Sending a nude or semi-nude picture to a friend's cell phone is apparently a crime -- if you're a teen.
Lets understand a few things:
1) Minors, by and large are legally unable to consent to various things. One of those things is to be photographed or filmed while under the age of 18.
2) Minors who are photographed or filmed engaging in sexual activities are legally victims of child pornography. There is no provision that the photographer be a certain age.
3) the Dissemination of photographs or video featuring a nude minor engaged in sexual activities is a crime. It's called distribution of child pornography.
Now it is apparently clear that parents have their heads stuck in the ground regarding these little facts. Furthermore; while many parents rail about sex-offenders living in their neighborhoods, they are completely blinded to the idea that their little boy or girl is in fact a sex-offender. And many of them are now caught in the "careful what you ask for situation." Of course little Johnny is not like THOSE men out THERE. Sure. Whatever.
Somewhere along the line the parents neglected to inform their sons and daughters about the RESPONSIBILITIES that comes with this thing called a camera-phone. Let's take for example the young man who was on Good Morning America a couple of weeks back. His ex sent him pictures of herself. They broke up, he got mad, posted the pictures to the Web. Boo-Hoo. Now he's a registered sex offender.
Back to the Alternet piece though. I'm not saying that girls and boys ought to be barred from sending certain types of photos to each other. However; it needs to be understood that the photo in question is only for the recipient. Any other distribution of the photo/video is dissemination. That needs to be clear. Paedophiles love it when these guys (and gals) post this stuff to the net and I believe this is asking for legal trouble. If a teen can give permission to have her picture taken then why can't any OTHER man be in possession of said material? Or for another example is a porn star from the 70's or 80's, I can't recall her name but she starred in a few films before it was found out that she was under-age. Being in possession of any material of her when she was underage can land you in jail even though she willingly performed, willingly signed contracts, and is now "old as dirt."
I simply cannot see how if it is allowed that a minor can view and distribute what is legally child pornography, that one can prosecute and convict an adult for the same. Oh I can see the emotional arguement, but if justice is blind, that won't fly.
Meanwhile I suggest parents have serious sit down's with their children if they are giving them phones or other devices capable of multimedia. I think schools should hold assemblies or hand out documentation about the relevant laws. A part of growing up is learning the rules.
Posts
