20% of teens text nude/semi-nude photos of self.

According to the results of a survey released today by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com, 22 percent of all teen girls — and 11 percent of teen girls ages 13-16 years old — say they have electronically sent, or posted online, nude or semi-nude images of themselves. And these racy images are also getting passed around: One-third (33 percent) of teen boys and one-quarter (25 percent) of teen girls say they have had nude/semi-nude images — originally meant to be private — shared with them.

But it turns out that teen girls are not the only ones sharing sexually explicit content. According to the survey, almost one in five teen boys (18 percent) say they have sent or posted nude/semi-nude images of themselves. One-third (33 percent) of young adults — 36 percent of women and 31 percent of men ages 20-26 — say they have sent or posted such images.

This has led to a rash of arrests for violation of child pornography laws, especially of the girls. Do we really want to create a new criminal class called ” naive teen”? Didn’t we all do stupid stuff as teens?

State courts are struggling with these incidents, with each arriving at a different decision.

PITTSBURGH, PA — A 15-year-old girl has been arrested for taking nude photographs of her self and posting them on the Internet, police said….She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

NEWARK, OH — A 15-year-old girl is accused of distributing nude photos of herself to other minors, and one state legislator is questioning whether she should be labeled a sex offender….After spending the weekend incarcerated, she pleaded deny Monday to both charges: illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, a second-degree felony; and possession of criminal tools, a fifth-degree felony.

About twenty cases have been reported to prosecutors. These teens were not charged after their families agreed to adhere to a plan crafted by the district attorney. Why this girl, who is a foster child, was charged instead of being offered a family plan was not revealed in the article. Was it because she is separated from her family? Isn’t that unfair? Teens who received her photos could be charged too.

Licking County Assistant Prosecutor Erin Welch said Monday the investigation into the incident remains open, including exploring whether charges will be filed against the minors who received the photos…If the prosecutor’s office elects to bring those teens into court, they could be facing a different section of the same charge pending against the sender of the pictures and classification as sex offenders, as well.

According to Ohio law, 2907.323(A)(3) states anyone possessing material that shows a minor in a state of nudity is guilty of a fifth-degree felony. The violation also might qualify the juvenile as a Tier I sexual offender, which requires annual registration for a decade….The section of the law the girl, who is a foster child, was charged with allows parents or guardians to take photos of their unclothed children for a list of acceptable purposes but does not provide an exemption for the child themselves.

What is worse is that the prosecutions are selective, with some teens not charged and some charged for merely receiving them, even when they did not know they would be the recipients

SANGER, TX – “He doesn’t know what a felony means. He doesn’t understand what pornography means,” said one parent. She is a mother of a 13-year-old boy arrested Monday [on child pornography charges] and suspended from school and spent the night in a juvenile detention center after an eighth grade female student texted him a naked picture of herself.“I know some girl was taking pictures of herself and sending it to multiple guys. Obviously, they’ve still got their picture on their phone because they are now getting in trouble,” said Bethany Mitchell, a classmate.

So far only the 13-year-old boy has been arrested. Police and the school district are not discussing actions against any of the other students.

Why was one boy arrested and not the others? Why wasn’t the girl arrested in this case? Those questions remain unanswered.

Florida decided it is not illegal for underage teens to have sex with each other, but if they film it and each keeps a private copy, they can be prosecuted. In 2007, the Florida Appeals Court, by a 2-1 majority, upheld the conviction of a girl who filmed herself and her boyfriend engaged in sexual behavior.

On March 25, 2004, Amber and Jeremy (pseudonyms) took digital photos of themselves naked and engaged in unspecified “sexual behavior.” The two sent the photos from a computer at Amber’s house to Jeremy’s personal e-mail address. Neither teen showed the photographs to anyone else. Amber and Jeremy were arrested. Each was charged with producing, directing or promoting a photograph featuring the sexual conduct of a child. Based on the contents of his e-mail account, Jeremy was charged with an extra count of possession of child pornography.

Under a 1995 ruling in a case called B.B. v. State, the Florida Supreme Court said that a 16-year-old could not be found delinquent for having sex with another 16-year-old. “The crux of the state’s interest in an adult-minor situation is the prevention of exploitation of the minor by the adult,” the majority said at the time. The court ruled that a Florida statute punishing sex between teens was “unconstitutional as applied to this 16-year-old as a basis for a delinquency proceeding.”

The same applies to Amber and Jeremy. Even though he is a year older than her, he is still a minor in Florida.

In other words, under Florida law, Amber and Jeremy would be legally permitted to engage in carnal relations, but they’re criminals if they document it.

Adults who photograph themselves engaged in sexual activities would not be prosecuted. While it is unwise for a teen to do the same, it doesn’t make sense for them to be prosecuted either. The fact of their age is the only reason they were prosecuted, as is made clear in the appeals court decision.

The conclusion of the Florida Appelate Court that the photos might be revealed to others has a solid foundation. There is a growing number of cases where the nude photos of girls are published without their knowledge or consent. Two such cases produced far different results, but both gave the boys the option of removing the photos before legal action was taken.

In the first, Alex Phillips was angry because the victim broke up with him. To retaliate, he published two nude photos of her on his MySpace page. His intent was to degrade and humiliate her. He also wanted to brag about his sexual conquest of her and to poison her new relationship.

LA CROSSE, Wis. — La Crosse teenager Alex Phillips refused to pull naked photos of his 16-year-old ex-girlfriend off his MySpace page, so felony charges were filed against him Tuesday. Alex Phillips, 17, of was charged with possession of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child and defamation in La Crosse County Circuit Court. …According to the criminal complaint, [the] open photo was full frontal nudity of the girl and the other showed her buttocks, anus and vagina.

