Teen Sexting, Grounds For Expulsion?

MA-Caver

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
307
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Reading the article I'd have to agree with this parent's concern about how one state decided to pass a bill which makes teen sexting illegal and thus giving schools grounds for expulsion.
Should Sexting Be Grounds For Expulsion? This Parent Says No way!

Posted by monica bielanko on June 2nd, 2011 at 8:22 am

As long as that isn't a teacher on the other end, the government should mind its own business

Teens sext. They just do. Just like they have sex and experiment with drinking and drugs.
But instead of leaving the punishment up to the parents, the California State Legislature is stepping in to regulate what children can and cant do with their cell phones while in school.
Senators unanimously passed a bill that would make sexting an infraction for which school officials could expel students. Senator Ted Lieu, the Torrance Democrat who introduced the bill, tells the Associated Press that sexting is a growing problem in California schools. He says a recent study shows 20 percent of teens reported sending or posting nude or semi-nude pictures and videos of themselves.
Well, DUH. 20 percent of teens are probably groping in backseats too, would that surprise the senator as well?



Look, Im not all pro sexting here although I have been known to send my husband sexually explicit pictures or video images by means of an electronic act Im just saying, why allow texting and not sexting? That seems a little big brother to me. If texting in class is allowed, sexting should be too because its none of the senates damn business what my teen is texting its mine.
But sexting, to me, is this generations equivalent of my generations groping in back seats. Hell, its probably this generations version of flirting.
http://blogs.babble.com/strollerder...exting-be-grounds-for-expulsion-i-say-no-way/

Agreed that it is getting to be a bit too Big Brother-ish and that it IS none of the senate or anyone else's business except the parent of the teen who sexts.
How far will this go?
My (ex) gf still sends me some *ahem* risque pics now and again (mebbe I shouldn't call her my ex??) and I'll be damned if I'm going to go to jail or have her go to jail because she's a consenting adult and I'm a consenting adult well over legal age and it's just our business what we want to do with/for/to each other.

If the kids have actual physical contact on school property it should be grounds for suspension (because getting caught is embarrassing enough okay... for a teen), but not expelled. Kids are going to be kids and they're going to do what kids do. Learn about their world and what makes them curious. It's up to the PARENTS to decide how/when/why the kids do so and if it's against the PARENTS' values then the PARENTS need to take care of it not the state or anyone else.

Thoughts? On Sexting being grounds for expulsion from school.
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
15,329
Reaction score
1,097
Location
In Pain
a just say no proposition?

we all know how well those work...

Not to mention the opportunities to cause trouble for a person...

I think education (oh right... that's what schools ought to do!) is much more successful than some haphazardly drawn law...

frankly, it's a case of nonya...for the state. what happens on a cell phone is really not subject to what the state needs to know....

(that those dumb kids need some sense slapped into them for being stupid is another question..)
 

Sensei Payne

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
594
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
Texting was just a new thing when I was in high school, so sexting really hadn't come up..

but this really comes down to the Government minding there own business.

Although it is state side only right now, which I respect, and I am sure it will get over turned soon...At least for public schools, or Universities that recieve government grants. Private schools, I guess, just don't get caught. lol
 

punisher73

Senior Master
Joined
Mar 20, 2004
Messages
3,682
Reaction score
720
I think that states need different laws for sexting vs. child pornography, but not grounds for expulsion. Many states ARE passing laws for a person under the age of consent taking a picture of themself and sending it out to another party. I know in Michigan currently, it falls under child pornography and has VERY stiff penalties for taking the picture and sending it out, which then falls into distribution of child porn.

Back to the topic, why expulsion for this? Expulsion is usually reserved for the removal of a student from ALL public schools for a period of time (180 days, so about one school year) for the protection of the student body. Usually, it is for a violent offense or a weapons offense or selling drugs on school property. Where is the danger to the rest of the student body (pardon the pun).
 

Sensei Payne

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
594
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
You still can't legislate stupid.


