Teens, Nude Photos and the Law

Ask yourself: should the police be involved when tipsy teen girls e-mail their boyfriends naughty Valentine's Day pictures?

By Dahlia Lithwick | NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 14, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Feb 23, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: w0rdofth3day @ 04/19/2009 9:08:07 PM

    Why just take the phone away which sents pictures until the child is of age to be more wiser not to do such things?

  • Posted By: Qidisrupt @ 02/15/2009 6:21:20 PM

    These are kids...they will make mistakes...they should not be charged. As stated before those raging hormones sometimes cause kids to do stupid stuff. For the people who want to prosecute...have you EVER, in your entire lifetime, made a stupid mistake...as a kid or an adult...and showed bad judgment. These kids are not predators, they are acting like kids...leave them alone and let the parents deal with it.

    • Posted By: Hannes @ 02/15/2009 10:42:10 PM

      Perhaps you are into child pornography and have taken leave of your sense. Additionally are you a moron as well?

      • Posted By: brucereno @ 02/16/2009 2:15:21 PM

        With this comment, you are part of the problem...not the solution. This should be entirely between kids and their parents. The schools, churches, police should all stay out of it. These are kids. They are doing no harm to themselves or anyone else. It will all pass in a few years, just like all the past "moral emergencies"...and be forgotten. The police need to deal with real crime, not kids with more hormones than sense.

        • Posted By: summer4077 @ 02/17/2009 5:26:14 PM

          But they ARE doing harm. When someone sends naked pictures to others, it does mental harm to a young person. We've all seen that virtual bullying can lead to kids killing themselves or shooting up their classmates--there was just a girl and her mother on trial for such a thing on MySpace.

          • Posted By: HomeOfTheFree? @ 03/31/2009 3:14:03 AM

            Ok way to make a completely invalid point. Sending naked texts one day does not lead to suicidal/homicidal behavior the next. Bullying involves violence, nudity does not. If anything getting a felony for *** like this leads to suicidal/homicidal behavior. Let's see, say a girl poses in a nude text and sends it to her boyfriend. What's gonna happen? They will both get a giggle out of it and just go have sex after school anyways just like they would if they didn't have cell phones. It's only happened like that since the beginning of time. And if you don't think 15 yr olds have sex then you're wrong. Or, a girl poses in a nude text and sends it to her boyfriend. What's gonna happen? Some misplaced authority figure will get up in their business, go through their personal belongings, turn them into the police, charge them with a felony, ruin their life, and put them on a sex offender list. After all that bullshit guess what? They are both just gonna go have sex anyways after school because hey guess what, it's human nature! Wow, so you mean that all this effort we are putting out and all this time we are wasting doesn't mean ***? You're damn right.

          • Posted By: HomeOfTheFree? @ 03/31/2009 3:06:22 AM

            No, sending a naked text one day does not lead to homicidal/suicidal behavior. Once again bullying involves violence, nudity does not. Getting a felony for *** like this article leads to suicidal/homicidal behavior. How is that not obvious. Take two scenarios. A: A girl sends her boyfriend a picture of her posing naked. They both giggle and enjoy exploring their sexuality. After school they get together and have sex anyways, just like kids would do without cell phones. And if you don't think 14 yr olds have sex then you are wrong, no questions asked.

          • Posted By: Vigilance @ 02/19/2009 10:22:51 AM

            Drunk girls sending nude pics to boyfriends does enough harm that they should be jailed for it, their college admissions jeopardized, and their future and employment prospects damaged?

            Summer, I thought you were smarter and more mature than that...

            • Posted By: Shanshayla @ 02/19/2009 7:14:18 PM

              Did I miss something here? I don't see where Summer said anything of the sort.

        • Posted By: star3 @ 02/18/2009 9:12:21 PM

          brucereno, I agree to a point, but the issue should be addressed as a serious one, and not downplayed, so that the kids get the message that its no more serious than breaking someone's window---just a little minor oops. There can be long lasting reprecussions from an incident that a teen did as a kid, and it could come back to haunt them as adults. They need to understand that when one does something, good or bad, it does not only just effect them, it effects their entire family; if its a bad thing, the younger sister or brother who has to endure hearing about it from their peers who laugh about it, their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins who have to endure the embarrassment. Everything we do in life has a direct effect on someone else, be it positive or negative, so no, we are not just harming ourselves when we make an impulsive, bad decision. We must all live with the choices we make, and so does our families. THINK!!

