Mother Talkers

Teen Porn Case

Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:42:15 PM PDT

Atrios linked to a couple of articles that exemplified a new version of what I'll call "digital teen trouble." Teens are getting convicted for violating child pornography laws for taking pictures of their own selves and posting them online.

The first is a story about a Pittsburg girl, 15, who took lots of sexxxy pix of herself and sent them to people she met in chatrooms.

She has been charged with sexual abuse of children, possession of child pornography and dissemination of child pornography.

The second story involves Amber, 16, and her boyfriend Jeremy, 17, who got naked and busy like many other teens before them. In a modern twist, they took digital pictures of themselves, and Amber later emailed the photos to Jeremy.

One can assume that someone in a position of authority (dad?) saw the pictures and threw a fit. And the teenagers ended up in court, prosecuted for violating Florida's kiddie porn laws.

These are interesting applications of the laws meant to protect children from predators and exploiters. Atrios was responding to an opinion piece that Garance Franke-Ruta wrote for the Wall Street Journal, wherein she argues that the age of consent for nudie shots should be bumped to 21. An excerpt:

In certain obvious respects, 18 years is old enough to ward off the threat of "child porn." But the "Girls Gone Wild" problem concerns adult porn: At what age is a girl ready to make that decision, one that she will live with--technologically speaking, at least--for the rest of her life? A woman of 18 may be physically indistinguishable from one who is 21, but they are developmentally worlds apart.

Think only of the difference between a college freshman and a recent college graduate, or between a high-school senior and a young woman with a job and apartment of her own. Or think of the difference between a 19-year-old girl--intoxicated by both a Scorpion Bowl (illegally served) and her own newly developed form--and a woman who has been through her first heartbreak and has had to think long and hard about what her value is, both in her personal life and at the office. The second woman is more likely to nurse a chardonnay with friends than "go wild" in the sense that Mr. Francis' cameras are so eager to record. Surely the porn industry can survive without the participation of teenagers.

  • ::

I have mixed feeling about her legal prescription. I think it would be somewhat unenforceable. I totally agree with her assessment of the developmental age difference between 18 and 21, but I also know the value and sometimes inescapability of "learning the hard way." Some aging hippie photog got me to shed my clothes when I was 19. He buttered me up, convinced me I was photogenic, a work of art, really... I had not developed the keen bullshit detector I have now, and was intoxicated with my springtime sexuality and absolute freedom. Long story short, naked shots of me (thankfully blurry and abstract) ended up on large posterboards hanging in a popular urban coffee shop that I walked into one day, years later. I was never asked permission, never warned, and never given compensation. This happened before the digital revolution had gained significant traction, so the audience was limited.

Girls have been going wild forever. In the digital age, there are plenty more opportunities for people to document or exploit this naturally occurring phenomenon. Do you think that there should be laws to protect teenagers from exploiting their own selves? Is it exploitation if they are doing it themselves, for their own pleasure and pride?

Tags: porn, teenagers, sex, email, laws, internet (all tags)

View Comments | 28 comments