When police told Phillips he could go to jail for posting the nude photos, he said, “Fuck that, I am keeping them up,’” according to the complaint.

Below the full-frontal photo, he wrote: “Yo, tell me this bitch desurves this!!!!!!!! This is HLK ya’ll! Yo, see how big her hole is! Its from me! TF gets my leftover’s to bad she fucked.”

Phillips could easily have escaped prosecution. Why was this option extended to him? Why wasn’t he charged immediately? He did not have her permission to publish her photos. She is legally protected by the law. Should others receive the same option after they publish nude photos of girls covered under the child porn act? If so, why are the girls being prosecuted when they share photos of themselves? Why aren’t they receiving the option of removing the photos?

The same “no prosecution” option was provided to forty high school students who ensured the nude photos would travel far and wide.

ALLENTOWN, Pa. District Attorney James B. Martin said at least 40 Parkland High School students believed to have received the images would not face prosecution as long as they show their phones to police by Tuesday to ensure the images have been erased.

But students at the school said the distribution was far more widespread. “Most people got it and kept passing it along for fun to everyone in their phonebook,” said Jon Gabriel, 16, a junior who said he received and deleted the images.

“The school isn’t going to get everybody because it is everybody. I don’t know anybody who didn’t get the pictures,” said Samantha Smith, a 16-year-old junior who said she deleted the images when she got them.

On the social networking site Facebook, one student started a group called, “Parkland. … Where Pornstars Are Born.”

One of the girls in the pictures is shown engaging in a sex act with an unidentified boy, Martin said. The other girl took and transmitted a photo of her bare breasts, he said.

Martin said he was not certain if the girl shown having sex had known she was being photographed.

It is obvious from the quotes, at least one of these students should be prosecuted because the intent was to show the photos as porn. Given that it is likely the girl didn’t know she was being filmed, is this not more egregious than the actions of any of the teens who have been charged in the other cases? If she did not know she was being filmed, it stands to reason that the video voyeur must be her unidentified sex partner. Why isn’t he being charged?

In a Seattle case, the boys — many of which were on the football squad — were also given the option of escaping punishment even as the girls were suspended from school. The school claimed the girls, who were cheerleaders, were suspended because athletes are held to a higher standard, but if that is the rule, then why weren’t the boys on the football squad suspended too? Neither girl knew their photos were being circulated, yet they were the only students punished.

One of the photos was taken three years ago, according to court documents. Showing the girl topless, it was sent to her then-boyfriend’s phone in the summer of 2005. Later that summer, the picture accidentally was distributed to other Bothell High students, according to her lawsuit.

The other teen’s photo was taken in June, when she and a fellow cheerleader used their cell phones to each snap photos of themselves naked, according to her lawsuit. Those photos were later accidentally sent to other Bothell High students, though King said it was unclear how that happened.

Shortly after the June photos were taken, school officials heard rumors the pictures were circulating among students, particularly football players. They sent a letter to all cheerleaders’ parents, warning that if inappropriate photos were found, it could result in suspension from the squad.

Football players were told to delete the pictures from their cell phones if they received them, according to the lawsuits.

Northshore officials, however, believe the girls clearly violated the district’s athletic code, which students must agree to in order to participate in school activities. The girls understood that as athletes, they would be held to higher standards of behavior, Stoltzfus said.

“When you sign up to be a cheerleader — or for any student activity — you agree to certain codes of behavior,” she said. “We consider them student leaders, and we want them to be role models.”

Why warn the other cheerleaders — who were not involved and presumably are not known to have nude photos of themselves — while not warning the football players who presumably have the same obligation as athletes and who did possess the nude photos? Why let them off the hook? Why wasn’t the third cheerleader, who helped take the nude photos including one of herself, suspended?

In yesteryear, girls didn’t think of taking nude photos of themselves. It just wasn’t something to do. If they had, a lot of shame would have been the result. Boys might have wished they had nude photos of girls they liked, but they just weren’t available. Would either sex have felt free to show them publicly where parents, cops and school administrators could freely access them? Even if the technology would have been available, it is doubtful yesteryear’s teens would have made that choice if for no other reason than self-preservation. Today’s teen lacks that inhibition. They enjoy flaunting their sexuality, which is emotionally healthy under the right circumstances but risky when taken to these extremes. Unfortunately, many girls are told this is a now dating necessity. Like girls in all eras, the pressure to give in comes from boys; some girls not sure enough of their own desirability to resist. Once they’ve proven their gullibility, the girls are then shamed and blamed.

This pattern is still being practiced by both by school and police officials. The girls suffer the consequences while the boys are treated to less rigorous standards. This attitude is also found among commentators discussing these stories/ About the Alex Phillips case, where he posted his ex-girlfriend’s nude photos on MySpace, the support expressed was for him:

Shannon Says: “well what i have to say.. haha is that she sent him the picutres..how can he possibly get in trouble for having CHILD PORNOGRPHY when shee sent them? make sence people? and second of all.. yea what he did was messed UP… but she shouldnt have been taking them in the first place shes 16 years old.. alex is 17b years old.. he loved her and i should know.. he got angry and he was venting.. hes a teenager.. what would u expect him to do…”

Meow says: “I hope he posts her name somewhere for the public to see after he gets out of jail or whatever for us to laugh at and mock the slut.”

The reality is: Teens are curious about sexuality and will view nude photos. Cell phones and the Internet make it easy to take and share them. Teens have been making stupid decisions since the first human was born. Do we really want to brand them with the lifetime label of sex offender for not exercising better judgment at this tender age? Do we really want to excuse the boys who are the primary voyeurs passing the photos around while we prosecute the girls who are the primary victims? Is it right that some get prosecuted while others escape? There has to be a better way.

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 13th, 2008 at 3:16 pm and is filed under Sex and the Law, Sexual politics, Women. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.