          • Posted By: sammiemae @ 02/21/2009 2:29:23 PM

            So are you saying that to prevent EMBARASSMENT, oh my, don't embarass the family, these children shoudl ahve their futures ripped from them from being labeled a child sex offender? Wouldn'tt hat be worse than, "yeah, Susy took a photo of herself, she's learned" No, instead it will be "I'm sorry Mrs. Smith, Susy did do that, I'm terribly sorry, no, she isn't a threat to your son, yes ma'm, I'll tell her she can't visit us, we'll go to her home" Seriously, do you know anyone who has been labeled a sex offender? Especially when it is something like this? Where there was no real crime done, it tears families apart. And you're worried about being embarassed because they took naked pictures of themselves and sent them to their boyfriends? Wrong? Yes. Harshly punishable? Hardly, let's just throw away college and get them a job at McDonalds and we can all support them through welfare for the rest of their lives, oh, if they're allowed to keep any children they might conceive, we might be supporting them through foster care as well. Rip another childs life apart by taking them from parents who may very well love them just as much as their foster parents. Great idea.

            • Posted By: star3 @ 02/23/2009 9:27:18 PM

              Absolutely, Sammie, I stand by my original statment. No one has the right to bring shame to their family, but I am a realist, I know embarrassment to another is not, usually, a priority when one is thinking of making a bad choice, therefore, the law protects a minor from having their name and their behavior published in order to give them an opportunity to allow their mistake to die a natural and quiet death, so they, hopefully, will have learned from the experience what society considers acceptable behavior, and to abide by it in the future. Even murderers are, often, not given the punishment they deserve, yet, you would ruin a young person's life for one stupid mistake they made when their brain was not fully functional?! Yes, they should be punished, but the punishment should fit the crime, and be age appropriate. As a parent, I would let my child know that while I was disappointed, and there would, definitely, be reprecussions, I would still love them. Sometimes kids look for attention in strange ways, because negative attention is better than no attention in their mind. Permissive parenting is what, often, leads to kids joining gangs to get a feeling of belonging someplace. On, the otherhand, being too strict is just as bad; the teen years are difficult ones for both the kids and the parents. Its a time of their pulling away from parental control in an attempt to establish their new independance as an adult, yet, clinging to them at the same time for the security and familiarity they provide. Its a transition peroid in their lives, and many mistakes happen while they are trying their wings. Its a time for more guidence, and less punishment, more understanding, and less condemnation. Teens are still in need of knowing their parents care enough to set ground rules for them, and that they are expected to show respect for those rules until such time as they reach full adulthood and can then decide for themselves what rules they will choose to live by.

            • Posted By: star3 @ 02/23/2009 7:08:15 PM

              So glad to see you don't believe in "over-reacting". Sighhhh;;;;; Apparently. you did not read ALL my messages.

      • Posted By: brucereno @ 02/16/2009 2:12:18 PM

        Hannes...your reply makes it clear you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Leave the kids alone. This will all pass. They are not pornographers...or pedoffiles....or criminals of any sort. They are young. Let the parents deal with it. Schools, police, churches... should all stay out of it.

      • Posted By: brucereno @ 02/16/2009 2:11:59 PM

        Hannes...your reply makes it clear you are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Leave the kids alone. This will all pass. They are not pornographers...or pedoffiles....or criminals of any sort. They are young. Let the parents deal with it. Schools, police, churches... should all stay out of it.

    • Posted By: brucereno @ 02/16/2009 2:16:00 PM

      Excellent, rational and thoughtful. Leave it to the parents...no one else.

