or monitored their texting activity. Educators should implement a comprehensive anti-sexting policy in each educational institution. These policies cover disciplinary measures for violations (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010). These anti-sexting policies allow educational institutions to champion the implementation of these policies, address and punish sexting-related cases. Since many sexting episodes are initially reported to a school official, the creation of multidisciplinary teams would be quite effective in determining the incidents that are harmless to minors. In addition, incidents that should be addressed through education, counseling, and those that are malicious and significantly risky behaviors that necessitate reporting to the juvenile justice system should be identified (Ryan, 2011). Conclusion Sexting among youth has become a concern as methods of communication become more common in the electronic platforms. It is the responsibility of adults to educate youth on appropriate communication among peers as well as with other adults. To implement effective prevention strategies, it is imperative that educators, parents, law enforcement, and legislators understand the motivators of sexting behaviors. Further, youth must be comprehensively educated regarding the multitude of consequences that can arise from sexting, including the legal, social, emotional, and future educational/career ramifications of engaging in this type of behavior. References Lenhart, A. (2009). “Teens And Sexting: How And Why Minor Teens Are Sending Sexually Suggestive Nude Or Nearly Nude Images Via Text Messages.” Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx Mitchell, J. Kimberly, Finkelhor, D., Jones, L., and Wolak, J. (2012). “Prevalence and Characteristics of Youth Sexting: A National Study.” Pediatrics, 129(1): 13-20. Ostrager, B. (2010). “OMG! TTYL: Translating the law to Accommodate Todays Teens and the Evolution from Texting to Sexting.” Family Court Review, 48(4): 712- 726. Ryan, E. (2011). “Sexting: How the State Can Prevent a Moment of Indiscretion from Leading to a Lifetime of Unintended Consequences for Minors and Young Adults.” Iowa Law Review, 96: 357-383. Sacco, D., Argudin, R., Maguire, J., and Tallon, K. (2010). Sexting: Youth practices and legal implications (Publication No. 2010-8). Retrieved from Harvard University, The Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication Series website: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/publications. Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., and Mitchell, K. (2012). “How Often Are Teens Arrested for Sexting? Data from a National Sample of Police Cases.” Pediatrics, 129(4): 4-12. Read More