I think Vermont is in need of an intervention.
Its lawmakers seem to have run amok.
From CBS 2:
Text messaging graphic pictures of yourself could soon be legal for teens in Vermont.
Lawmakers there are considering a bill that would make it legal for teenagers 18 and under to exchange explicit photos and videos of themselves – an act that's come to be known by teens as "sexting."
Under the current law, teenagers could be prosecuted as sex offenders if they get caught sending graphic sexual images of themselves, even if it was consensual.
...In a recent study, 18 percent of female students nationwide say they've tried sexting.
New York City student Stefanie Garcia is only in high school, and says sexting happens all the time.
"Girls in underwear, guys completely naked, muscle pictures, stuff like that," Garcia told CBS 2.
...Karen Salmansohn is an expert on talking with teenagers about smart choices. She writes books to empower girls, and says parents need to talk to their kids about the dangers of sexting -- using their language.
"Don't talk to them in language saying this is right this is wrong. That's not going to get to a kid," Salmansohn said.
"You have to talk them, you know what you think is cool isn't so cool. You have to use the language of cool because that's why they're doing it."
Tell them that once that embarrassing pictures goes out, there's no way to get it off the Internet, and could affect their college and future job opportunities when recruiters search the Web. They're also up for grabs for sexual predators. By law, sexually explicit pictures of anyone under 18 are considered child pornography.
Does it make sense that expert Karen Salmansohn is offering advice ("use the language of cool") on how to talk to teens about the disastrous consequences of sexting in the very same article announcing that Vermont lawmakers are considering the legalization of the practice?
If something becomes legal, the social controls to prevent the behavior have been dramatically weakened.
If teen sexting is so bad, and it is, why make it legal?
I know lawmakers don't want teens prosecuted and dragging around the sex offender label.
I think it's a mistake to condone and possibly encourage such behavior.
Do the benefits of legalized teen sexting outweigh the costs of giving perverts on the Internet the opportunity to tap a wellspring of child porn?
I don't think so.
Will Vermont become a haven for sexting teens and consumers of child porn?
Lawmakers there seem to think it might be a good idea.
Very progressive.
4 comments:
Possible First Amendment protection for teen “sexters?”
The justification for not protecting child pornography under the First Amendment is that it is necessary to take prurient advantage of a child to make the picture. Hand drawn or computer generated child porn is not illegal (unless they use a live child for an artist’s subject I suppose) – one thinks movie scenes in “The Glitter Dome.”
A sexting teen who transmits her own is not being taken advantage of by an adult or anyone else. If she sends nude pictures to an 80 year old her part in the transaction might very well be protected under the First Amendment – once the first principles of the scenario are considered. Ditto for her side of sexting to a friend.
There is an outside chance a child possessing such the “sext” should be considered to be taking prurient advantage of a minor under the First Amendment (depending on which generation of judges gets hold of it maybe) – but does it make sense to make a teen boyfriend -- who may even have made legal sexual contact with the girl -- the equivalent of an adult who possesses child pornography?
The free speech crossover seems to be when boys distribute nude pictures of girls among themselves without the girls permission – certainly not free speech. But to begin with no child was hurt making the image. The kind of personal damage to a child making pornographic images may be much more devastating than that of having the image passed around (again, once thinks of “The Glitter Dome”) – at least most of the time.
Wouldn’t we feel more comfortable with law that punishes such a gross invasion of privacy in a case for case damage way – not rounding up dozens of students and plastering them all with sex offender status and heavy jail time – but treating the offense as the privacy offense it really is?
You remind me of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
FYI, the legislation being considered in VT will NOT make sexting legal.
The bill is to remove the most serious legal consequences for kids between the ages of 13 and 18 who 'sext' willingly which basically means that they no longer run the risk of being registered as a sex offender for life. They could still be tried for lewd and lascivious conduct and for distributing sexually explicit material to a minor.
Again, the bill will not make underage sexting legal.
If it does not make it illegal, then it is made legal, and most of the adults in prisons today are there for looking at naked pictures of teens that made thier own pictures and sent them throughout the world. If an adult can be forced into prison for simply looking at them (200,000 at this time), then certainly the child that made them originally should have some rather harsh punishment as well!
Post a Comment