    • Posted By: Hannes @ 02/15/2009 10:38:41 PM

      Sounds like you are a kid too, not knowing what's right and downright dumb. Perhaps you are a paedophile

  • Posted By: HomeOfTheFree? @ 03/31/2009 2:46:51 AM

    You've got to be kidding me

  • Posted By: MDMC1 @ 02/28/2009 9:14:49 AM

    If they were circulating pictures of themselves smoking bongs then the fundementalist wrong wingers would try to hang them even higher than for sex, i.e. Michael phelps. Don't let your children have cell phones until they can drive, and don't let them have text and video/camera functions until they can enter into a legally binding contract with the provider. Then they'll have to have their sex the old fashion way, behind your back and behind closed doors with no peering eyes.

  • Posted By: erincarlson @ 02/24/2009 5:00:36 PM

    It's completely absurd to charge a child with this type of a crime. These pedophylia laws were made to protect children, not to be used as a way to punish them beyond belief. These CHILDREN are idiots but that's the absurdity of children, they do things without rationalizing their consequences beforehand. It's up to adult to teach them about the dangers of these technologies that we place in their hands. 15 year olds don't generally have a job to pay for their own cell phone and wireless plans.

    Just as we do with teen driving, I think parents should know what pitfalls await children whom decide to use cell phones. I would never give the keys to a 16 year old without first teaching the rules of the road and then me also knowing they know how to use it.

    The prosecutors in these cases should know the difference between malicious behavior exhibited by the kids that circulated that young girls picture around to over 100 people. That is when the law should step in.

    Come on! Give me a break!

  • Posted By: khofuswiftclaw @ 02/24/2009 12:35:15 PM

    God can stay out of this one.
    He can stay way, way out of this one.

    This is a matter of our culture realizing that sexual maturity happens well before the age of 18. Some people begin to sexually mature as early as 8 or 9 years old. Protestantism has molded our cultural mores to be in opposition to recognizing sexuality. A 14 year old girl showing a naked photo of herself to a 15 year old boy is not CHILD pornography. It is merely pornography, but even that is too harsh. They are pictures of people who happen to be lacking clothing at the time the photo was taken. And as we all know, there is little to nothing wrong with our "god-given" bodies.

    To act as if this is the same as a 50-year-old man looking at nude photographs of a toddler for pleasure is mind-boggling. There is nothing about this that is loose morally or ethically. Let us move on with our lives and acknowledge this fact: the teenagers in America, despite what many believe, have skin and bones underneath their clothing. From time to time, they will feel the need to share that with others. Do not be alarmed. And move on with your lives.

    There are more important things to worry about.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 02/24/2009 2:20:21 PM

      khofus, how sadly naive of you! Who do you think you're dealing with?! You want to challenge the creator's right to be involved in every aspect of our lives? O.K., go ahead, but leave me out of that. God gave us freedom to choose, he gave us freedom, which some humans feel they have the right, even the responsibility to take away from us or tell us how to use it. Maybe that works for you, but not for me! God will stay out, unless you invite him to participate in your decisions, but then if things don't work out for you, don't blame God, since he was not allowed to help you make that choice. Yes, we have been given freedom, but God will intervene even without waiting for us to invite him to, when he feels its necessary. Everything is cause & effect----if we don't think we'll like the outcome of a choice, then maybe we should rethink it. We get the EFFECT, CAUSE we do the deed. Stay out of this one?! Why? Its his business as much as it is the parent's or the law's, in fact, since he is the ultimate parent and the ultimate law, its more his business, but if people want to handle it without him, he will say out. But remember who to give credit to for the good things in your life, and who to blame for the negative. Some people just don't "get it".

  • Posted By: tarpley @ 02/15/2009 10:29:10 AM

    Americans are so afraid of sex, it's almost like a stupid joke.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 02/23/2009 9:47:29 PM

      Americans, tarpley?!? Why not some humans are afraid of sex, don't just limit it to Americans. We aren't afraid of it, we just don't abuse it. At least, some of us don't. We have a healthy attitude about sex, it has its place, but some people---and not just in America---behave as though it were just invented recently, and they were the ones who discovered it. How grossely inmature! Now, you are, obviously not an American, or if you are one, then you don't get out much, do you? To make a statment like that. i mean. And if you are not American, then stop assuming that you know how we feel about anythng. Besides, if Americans are sooooo "afraid" of sex, then why are we accused of being immoral? Give it up, tar, before you make a bigger ass of yourself by spouting such dumb dribble.

