Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > March > 14 > Entry
Editorial: Sexting teens are flirting with a felony
Lucky for us there weren’t cell phones, digital cameras and the Internet when we were kids. Every time another teen’s bad decision becomes an Internet-age news story, adults think, “There but for the grace of God — and age — go I.”
The sexiest national news story of the moment is the teen craze known as “sexting,” sending racy photographs via cell phone text message or over the Internet. The Montgomery County prosecutor’s office and juvenile court recently created a diversion program that gives sexting offenders the chance to avoid a criminal record.
That good move is a recognition that child pornography laws weren’t designed to nail kids who think they’re cool by disseminating titillating photos of themselves or others.
But it’d be even better if there were a way to persuade teenagers of the dangers of being cute in the cyber age.
Youthful indiscretion is timeless. For prior generations, however, embarrassing incidents were usually limited to a small circle.
That era is over. Today’s teen mistakes can go instantly global — and they can remain online forever.
Moreover, there can be legal consequences.
In Ohio, the law makes no distinction for age or circumstance when it comes to the transmission of child porn and “erotic” images of people who are underage. Offenders can get slapped with a felony and the label of “sex offender,” requiring them to register with the police for up to 20 years.
Though prosecutors do have latitude in the charges they bring, judges don’t always have the discretion to take into account adolescents’ willingness to flirt with danger, especially if someone ends up getting hurt.
Across the country, there are scores of examples of sexting gone awry.
In extreme cases, serious crimes may be connected to the practice, if victims are coerced or harassed.
Just last year at Cincinnati’s Sycamore High School, an 18-year-old girl killed herself after a nude picture of her was circulated electronically by an ex-boyfriend and she was bullied by schoolmates.
Frequently, “victims” actually have taken and sent the offending images themselves. But receivers can be in trouble, too, depending on what they do with the pictures.
Police departments from across the county have asked Prosecutor Mat Heck for guidance. Sometimes the issue comes up because an image is discovered in a lost cell phone. Or perhaps a phone is seized at school. Are these images criminal?
Mr. Heck’s office has gotten that question about a half dozen times — in cases involving both boys and girls.
The diversion program will not be used for offenders who are stockpiling and transmitting pornographic photos. But law enforcement will have another — better — option for dealing with teens who weren’t thinking.
To avoid a conviction, they’ll have to complete a six-month program of community service and education; lectures on practicing “safe text” — as Milwaukee has dubbed its public education campaign — is part of the program.
The legal process needed adjusting. Mr. Heck is reading sense into the law.
TweetPlease share your comments on our facebook page.
Comments
By Billky
March 14, 2009 11:47 AM | Link to this
The best editorial ever. I can not say enough good things about Prosecutor Mat Heck and the juvenile court. Few adults will admit they were once foolish teens that did stupid things. A childs life should not be ruined for a naked photo or racy text.
By britt
March 15, 2009 12:26 AM | Link to this
I think it would be terribly unfair to send a kid to jail for deal with in their own age group, If and adult were to be involve that changes the equation considerably. For my own mind i would prefer kids to show each other naked pictures rather than engage in any physical activity! How may kids played dr? Its only the same thing with a high tech spin. Bottom line. Why in the hell should a kid need a call phone anyway?
By rj
March 15, 2009 5:53 AM | Link to this
I’m waiting for the prosecutors and their minions in the courts to invade the bedrooms of errant teenagers and look for “evidence” of criminal self-gratification. After all, if in a moment of stupidity a teenager sends a nude/racy pic of themselves and can be charged with a felony….why wouldn’t “self-gratification” be considered “abuse of a child” or “contributing to the delinquency of a child?”
By JB
March 15, 2009 7:23 AM | Link to this
The cellphones our children are packing nowadays have far too many capabilities-nobody under 18 needs a cellphone that does anything but places and receives calls-the rest of the things can be done on a home computer where they can be monitored more easily or restricted.
By max
March 15, 2009 1:52 PM | Link to this
My sister & I were just talking about this recently. I agree w/ JB - kids don’t need phones to do all the things that they do, & as a parent, I don’t even have the option of buying one without. I can block texting from going out - but nothing to block my child from receiving a text. I don’t have a problem w/ this because kids don’t always believe their parents - maybe dealing w/ the intervention of the courts will make kids “realize” this isn’t something that’s appropriate.
By baseballguy-1
March 15, 2009 3:12 PM | Link to this
This would mean parents would actually have to say “no” to their kids; ain’t gonna happen. Good thought, though.
By RAW
March 16, 2009 10:41 AM | Link to this
I have to wonder at what point we, as parents, lost control of our ability to be parents. I understand that it is hard to say no to your children, and even harder to isert yourself into what would be termed their private affairs. However, if we are unwilling to monitor our children’s lives to protect them from the dangers we know are out there, then we relegate that responsibility to other concerned parties, ie. the government. It is time to get back involved in our children’s lives, they need our guidance, even if when they do not want it.
By Rob
March 16, 2009 2:12 PM | Link to this
I don’t know if I can agree it’s a technology problem. Some of the kids in these stories have jobs, are old enough to drive - in short they certainly should be responsible enough to handle a cell phone. The problem seems to be that these kids have lost their way somewhere. You can take the phones away if you want, but you still will have kids that think it’s okay to pose naked even for an audience of one. I wonder how many other problematic ways that will mainfest itself?
By Registry Cleaner Reviews
May 3, 2010 9:15 AM | Link to this
Very good sharing this.
By carla
January 18, 2011 7:07 PM | Link to this
the person sending the picture, male or female, should be charged rather than the person who got the message..it seems like if the person did not know that they were going to get a picture like that then they should not be charged besides its the sender of the pictures fault not the beholders….