Thats for sure. But of course your going to get angry parents that don't know how to actually be parents that let things get so out of hand that they're children are contimplating suicide or worse, attempt/successfully commit suicide.

yes its sad that someone can be driven to do such a thing...but really it comes down to parental neglect.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
14,828
Reaction score
3,029
Location
Michigan
First of all, let's think about the term 'child pornography'. It wasn't defined with the idea of a child performing the photography, but being the subject of it. Unlike adult pornography, which is rather vaguely-defined and varies from location to location based on community standards, child pornography was age-defined. If the photograph included nudity in any form and the subject was under the legal age of consent, it was child pornography, plain and simple. EDIT: There are a few 'art' exceptions, including photographers like Jock Sturges. This is quite unusual, however.

And it is a serious crime, is it not? A crime to possess, a crime to distribute, a crime to sell, and yes, a crime to produce. And until the concept of children creating it themselves came along with cell phones, one would tend to say rightfully so. Adults today caught with child pornography in their possession face lengthy prison terms and a lifetime of being on a sex-offender registry in most places. In some places in the USA, offenders, once released, can literally not live in any residence in their city and are forced by law to remain homeless for the remainder of their lives. That's how seriously we take child pornography.

When these laws were created, they did not comprehend the concept of a child being either the subject or the recipient of such photographs or videos. So the law in most cases does not differentiate. A person who makes child pornography is a felon, even if they are the photographer and the subject. A person who possesses it is a felon, even if they are themselves a child.

While I believe that we should consider revamping these laws to take the age of the creator as well as the recipient into account, I am not sure that it is wrong to continue to ban such photographs and videos, nor even to punish the offenders; but perhaps not to the extent that we punish adults.

Consider the child that takes a pornographic image of themselves and sends it via text message to someone else - and by mistake sends to an adult. That adult could fairly easily be arrested, prosecuted, and unless they could convince a jury that they never intended to be in possession of that image, sent to prison for a very long time. Legal for the photographer to make the image - because they themselves are a child - but a felony for an adult to possess? That's like saying it's OK for kids to make crack cocaine, but not legal for an adult to possess it.

Images from 'sexting' leak out into the community. They often cause great suffering amongst families when they inevitably make their way back to the family of the child who made the images. If I recall correctly, some children have committed suicide after their pornographic self-image was circulated widely and they were subjected to ridicule, humiliation, and abuse. Is it correct to say that this is something that the community should have no say in? That it's none of our business that this is going on?

One can also say that this 'sexting' is a form of manipulative and exploitive behavior, primarily of girls by boys. Such things have always existed of course, but not what was once a pressure to have sex or perform sex acts which could lead to pregnancy or loss of face in the community is now something that could literally follow a woman around for the rest of her life, since the Internet is forever, in addition to pregnancy, disease, and being ostracized. Is this what we want? To create an atmosphere where boys can pressure girls to take explicit sexual photographs and videos of themselves and be completely shielded from all potential detection or punishment? We want to create a zone of tolerance where something that could be worse than rape is accepted and the community is told it is none of their business?

One can say that parents should be responsible for their own children - and I agree - but if Johnny came over to Suzy's house and coerced Suzy into having sex, we would not blame Suzy's parents, nor would we shrug it off as not being society's business, would we? So not everything sexual that happens between children can be stopped by even the best parents.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that child pornography is a Bad Thing. When it is between children, it may seem innocent and less of a crime, but consider that it seldom remains between children, or even between the two children originally involved. The fact that adults get involved means that often the images and videos make it 'out' of the community of children, thus proving the point that it happens. So we want to create a source of child pornography that not only cannot be prosecuted as a crime, but cannot even be investigated, like a stream of crack cocaine into our communities that we have to put up with because it is kids producing it?

I'm not trying to be a prude or speak from some moral high ground here. But as long as we live in a world that recognizes that sexual images and videos of children is a bad thing for adults to create, distribute, and possess, we cannot ignore that the creation and distribution might be from those children themselves. Despite the fact that they never intended them to be seen by adult eyes, eventually they will. If this is a crime for adults to create, distribute, and possess, then it cannot be a shielded portal free from government intervention when children do it. Do the laws need to be revised to comprehend what no one contemplated when the laws on underage sexual images were written? Yes. But is it an area of legitimate government intervention? Also yes.

There is no second internet, a place where children are separate from adults. Anything that makes it out onto the 'net is eventually going to be seen by eyes that the originator would probably not want to see it. Since we cannot stop this from happening, we as a society must take an interest in stopping it to the extent that we are capable in this case. That is my opinion.

