Maybe Teenaged Sexters Shouldn't Be Treated Like Child Pornographers
The Austin American-Statesman reports that Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and state Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin) are "moving to curb the growing scourge of 'sexting.'" The article regurgitates a dubious estimate (based on a nonrepresentative survey) that "1 in 5 teenagers has sent a sexually suggestive picture by text," quotes Watson condemning sexting as "morally hazardous," and closes with Abbott's warning that "this practice is not just harmful to young Texans; it is potentially illegal." Despite all that, what Abbott and Watson are up to would actually be an improvement on current law: They say sexting by teenagers should be treated as a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $4,000 fine, rather than a third-degree felony, punishable by a prison sentence of two to 10 years and a $10,000 fine. The felony charge also triggers lifelong registration as a sex offender. Watson plans to introduce legislation next month to downgrade the legal status of sexting.
In a 2009 Reason article, Nancy Rommelmann explored the absurdity of treating teenagers who transmit photos of themselves in their underwear (or who receive such photos) like child pornographers.
[Thanks to Sam Rosenstein for the tip.]
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The only thing I find dubious about that statistic is that it is low as 1 in 5.
Given the vagueness of the term "sexually suggestive" I agree.
I was at a bar watching football after the Favre incident came out and made a comment about it. A young guy a couple seats down says "who hasn't sent a picture of their wang to a chick". I haven't, but I thought it was funny 'cause he obviously wasn't kidding.
Indeed and the number is probably higher for teens who have grown up with smart phones.
I have to ask why on earth such a poorly endowed man would send a picture of that piddling little member to anyone to look at.
C2H5OH
I think that everytime a sexting pic is discovered it should be p[osted on the Internet. The embarrasment it would create would cause the sexters to stop doing it.
Not necessarily. That's how some celebrities are born.
An underage teen sexting to another underage teen is certainly not child porn and is none of the governments business. Posting it on the internet for perverts to look at certainly is.
True, although such pictures will probably be posted on servers in Russia which also host money mule web sites.
This bill doesn't have much chance. Frothing-at-the-mouth social con Repubs completely and utterly dominate the legislature. And frothing-at-the-mouth social con Rick Perry is the Gov.
This will probably get amended to upgrade sexting to a first-degree felony.
The Attorney General Greg Abbott is a Republican, and is mentioned in favor of this.
If you believe Linda Greenhouse, he's a frothing-at-the-mouth social con too. But who can believe Linda Greenhouse on anything?
He did successfully sue somebody because a tree in their front yard happened to fall on him.
They are frothing at the mouth so-cons but many so-cons I know in Texas do not want the government being involved in family matters. They may think sexting is immoral but they don't want the government telling them how to raise/punish their kids.
""but many so-cons I know in Texas do not want the government being involved in family matters. ""
What was the take on the raiding that mormon fundie ranch. If I remember right, the courts did the right things. I'm just curious how it played witht he so-cons.
OH NOES, the young'uns are sexting! This means they are probably having lots of sex like we wanted to when we were their age but didn't! Of course, they're actually not, but our jealousy motivates us!
RAINBOW PARTIES!!!
RAINBOW PARTIES!!!
I got I-Dosed an HFCS Four Jenkem Happy Meal at one of those, and now my Toyota Transfat won't stop sexting me.
Freedom of speech over here! Let them send naked pics of themselves. Of course, when the pics go viral and the sender is shamed into killing themselves it will deter the other vagrants from doing it. And I mean hey, you can't bring back that chick from the dead, but you can't have everything, amirite?
Yeah you're right. Better off sending the kids to jail for a year. That'll make them healthy and virginal afterwards. I mean, who ever showed another teenager their tits/ass/cock/box prior to the invention of the camera phone?
Yeah, that's totally the same. Before the camera phone, instead of sending a picture to all his friends the dude would just draw a picture of it and show that to his friends.
*thumbs up*
Yeah because no one ever took pictures of their girlfriend with a Polaroid or anything.
The stupid is strong with you.
Yeah, and you could totally instantly copy said polaroid and spray it all over the world. TF?
No but you could show it to all of your friends. And of course there was no such thing as nudie magazines back then. And they never published amateur photos.
Kids have been having sex and taking naked pictures of themselves pretty much since George Eastman made the camera affordable and certainly since Polaroid allowed you to develop them easily. That is just life.
Common sense means living with the things you can't change and working around them not ruining kid's lives in the vain hope you can create a new reality.
I have a bad feeling you are not a troll but really are this stupid. That kind of makes me sad to be honest.
Yeah, I thought I was duped into responding to a troll, but I can't really tell any more.