  • Posted By: thatonehxckid @ 02/22/2009 5:28:23 AM

    This is honestly the most ludacris, ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. I can understand if the person is question is of a really young age, let's say 12 or younger as a baseline. But I mean honestly, teens who have reached their legal consenting age are being charged and convicted for sending pictures of themselves naked? If someone who is, let's say 16, and can legally have sex in their state wants to show their body to another person, what difference does it make whether they are doing it in person or through a picture? None is the answer. I realize the distribution threat and that sort of thing, but chances are, if the person is going to do this sort of thing, they realize the chances of something like that happening. If someone wants to take that chance, then by God it should be their choice, just as sex is once they reach that age.

  • Posted By: abigailwms @ 02/21/2009 8:37:15 PM

    There are times when pictures egt sent around that were intentioned only for one but at this point anyone who lives at all in this technological age knows that anything sent via e-mail or a cell phone is fair game. We prosecute (and persecute) minors as adults for experimenting with their sexuality in ways which are not harmful. The book "Harmful to Minors" by Judith Levine is an insightful book into the wyas we deal with minors and sexuality. Thank you Dahlia for taking a stand that many people will not take but that is the right stand. AW Mdtn, CT

  • Posted By: stinkerbellek8 @ 02/21/2009 7:43:47 PM

    I think we're missing the point here. Why is it necessary for these kids to have cameras on their cell phones? Surely, we are giving them access to technologies that they are not mature or responsible enough to use properly. Why not get your teen a cell phone WITHOUT a camera on it? Why not check your teen's history of tests and saved photos?This is a situation that is being left to parents to deal with and unfortunately some are not vigilant enough and some who are have kids who are savvy enough to get away with it. Parents need to stop indulging their child's every whim, take control and get back to what is important. When they reach an age where they can use this medium responsibly, then have at 'er!

  • Posted By: Blue in Utah @ 02/21/2009 4:36:44 PM

    All right, I dislike the Justice system as much as the next guy, but Ms. Lithwick's article so misses the point as to be seriously sad. It is not the shortcomings of the Justice system that is responsible for the problem, but the failure of legislators to address particular laws to the problems of sexual misconduct of juveniles. It is not the role of prosecutors and judges to reinvent the system and to determine appropriate and inappropriate applications of the laws; this just leads to new problems and invites misguided sympathy for people they can more readily identify with than others who are less fortunate. There is too much of this already. The criminal sanctions for airing child pornography, regardless of how "well intentioned" (and I don't even buy that in the examples the article provides), are based on concern for the large number of children who are TORTURED and sometimes MURDERED to satisfy the deviant interest of certain pedophiles. Who is going to excuse some more images feeding into the child pornography mill simply because they were not so intended? Maybe we shouldn't charge drunken drivers unless there is an accident or we can prove they just didn't care? A lot of them were pulled over simply for a minor equipment violation and not for anything suggesting the harm which drunken driving statutes are meant to prevent. Some things are so dangerous that they are proscribed regardless of the motive. That's the point, and it's not up to prosecutors and judges to make up excuses to look the other way.

  • Posted By: smashford @ 02/19/2009 5:50:46 PM

    What really gets me is the felony obscenity charge for sending someone a picture of your genitals. I personally don't like to think of my genitals as obscene. I don't know how we live our lives walking around with these obscene things in our pants. I say we outlaw genitals! Send all of the genital havers to jail for possessing an obscene object!

    • Posted By: sammiemae @ 02/21/2009 2:31:01 PM

      Hahahaha, on some standards, I would tend to agree. However, I do see your point, it is just about that ludacris isn't it?

  • Posted By: rgs0402@hotmail.com @ 02/19/2009 2:40:09 PM

    In recent years so many people have been placed on the pedophile list - people who one would not characterized as truly a ???pedophile??? that the list has gotten to the point where it is questionable and meaningless.

    I don???t consider the subject matter of this article to be a reason to put a kid on such a list. I don???t consider a 17 year old young man a pedophile because he had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend.

