There’s some good news in the newly constructed sexting controversy.
First came the news that three young women, with the support of their families, have filed a lawsuit against a local district attorney who was threatening to charge them “sexual abuse of a minor” after he claimed to have fully nude photos of them found on other students cell phones (as it turns out the photos weren’t of them fully nude). This same DA threatened a total of 20 students, saying that if they refused to attend a “10-hour class dealing with pornography and sexual violence” he would charge them.
In one case the photo in question was of two of the women wearing bras at a slumber party. The DA claimed the photo was “provocative”. Just so we’re all clear on how the law works, if a particular DA in a particular county thinks something is provocative, they can threaten to charge you with a crime that, if convicted, would wind you up on a sex offender registry. Just so we’re clear.
So the first good news is that these young women and their families are tough enough to stand up not only for their rights, but for all our rights. I wonder if they are collecting for legal fees?
The second piece of good news came in the form of a restraining order issued against said district attorney by judge James M. Munley which prevents the DA from filing charges against the three girls. The judge is quoted in a Reuters piece:
"The court agrees with the plaintiffs that the public interest would be served by issuing a TRO (temporary restraining order) in this matter as the public interest is on the side of protecting constitutional rights,"
In an earlier hearing the judge showed his hand a bit suggesting that the case raises “serious constitutional issues” and that he didn’t see how it made sense that these young women could be both the victim and perpetrators of sexual abuse of themselves.
At Sex:Tech last week I heard Lee Tien from the Electronic Freedom Foundation talk on just how laws like those intended to combat child pornography are being used to both squelch free speech and control healthy sexual expression. It's been great to read so many people offering thoughtful and passionate legal and social critiques of this particular case. I recommend starting with Yes Means Yes and PolyPerversity.
There are so many things wrong with what's happening to these teenagers, and I wonder if we'll ever have an opportunity to fully unpack the deeply problematic response of teachers, school officials, and the DA. One of the things I'm still a bit confused about is how these images got from the personal cellphones of students into the hands of this particularly zealous, sex phobic DA.
Hopefully the lawsuit brought by the parents and young women, and this ruling will provide some answers, and some sanity.
Read more – Reuters: U.S. judge rules for teen girls in "sexting" case
My thoughts:
1. In the U.S., young people really have no rights, sexual or otherwise. This needs to change.
2. Why should people not be free to possess any information? Pictures, as any digital information, are mere collections of ones and zeros.
3. In this debate, there are assumptions made about “child pornography” and “molestation” that I believe are not quite correct. In many instances, as in a situation like this, it’s something that’s not as black-and-white as many people seem to want to believe.