C
So, you're saying that having some people see them naked online will do more psychological harm than being locked up with serious offenders for years (with a non-negligible chance of actual sexual assault rather than people jerking it to their pics) and then branded a kiddie fucker for the rest of their lives?
Also, it's "you're".
why not? We already put people in jail for doing drugs. Might as well do this. Makes sense. You don't own yourself. The state does!
Does anyone honestly think that a government at any level has a chance in hell of controlling teenage sexual behavior?
No. But hey we can randomly send a few otherwise law abiding kids to jail and ruin their lives by putting them on a sex offender list. And that is something isn't it? I mean we have to do something don't we?
it seems so.
Something must be dooooooooone!
As much chance as they have of controlling CO2 emissions.
Mothers of River City!
Heed the warning before it's too late!
Watch for the tell-tale sign of corruption!
The moment your son leaves the house,
Does he rebuckle his knickerbockers below the knee?
Is there a nicotine stain on his index finger?
A dime novel hidden in the corn crib?
Is he starting to memorize jokes from Capt.
Billy's Whiz Bang?
Are certain words creeping into his conversation?
Words like 'swell?"
And 'so's your old man?"
Well, if so my friends,
Ya got trouble,
Right here in River city
When I was a teen I would have loved to have received sexually suggestive texts from a girl (had texting been invented then). I didn't even have a girlfriend. I don't see how the whole sexting craze is anything more than teens being teens with 21st century tools.
"this practice is ... potentially illegal."
Isn't *everything*?
Except what is compulsory.
Remember, if it hasn't been explicitly approved by the FDA it is illegal.
boy are country really has gone down the tube. It's not the governments business. It's the parents. Locking a kid up for taking a picture of themselves, are you freaken kidding me? Or locking a kid up because their boyfriend/girlfriend sent them a pic????
Every day, I get more convinced the reason polticians try and keep crack illegal is so they can smoke it all themselves.
That's the only explanation I can think of.
The whole country has gone crazy. Even the Puritans were not this stupid.
""It's not the governments business. It's the parents""
To the government, a naked picture of a teen means they were a victim, and we can't have that.
I love teasing religious so-cons with the idea that a girl getting a period is God's way of saying it's now ok to have children.
Indeed, we were created/we had evolved to start reproducing at the age of fourteen.
Actually, you can take so-cons out. While many of those I tease are, I enjoy teasing the religious community as a whole, not just the so-cons.
Though I think that the feminists tend to get freaked out by that small portion of the religious so-cons that actually agree with that statement.
It's not like religious people don't tend to have children. Or sex. Or enjoy sex (more than non-religious people, for that matter, according to surveys.)
I wonder if religious people enjoying sex more leads to their higher divorce rate (in that they're enjoying it with people other than their spouses, LOL).
""It's not like religious people don't tend to have children.""
Right, just ask my Catholic friend, his brother and six sisters. I kid my Morman brother that he only has three kids and needs a few more to be truly Morman.
Mormon, that is.
do these guys really equate nudity with pornography??? (Not that I think there is anything wrong with porno). A picture of tits causes...??? (well, erections if their hot tits).
I almost think some of the left wing dings have a point about flyover country. Teenagers sending pictures of tits and ass to other teenagers is REALLY a sex crime???
REALLY??? Do these people close their eyes when they bathe??? Have they EVER seen their wives naked???
Do they think God kept his/her eyes closed when he/her was making Eve? (OMG...God had his hands on Adams....well, I don't want to say it, but you know the swollen naughty part I am talking about!)
I have seen videos of children bathing -- in the bathtub, I mean, not swimming or wading -- with swimsuits on on the nets. Same practice has been followed for years in TV commercials using children for soap, bath toys, etc., often with the swim suits brightly colored rather than flesh toned.
Possibly the pols who pass these laws wouldn't say so if challenged, but ambitious prosecutors trying to build conviction stats would be glad to make the claim.
Except that it is not just the right-wing dings in flyover country. A great number of 'left wing dings' see depictions of nudity as "sexual exploitation."
God, being God, is not sexually aroused.
Get the pornstick.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13314210
Any picture of a human is sexually suggestive to somebody. There are some wacky fetishes out there.
I'm afraid this is an unfortunate sequence in which law formed public opinion rather than vice versa. Does anybody believe that there would've been enough outcry over teen sexting to generate criminal laws against it, had it not been for the publicity generated by the unfortunate literal application of child porn laws against it?
I love this pandora charms article since it is one of those which truly convey useful ideas.
I am glad to read some fantastic pandora bracelets article like this.
Excellent point here. I wish there are more and more