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.