As to the original question, is it right for a school to expel a student for sexting? Yes. The images are passed around to the child's social group, which is the school's students. Educational processes are disrupted. This is the business of the school. It's not about the sexting in that context; it's about the right of the school to attempt to control the learning environment without disruption from external sources. Like expelling a kid for fighting, stealing, or pulling fire alarms. It disrupts.
 

Sensei Payne

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
594
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
If a minor is busted for sending pictures of themselves to his or her friends, they are subject to several things.

1.) Expulsion/Suspension
Disciplinary action from the school

2.) (Most Likely) Punishment from Parent

3.) Social Blowback from friends at the school

4.) Branded a Sexual Predator and will have to register for life on the Sex Offenders list.

That number 4 there..I HIGHLY disagree with. Minors are minors. They do silly things when they are young, and they get exponged(at least supposed to) when they are 18.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
14,828
Reaction score
3,029
Location
Michigan
4.) Branded a Sexual Predator and will have to register for life on the Sex Offenders list.

That number 4 there..I HIGHLY disagree with. Minors are minors. They do silly things when they are young, and they get exponged(at least supposed to) when they are 18.

I agree, but when many of the laws were created, this concept was not comprehended, because nothing like this existed. So yes, the laws should be updated to reflect this new technology and trend.
 

Carol

Crazy like a...
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
20,311
Reaction score
540
Location
NH
Back to the topic, why expulsion for this? Expulsion is usually reserved for the removal of a student from ALL public schools for a period of time (180 days, so about one school year) for the protection of the student body. Usually, it is for a violent offense or a weapons offense or selling drugs on school property. Where is the danger to the rest of the student body (pardon the pun).

This is also on school property and the pictures passed may not be of the sender.

If I am reading the story correctly, explusion wouldn't be from sexting pix outside school.

In the real world, send nekkid pix (of oneself or others) on company time, and one will likely find themselves "expelled" from their job.
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
15,329
Reaction score
1,097
Location
In Pain
First of all, let's think about the term 'child pornography'. It wasn't defined with the idea of a child performing the photography, but being the subject of it. Unlike adult pornography, which is rather vaguely-defined and varies from location to location based on community standards, child pornography was age-defined. If the photograph included nudity in any form and the subject was under the legal age of consent, it was child pornography, plain and simple. EDIT: There are a few 'art' exceptions, including photographers like Jock Sturges. This is quite unusual, however.

And it is a serious crime, is it not? A crime to possess, a crime to distribute, a crime to sell, and yes, a crime to produce. And until the concept of children creating it themselves came along with cell phones, one would tend to say rightfully so. Adults today caught with child pornography in their possession face lengthy prison terms and a lifetime of being on a sex-offender registry in most places. In some places in the USA, offenders, once released, can literally not live in any residence in their city and are forced by law to remain homeless for the remainder of their lives. That's how seriously we take child pornography.

When these laws were created, they did not comprehend the concept of a child being either the subject or the recipient of such photographs or videos. So the law in most cases does not differentiate. A person who makes child pornography is a felon, even if they are the photographer and the subject. A person who possesses it is a felon, even if they are themselves a child.

While I believe that we should consider revamping these laws to take the age of the creator as well as the recipient into account, I am not sure that it is wrong to continue to ban such photographs and videos, nor even to punish the offenders; but perhaps not to the extent that we punish adults.

Consider the child that takes a pornographic image of themselves and sends it via text message to someone else - and by mistake sends to an adult. That adult could fairly easily be arrested, prosecuted, and unless they could convince a jury that they never intended to be in possession of that image, sent to prison for a very long time. Legal for the photographer to make the image - because they themselves are a child - but a felony for an adult to possess? That's like saying it's OK for kids to make crack cocaine, but not legal for an adult to possess it.

Images from 'sexting' leak out into the community. They often cause great suffering amongst families when they inevitably make their way back to the family of the child who made the images. If I recall correctly, some children have committed suicide after their pornographic self-image was circulated widely and they were subjected to ridicule, humiliation, and abuse. Is it correct to say that this is something that the community should have no say in? That it's none of our business that this is going on?

