'Today' Show Segment and New Proposed Law in Vermont

The 'Today' show ran a story on IMPs on April 15th. Story did a good job of both detailing various incidents that have resulted in disproportionate penalties, Vermont's new legislation, and the importance of EDUCATION and PARENTS in the issue.

Video available here. Transcript here.

The debate between Donna Rice Hughes (internet safety expert) and a Vermont State Legislator brought out the issue of prosecutorial discretion. Definitely an issue worth discussing however one that does put prosecutors in a tough situation, especially those who know they will be up for re-election. No prosecutor wants to be known as being so heavy handed that they are willing to turn 20% of teens into felons, but conversely in cases such as Jessie Logan's (Ohio girl who committed suicide after sexting lead to intense cyber-bullying), prosecutors look dispassionate if they don't prosecute. However when the law only provides an all (felony and potential lifetime placement on the Sex Offender list) or nothing choice for prosecutors, they've been forced into a very tough position.

For further discussion of Vermont's new law, which includes higher penalties for sexting committed through force, coercion or other pressures, click here. (More here.) Vermont State Senator Richard Sears (D-Bennington) did a good job of summing up many legislators' sentiments on the matter:

"We felt that it's poor behavior and it's not something we want to give our
OK to, but at the same time, do we want a kid in jail? Do we want them tagged as
a sex offender for the rest of their lives? And the answer is no."

"Sex Offender" Label for 25 Years

Another story in the news on this issue (thanks to Andi for sending this my way): http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/07/sexting.busts/index.html

The portion of the article below does a good job of explaining what is at stake related to the penalties under current laws:

As for Alpert, life is not easy as a registered sex offender, a label he will carry until the age of 43. He's been kicked out of college, he cannot travel out of the county without making prior arrangements with his probation officer, he has lost many friends and is having trouble finding a job because of his status as a convicted felon. He says he feels terrible about sending the photo of his ex-girlfriend, especially since they were once so close.

At the same time, Alpert says, "I'm being punished for the rest of my life for something that took two minutes or less to do." Says attorney Walters, "Some judges have the good sense and reasonableness to treat this as a social problem and others are more zealous in their efforts to put everybody away and I think it's time as a society that we step back a little bit and avoid this temptation to lock up our children."

What exactly is a "Common Sense Law"?

Illinois can have common sense IMP laws by taking into account the age of the "child pornographer" and reducing the penalty from a felony to misdemeanor when the person is a minor.

There's a few things at play in this issue. For our purposes you need to know that under the law, you can be charged with Child Pornography if you:

• produce child pornography
• reproduce/disseminate child pornography
• possess child pornography
• encourage/persuade someone to produce child pornography

There's really two diferrent players that need to be thought about. The first is the person who produced it (for this example let's say it is a 16 year old girl named Tina that takes a picture of herself topless with her camera phone) and the second is the recipient (for this example let's say it is Tina's 16 year old boyfriend Zach).

So Zach asks Tina to send him a "sexy photo." Tina is hesitant but ultimatley does and sends a photo of herself topless to Zach via cell phone. Zach then proceeds to forward it on to 3 of his friends. This all comes to light and the county prosecutor arrests them both. Under current law they both would be charged with felonies. Tina for production, possession and dissemination. Zach for dissemination, possession and encouraging/persuading someone to produce child pornography.

Under a common sense law, because they are both under the age of 18, the penalties would be as follows

Tina:

• Production: Class C Misdemeanor (no more than 30 days in jail)
• Possession: Class C Misdemeanor (no more than 30 days in jail)
• Dissemination: Class C Misdemeanor (no more than 30 days in jail)

Zach

• Dissemination: Class A Misdemeanor (no more than 1 year in jail)
• Possession: Class C Misdemeanor (no more than 30 days in jail)
• Encouraging/Pesuading: Class C Misdemeanor (no more than 30 days in jail)

NOTE: All of these would be Class C (the lowest penalty available and the jail time is a maximum and most likely no jail time would be served, only a fine levied) except dissemination of the photos by someone other than the person who took them. This increased penalty is to discourage the type of mass-forwarding that occurs and the inevitable humiliation and bullying that comes with it.

Also, currently the law requires someone guilty of Child Pornography to be a registered sex offender. Under the new law, only those guilty of "felony" Child Pornography will be required to register.

IMP Twitter Campaign

To give people an idea of how the lack of common sense IMP laws are affecting people we've got a Twitter account set up for Tina Teen. She's a fictional 16 year old high school student who made a silly mistake at the urging of her boyfriend Zack Attack.



Subscribe to Tina's Twitter account by going to Twitter and seaching for

TTsTechTrouble

and follow along as Tina tweets about what she did and what happened because of it.

Well Done Utah

Utah lawmakers OK bill on 'sexting'

Thursday, 12 March 2009

The Associated Press

Utah lawmakers have agreed to lessen the penalty for minors who send or receive nude pictures through their cell phones, called "sexting." House Bill 14, sponsored by Rep. Sheryl Allen, R-Bountiful, would reduce the penalty for someone younger than 18 to a misdemeanor from a felony. Those over 18 could still face felony charges.

Sen. Gregory Bell, R-Fruit Heights, says some parents currently interfere with investigations because they don't want their children to be charged with a felony.

The bill passed the Senate on Wednesday and now goes to the governor.

NOTE: This bill was signed into law by Governor Huntsman on Monday, March 30

What is this word IMP I keep seeing in posts?

An "IMP" is an "Inappropriate Minor Photo" and is defined as:

Any photograph or video, produced by a minor, that depicts or portrays the minor in any pose, posture or setting involving a lewd exhibition of the unclothed or transparently clothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, in the case of a female, a fully or partially developed breast of the minor.

This definition is based off of the Illinois Child Pornography statute (720 ILCS 5/11-20.1(a)(1)(vii)). The media has really seized on the term "sexting" however for the purposes of getting common sense legislation passed on the issue the term "sexting" is detrimental.

First, it's underinclusive. "Sexting" is of course the combination of the words "sex" and "texting" but the Illinois Child Pornography statute is written in a way that if a teen sent a photo over their camera phone or the internet they could be charged. Referring to these as IMPs ensures that we're all talking about both parts of the issue (phone and internet).

Second, its sensationalistic. To talk about this issue appropriately and get the common sense laws passed it is important that we don't use the term "sexting" because enflames passions by making people think of hyper-sexualized teens and that is detrimental to discussions.

If they're talking about it on Facebook . . .

Just typed in "sexting" on the search box on Facebook and found out there's over 20 groups on the topic. Most think all the hubbub is ridiculous (somewhat valid) and then others are devoted to ending the practice.

Some other places on the web talking about the issue:

• My 1st Bra, My 1st Sexual Offense
• Are 1 in 5 Teens Child Pornographers?
• Jezebel