    The information provided on this list is extremely important and to diminish the intent and effectiveness of the information by cluttering it up with innocent people who truly do not meet the definition of a pedophile is to negate the existence of the pedophile list in the first place.
    rgs0402@hotmail.com

    • Posted By: sammiemae @ 02/21/2009 2:20:52 PM

      THANK YOU RGS!
      I'm so sick of hearing about 23 year old pediphiles that have spent the last 5 years in prison because their girlfriend that they'd been dating sicne freshman year wasn't 18 yet and they decided to have sex and parents freaked. There is a difference between concent and raped, decision and pressure and love and pedophilia. We have corrupted our own system of justice. Who's going to give them those lost years and that shattered dream? We need to quit convicting people with promising futures for something that wasn't rash, we're destroying people's lives.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 02/19/2009 9:44:45 PM

      So true, rgs. Things have gotten to the point where we're afraid to even admire a cute child for fear someone will get suspicious of our reason. I completely understand why we are so cautious, when all we need to do to know the dangers that exsist today is to watch the news or read the paper, but, yes, it has gotten kind of carried away by fear.

  • Posted By: sammiemae @ 02/21/2009 2:15:06 PM

    I can see charging them with distribution, who knows where those can end up or what could happen to the child should they get into the wrong hands. Do I feel that the teenage girl who took the photo of HERSELF and willingly sent it should be charged as a sex offender? NO. How the heck can you sexually offend youself? I for one am absolutely disgusted by child sex offenders, I think they should be locked away forever and never allowed around children again. But to label these teens as child sex offenders and have to answer that everyday is destroying their futures. Kids today don't realize that a lot of what they do is wrong and we can completely blame the economic situations that keep parents at work and the media that distorts their perception of right and wrong and cute and sexy, do we need to throw their futures away because they might not have realized that their own photos can be used against them? I don't think we should. Discipline them, make them do community outreach programs, teach them right from wrong and monitor them for furture sex acts. But please, please, please don't destroy what could be a very bright furture by limiting it with that title.

  • Posted By: krinipi @ 02/20/2009 2:49:16 PM

    outlook: Legally, students have virtually no property rights in schools. Your locker, bookbag, or car can be searched at will. I assume cell phones and their digital contents are similar. Students too often do not realize this and therefore don't think about what they are bringing into the school because "they can't go through my stuff." While you may think that the lack of rights is unfair, it does in many cases allow school officials to confiscate illegal and potentially dangerous items.

  • Posted By: TdaysF8 @ 02/19/2009 10:50:00 AM

    ASK youself .... WHY are teenage girls ... "tipsy" to begin with?

    • Posted By: star3 @ 02/20/2009 1:38:28 PM

      At some point parents have to trust their children to make the right choices since they can't follow them around to make sure they are behaving. If a child has been taught right from wrong and has a good history of church background from the time they are toddlers, then all a parent can do once they reach the teen years is pray that their lessons "took", that their children are prepared to face peer pressure without giving into what they know is wrong, and do it in such a way that they can earn the respect of their friends, and possibly, even influence them to make better choices. Parents, if you want to be proud of your adult children, the time to lay the groundwork is when they are still young enough to accept what you teach. Kids, if you want your parents to be proud of you, then make choices that you know will please them---not shame them.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 02/19/2009 10:01:54 PM

      Tdays, for the same reason every teen of every generation broke the rules: because parents can not follow their teenager around 24/7, and because when a child becomes a teenager, its common knowledge that their brains fall out of their head to land in their behind, which causes them to become squashed from sitting on them, therefore, they can't think as well. But we can all rest assured that their brain will, eventually, go back into the proper place, oh...say when they are about 30. Maybe.

