real6
20-07-2009, 07:24 PM
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0fJz4hgxUiYJ:blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2009/04/sexting_hardly_constitutes_chi.html+new+jersey+sex ting&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
The fate of a 14-year old New Jersey student, arrested a few weeks ago on charges of posting pornographic photos of herself online, now rests on the scales of the justice system. The allegations against her follow those in a similar case in which a federal court recently blocked a Pennsylvania prosecutor from filing child pornography charges against teenage girls shown topless or wearing underwear in photos found on the cell phones of some boys.
Without commenting on the legal merits of those cases, we hope that their notoriety -- and the spirited debate they have sparked -- will prompt policymakers to rethink the law's future application and whether we, as a society, want to jail a generation of young people for engaging in poor judgment. Kids found guilty of so-called "sexting" require education, support from teachers and parents, and, for some, even treatment -- but they do not require incarceration.
In New Jersey, as in other states, the statute at the center of debate concerns "endangering the welfare of children." Broadly construed, it prohibits any sharing of sexual images of children. The law's purpose -- to protect children from exploitation and abuse -- is defeated when it is applied to punish teens who post images of themselves.
By turning the statute against children instead of using it to protect them, we further jeopardize their futures. When teenagers post nude or semi-nude photos of themselves they threaten their reputations, employability and personal privacy. Asserting child endangerment charges adds the potential for jail time, fines and placement on a Megan's Law registry list. As for the latter, we agree with Maureen Kanka, the mother of the law's namesake, that Megan's Law was intended to protect children from sexual predators, not from themselves.
A recent study of technology use by teens revealed that 20 percent of teenagers have electronically transmitted nude or semi-nude image of themselves. If child endangerment statutes are to be consistently enforced against such teens, it could result in law enforcement investigations of more than 100,000 teenagers in New Jersey alone. As a practical matter, even if we were to agree to consider this conduct a criminal offense, most states do not have the resources to enforce the statute in these circumstances. And, the potential for selective or uneven enforcement -- given the subjective element of titillation and differing community attitudes found in such matters -- is high.
While people are rightfully impassioned about wanting to protect children from sexual predators, we mustn't lose sight of how to do that effectively. As with most issues concerning children and their safety, parents are in the best position to address the problem. It's the job of parents and other caregivers to monitor children (whether in the front yard or online) and to speak with them about the harmful effects of putting nude or semi-nude photos of themselves online.
Stated differently, nothing in the legal system trumps the influence of parents. They -- not prosecutors, judges or juries -- are best able to teach children that sharing nude or semi-nude photos of themselves can have serious, negative consequences that time might not erase. If, aside from suffering those consequences, teens deserve additional punishment for their reckless or misguided conduct, parents should be primarily responsible for administering it. (Whether the government should maintain a role in dealing with someone who maliciously distributes the photos beyond the audience intended by the original teen sender is a question worthy of future debate.)
To be sure, child pornography is pernicious. It is appropriately considered a serious crime that risks great harm to our children. Yet, treating teens who foolishly expose themselves on the internet as pornographers defies common sense, usurps parental authority and strains the reach of government.
Technology has moved at the speed of light, outpacing what lawmakers most likely envisioned would occur under our laws. We need to reconsider how to approach these issues productively before infringing on the liberties of children and jeopardizing them beyond their own bad judgment.
Deborah Jacobs is executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. Peter G. Verniero, a lawyer, is a former justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court and state attorney general.
The fate of a 14-year old New Jersey student, arrested a few weeks ago on charges of posting pornographic photos of herself online, now rests on the scales of the justice system. The allegations against her follow those in a similar case in which a federal court recently blocked a Pennsylvania prosecutor from filing child pornography charges against teenage girls shown topless or wearing underwear in photos found on the cell phones of some boys.
Without commenting on the legal merits of those cases, we hope that their notoriety -- and the spirited debate they have sparked -- will prompt policymakers to rethink the law's future application and whether we, as a society, want to jail a generation of young people for engaging in poor judgment. Kids found guilty of so-called "sexting" require education, support from teachers and parents, and, for some, even treatment -- but they do not require incarceration.
In New Jersey, as in other states, the statute at the center of debate concerns "endangering the welfare of children." Broadly construed, it prohibits any sharing of sexual images of children. The law's purpose -- to protect children from exploitation and abuse -- is defeated when it is applied to punish teens who post images of themselves.
By turning the statute against children instead of using it to protect them, we further jeopardize their futures. When teenagers post nude or semi-nude photos of themselves they threaten their reputations, employability and personal privacy. Asserting child endangerment charges adds the potential for jail time, fines and placement on a Megan's Law registry list. As for the latter, we agree with Maureen Kanka, the mother of the law's namesake, that Megan's Law was intended to protect children from sexual predators, not from themselves.
A recent study of technology use by teens revealed that 20 percent of teenagers have electronically transmitted nude or semi-nude image of themselves. If child endangerment statutes are to be consistently enforced against such teens, it could result in law enforcement investigations of more than 100,000 teenagers in New Jersey alone. As a practical matter, even if we were to agree to consider this conduct a criminal offense, most states do not have the resources to enforce the statute in these circumstances. And, the potential for selective or uneven enforcement -- given the subjective element of titillation and differing community attitudes found in such matters -- is high.
While people are rightfully impassioned about wanting to protect children from sexual predators, we mustn't lose sight of how to do that effectively. As with most issues concerning children and their safety, parents are in the best position to address the problem. It's the job of parents and other caregivers to monitor children (whether in the front yard or online) and to speak with them about the harmful effects of putting nude or semi-nude photos of themselves online.
Stated differently, nothing in the legal system trumps the influence of parents. They -- not prosecutors, judges or juries -- are best able to teach children that sharing nude or semi-nude photos of themselves can have serious, negative consequences that time might not erase. If, aside from suffering those consequences, teens deserve additional punishment for their reckless or misguided conduct, parents should be primarily responsible for administering it. (Whether the government should maintain a role in dealing with someone who maliciously distributes the photos beyond the audience intended by the original teen sender is a question worthy of future debate.)
To be sure, child pornography is pernicious. It is appropriately considered a serious crime that risks great harm to our children. Yet, treating teens who foolishly expose themselves on the internet as pornographers defies common sense, usurps parental authority and strains the reach of government.
Technology has moved at the speed of light, outpacing what lawmakers most likely envisioned would occur under our laws. We need to reconsider how to approach these issues productively before infringing on the liberties of children and jeopardizing them beyond their own bad judgment.
Deborah Jacobs is executive director for the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey. Peter G. Verniero, a lawyer, is a former justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court and state attorney general.