One can also say that this 'sexting' is a form of manipulative and exploitive behavior, primarily of girls by boys. Such things have always existed of course, but not what was once a pressure to have sex or perform sex acts which could lead to pregnancy or loss of face in the community is now something that could literally follow a woman around for the rest of her life, since the Internet is forever, in addition to pregnancy, disease, and being ostracized. Is this what we want? To create an atmosphere where boys can pressure girls to take explicit sexual photographs and videos of themselves and be completely shielded from all potential detection or punishment? We want to create a zone of tolerance where something that could be worse than rape is accepted and the community is told it is none of their business?

One can say that parents should be responsible for their own children - and I agree - but if Johnny came over to Suzy's house and coerced Suzy into having sex, we would not blame Suzy's parents, nor would we shrug it off as not being society's business, would we? So not everything sexual that happens between children can be stopped by even the best parents.

I think pretty much everyone agrees that child pornography is a Bad Thing. When it is between children, it may seem innocent and less of a crime, but consider that it seldom remains between children, or even between the two children originally involved. The fact that adults get involved means that often the images and videos make it 'out' of the community of children, thus proving the point that it happens. So we want to create a source of child pornography that not only cannot be prosecuted as a crime, but cannot even be investigated, like a stream of crack cocaine into our communities that we have to put up with because it is kids producing it?

I'm not trying to be a prude or speak from some moral high ground here. But as long as we live in a world that recognizes that sexual images and videos of children is a bad thing for adults to create, distribute, and possess, we cannot ignore that the creation and distribution might be from those children themselves. Despite the fact that they never intended them to be seen by adult eyes, eventually they will. If this is a crime for adults to create, distribute, and possess, then it cannot be a shielded portal free from government intervention when children do it. Do the laws need to be revised to comprehend what no one contemplated when the laws on underage sexual images were written? Yes. But is it an area of legitimate government intervention? Also yes.

There is no second internet, a place where children are separate from adults. Anything that makes it out onto the 'net is eventually going to be seen by eyes that the originator would probably not want to see it. Since we cannot stop this from happening, we as a society must take an interest in stopping it to the extent that we are capable in this case. That is my opinion.

As to the original question, is it right for a school to expel a student for sexting? Yes. The images are passed around to the child's social group, which is the school's students. Educational processes are disrupted. This is the business of the school. It's not about the sexting in that context; it's about the right of the school to attempt to control the learning environment without disruption from external sources. Like expelling a kid for fighting, stealing, or pulling fire alarms. It disrupts.


Well, from what I gather, it seems that child pornography laws need to be revamped from the ground up, re classify the bad act and putting some sort of reason back into the laws (like the intend of arousal or some sort of malicious intend) to protect the innocent.
(shucks, considering the outlines you gave, you can kill a teacher's carrier by sending them nudes to the cellphone...)

It shows greatly how absolute verbage in the law really does not help the matter when it gives no wiggle room for circumstance.
 
OP
MA-Caver

MA-Caver

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
307
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Well, from what I gather, it seems that child pornography laws need to be revamped from the ground up, re classify the bad act and putting some sort of reason back into the laws (like the intend of arousal or some sort of malicious intend) to protect the innocent.
(shucks, considering the outlines you gave, you can kill a teacher's carrier by sending them nudes to the cellphone...)

It shows greatly how absolute verbage in the law really does not help the matter when it gives no wiggle room for circumstance.
Well there we go again... intent.
A pornographer takes/distributes those photos with the intent of arousal and profit.
A teenager takes and distributes their photo with the intent of arousal of someone they're interested in or to prove a stupid point (whatever it may be for teenagers these days). As the article says it may be their way of flirting. Certainly not us OLDER people (you know who you are) way of flirting but who is to say. Ask a teenager why they would take a picture of their naughty bits (whole or in part) and you'd be lucky to get a straight honest answer.
But I do see the possibility of the images being hacked and re-distributed for the intent of arousal and profit. Yet they're (the teens) are going to keep on doing it because 1. they want to... 2. it's another way of defying authority (almost a teen prerequisite thing to do), 3. have the same feelings that it's nobody else's business what they do. 4. Nobody in their family cares what they do (and sadly that is too true in cases scattered across the country and the world).

I do agree that the laws need to be re-written to be now more specific in the regards to child pornography and teen sexting.
 

Sensei Payne

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
594
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
Well there we go again... intent.

Whats the problem with a 17 year old, looking at another 17 year old..when the two are consenting?

They could do it over text...they can do it online..or..

they can do it in real life, and be other life consequences that come up, that are far bigger than either are ready to handle.
 
OP
MA-Caver

MA-Caver

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Joined
Aug 21, 2003
Messages
14,960
Reaction score
307
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Whats the problem with a 17 year old, looking at another 17 year old..when the two are consenting?

They could do it over text...they can do it online..or..

they can do it in real life, and be other life consequences that come up, that are far bigger than either are ready to handle.
I personally don't have a problem with it because they're going to do it anyway with or without my permission/approval.
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
15,329
Reaction score
1,097
Location
In Pain
Well there we go again... intent.
A pornographer takes/distributes those photos with the intent of arousal and profit.
A teenager takes and distributes their photo with the intent of arousal of someone they're interested in or to prove a stupid point (whatever it may be for teenagers these days). As the article says it may be their way of flirting. Certainly not us OLDER people (you know who you are) way of flirting but who is to say. Ask a teenager why they would take a picture of their naughty bits (whole or in part) and you'd be lucky to get a straight honest answer.
But I do see the possibility of the images being hacked and re-distributed for the intent of arousal and profit. Yet they're (the teens) are going to keep on doing it because 1. they want to... 2. it's another way of defying authority (almost a teen prerequisite thing to do), 3. have the same feelings that it's nobody else's business what they do. 4. Nobody in their family cares what they do (and sadly that is too true in cases scattered across the country and the world).

I do agree that the laws need to be re-written to be now more specific in the regards to child pornography and teen sexting.


Intend, aye...
making it criminal to have a picture of a toddler playing sans trunks in a kiddy pool...
(had a few discussions with my kid when he was a wee one and nudist at heart why he could not go in his birthday suit at home, only at Grandma's in Germany)

Images made clearly for sexual gratification of a non peer...(the old fart getting off on babies in diapers...)

an age limit...somewhere we are kidding ourselves when we think 16-18 are innocent kids.
(on the other hand we seem to be eager and Gung Ho about treating juvenile offenders as 'adults' when it suits our agenda...)

and showing off naughty bits...well, having them in print is bad enough...
but in this digital age..

and yes, there is the absoluteness of the law: even if the sender dialed the wrong number, the recipient is GUILTY....

ah sigh...

you can't regulate thoughts.
only actions (I think the person who was caught a few years back filming kids at a nudist beach was very happy to be picked up by police...)


I think there is too much intend on regulating these interpersonal experiences, criminalizing trivial incidences while losing sight of the important.

There is a need for more education, not more laws.
 

Sensei Payne

Black Belt
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
594
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville, Kentucky
I think there is too much intend on regulating these interpersonal experiences, criminalizing trivial incidences while losing sight of the important.

There is a need for more education, not more laws.

And this comes down to the Parents. The law should be there to support the parents sure...and sometimes, you are going to get situations where you have the best parents in the world, but the minor does something anyways...and it backfires..etc...

As a parent,(not that I am one, yet) would blame the child for the problem in the first place. Any backlash from other students at school is his/her fault anyways, and i would turn this who situation into a learning experince. If violence for whatever reason ensues, those situations will be handled seperately.

These minor issues can be handled at the parental and school level...no need to bring the law into it.
 

granfire

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
15,329
Reaction score
1,097
Location
In Pain
And this comes down to the Parents. The law should be there to support the parents sure...and sometimes, you are going to get situations where you have the best parents in the world, but the minor does something anyways...and it backfires..etc...

As a parent,(not that I am one, yet) would blame the child for the problem in the first place. Any backlash from other students at school is his/her fault anyways, and i would turn this who situation into a learning experince. If violence for whatever reason ensues, those situations will be handled seperately.

These minor issues can be handled at the parental and school level...no need to bring the law into it.


I see it now: Little Susie send Billy Bob a pic of her naughty bits, parents of Little Susie find out



and blame Billie Bob....

but yeah, education and parenting....

novel concept...
 
Top