  • Posted By: egbert556 @ 02/20/2009 6:20:49 AM

    Dalia,

    Thank you for saying this. If a man were to say what you have said, he would risk being labeled a pedophile. We live in a two-tiered society, one in which the accusation of pedophilia is enough to ruin a man's life, and only women can talk openly about it. I for one am glad that children are being arrested and charged with distributing child pornography. Perhaps the obvious injustice of this will help to make people aware that a witch-hunt is afoot. Every man in the western world is so terrified of being accused of being a pedophile that he will refuse to help a crying child.

    http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_22/2_9_fear.htm
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/19/gender.childprotection

    Everybody should be aware of what is happening. Your civil liberties are being taken away. Terrorists and pedophiles. That's why the government must be able to read your email. That's why you have no rights. Remember, a suspected pedophile or terrorist has no rights.Suspicion is enough. Waterboarding is ok. Pedophile hysteria is good. Kill the pedophiles. They think forbidden thoughts, it's thoughtcrime. Even if they don't molest, looking at pictures of children in swimsuits is just as bad as raping babies. It's worse. Torture is too good for them. Kill the suspected terrorists. We have to be safe. Every website you visit, every link you click, is monitored by the NSA in case you are a terrorist or a pedophile. The innocent have nothing to fear.

  • Posted By: outlook @ 02/19/2009 10:30:10 PM

    I've got to ask. When these cell phones where confiscated who gave the school au thorities the right to access these images? It has become apparent that school officials are crossing the line or the grey area of personal privicy when it comes to protecting individual rights. When did they the student sign away those rights. Surely not by just being a student in some junior high or high school. Granited this needs to be addressed in some fashion, but surly not by being charged with some sex crime.

  • Posted By: rafeltman @ 02/19/2009 10:43:16 AM

    I heard of someone who was threatened with 20 years in a federal prison for having pictures of girls aged 15-17 when he was only 19 himself. He had gotten the pictures from limewire, so he was charged with possession and distribution once the files were shared.
    Maybe I'm just an over-entitled feminist, but I think if I want to run around naked and photograph the process it's my own damn business. If the girls (or boys) taking them are not putting them in a public forum, I don't see how it warrants such a harsh punishment at all.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 02/19/2009 9:54:12 PM

      rafe, the point is that if a person is under the legal age, then its NOT just their business, it is the business of the parents and the law. Kids have to be protected, even from themselves, sometimes, ESPECIALLY from themselves. I have always felt that 18 is too young to be considered an adult, and that the legal age should be 21; the only thing allowing an 18 year old to be considered an adult is that it just allows them to get into big trouble when they are still a teenager, and not yet mature enough to handle the responsibility of being an adult.

    • Posted By: kruedawg @ 02/19/2009 11:17:36 AM

      The fact is, if you take them electronically and email them or send them via text message, even if it to just 1 person, you HAVE put them in the public forum. And once they are out of your control that one person can send them to others which in turn can eventually get them into the hands of millions of other people.

      Kiddie porn is illegal. Not illegal just for adults, illegal for everyone.

  • Posted By: iampete @ 02/19/2009 11:02:20 AM

    I have given up on common sense as being too much to ask for these days. Our schools are too afraid to discipline kids in any way now for fear of lawsuits. Instead they create zero tolerance rules which are nothing more than excuses to push their responsibilities off on someone else, the police force. That's bad news because our police forces no longer go by the motto "To Protect and Serve" and instead have a new motto of "To Control and Intimidate".

    The kids involved should have their butts paddled by the school, phones confiscated by the parents (and butts paddled again for good measure), and the police shouldn't even enter into the equation.

    • Posted By: star3 @ 02/19/2009 9:37:37 PM

      iampete, sounds like a good plan to me, and if were in the 50s, thats exactly what would have happened! Parents and teachers, both afraid to spank anymore because the laws have taken away parental authority. I'm not talking about a beating, just a good old fashioned spanking. The law does not prevent abuse, it only prevents parents from doing their job in making their kids mind. Murder is illegal, too, yet it still happens. I feel the law needs to be revised to allow for the difference in someone spanking their child, and in beating them. My children got spanked when we felt they needed it, and God help any law that tried to interfer; fortunately, that was never necessary, because we knew how to discipline properly. Yes, abuse happens, and thats why laws were passed to prevent it, and they are good laws, but there is a difference in beating and spanking. Don't sell kids short, they well know when they have crossed the line, and they know when discipline is justified and when it is unfair. I sure did when I was a child! My parents didn't feel a bit of guilt when they punished me, they called it making me mind, and I'd better!

    • Posted By: rgs0402@hotmail.com @ 02/19/2009 2:41:13 PM

      amen!!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse