Added: Ivana Gallman - Date: 22.11.2021 13:18 - Views: 10308 - Clicks: 5704
Jump to Skip .
A year-old Minnesota girl is fighting criminal charges that have the potential to destroy her future, including her ability to obtain housing, to enroll in college programs, and even to pursue some career paths. Her case does not involve harm to others. It does not involve damage to property. And it does not have anything to do with illegal substances. Rather her young life could be ruined all because she sent an explicit Snapchat of herself to a boy she liked. In sexting babes case, Jane Doe used the phone-based application Snapchat to send a revealing selfie to a boy at her school in Southern Minnesota.
A conviction, or even a guilty plea to a lesser charge, would require Jane to spend 10 years on the sex offender registry. Sending sexually suggestive text messages and explicit photos or videos of oneself has become so commonplace that it has a name — sexting. Conservative estimates on the prevalence of adolescent sexting are that 12 sexting babes of adolescents aged have sent an explicit image of themselves to another person at some point in their life.
A survey by the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center MARC of year-olds found 30 percent had sent nude pictures during high school, and 45 percent had received them. We can all agree that sexual abuse of children is abhorrent and that our criminal laws should punish that abuse. And an important means of combatting sexual abuse of children is to prosecute those who create, possess, and disseminate works that are a permanent record of that abuse.
In Minnesota, two statutes criminalize the creation, possession, and dissemination of child pornography. The purpose of the law — protecting children — matters when it comes to laws that impose criminal penalties for speech. For instance, laws that criminalize adult pornography violate the First Amendment. But in New York v. Ferberthe U. Supreme Court concluded that distributing child pornography is interconnected with the sexual abuse of children because the material is a permanent record of the abuse and its distribution perpetuates a market for the production of material that requires the sexual exploitation of children.
Therefore, child pornography bans are allowable under the First Amendment. But what about when there is no victim? Inin a case called Ashcroft v. Jane created the sext of her own body. She was not an exploited child victim. She was exhibiting normal adolescent behavior in the digital age.
Jennifer Woolard, an associate professor of psychology at Georgetown University. Or as Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists Dr. Lynn E. Ponton and Dr. Sexting babes will only cause her more harm.
Harm that will follow her throughout her adult life. It is nonsensical to suggest that Sexting babes is both a victim and the perpetrator of her own abuse. Her attorney has asked the court to dismiss the charges, and the ACLU of Minnesota has filed an amicus brief in support of that motion. We asked the court to recognize the constitutional problems with punishing Jane and pointed to the growing national consensus around the idea that adolescent sexting should not be addressed through oppressive criminal prosecutions.
Speak Freely. Tags Juvenile Justice. Facebook Twitter Reddit Print. Fight for everyone's rights - support the ACLU. Related Stories.Sexting babes
email: [email protected] - phone:(270) 459-9643 x 1887
40 Sexting Examples To Spice Up Your Chats With Bae