Communication has become more immediate than ever in the modern age. Images, words, and videos can be sent and accessed instantly. Most of the time, users do not think about how the content they send through the internet can have serious ramifications. When digital communication is used to enact intimate relationships — images and the words sent can be sensitive — ranging from personal photographs to explicit messages. Social media and its integration with email have expanded in popularity. We now find that the youth have used these platforms to establish and maintain relationships. With relationships being documented this means people can easily find their content and messages becoming public. Breakups and the deterioration of relationships can result in the weaponization of intimate content online. Teenagers often misunderstand or are unaware of the legal consequences of sharing a nude photograph, such as criminal charges and sex offender registration as the sharing of these messages is defined by law as child pornography. The infancy of internet sex crimes has resulted in those with nonviolent offences to be included in the same group as violent sexual predators. This occurred with the case of 18-year-old Allen Adam, who was charged with distributing child porn for sending explicit images of his ex-girlfriend to others. Moreover, when reporting on cases such as Allen’s, the media must be responsible in their reporting as the media has often been guilty of perpetuating victim-blaming myths. All in all, when dealing with sensitive topics such as sexting and its criminal implications, one must hold the perpetrators accountable for their actions while also having sympathy for those who are victimized by generalized laws.
After an argument with his ex-girlfriend, 18-year old Adam Allen logged into his ex-girlfriend’s email and sent explicit photographs of her to her family and friends. Due to the image’s subject being 16 years old, he was convicted of distributing child porn, was placed on the sex offender registry, and had to take court mandatory classes with other convicted sex offenders. Allen’s registration on the sex offender registry restricted his movements, freedom, and opportunities. Also, his home address and workplace were listed online which hindered his ability to re-enter society (Hasinoff, 2017). Although Allen’s actions were deliberate and destructive, I do not believe that he poses the same safety risk to his community to be in a shared category as pedophiles and rapists. I believe the law structured around convicting sex offenders is largely outdated, especially those related to internet sex crimes and sexting. For instance, this resulted in Allen being grouped in with serious sex offenders which is problematic as it exposed him to more extreme behaviours. Regardless of details and circumstances, sex crimes often get lumped together in the conviction and the court-mandated classes perpetrators must complete (Hasinoff, 2017). Listing sex offenders together can become dangerous as it allows those with more serious convictions to deflect and lie about their convictions to gain sympathy. Including teenagers with adults of more severe crimes can devalue the justice system and cause others not to treat these registries seriously. Furthermore, the development of digital communication has created instant messaging and immediacy. This has made it incredibly easy it is to inflict harm on others with little effort. This is concerning as teenagers typically will not think of the legal ramifications of their actions and how sexting may not be legal depending on who they send these texts/images to (Pahr, 2018). I believe that in Allen’s case, sexting was not the primary offence, revenge porn was. Consequences are necessary with actions such as Allen’s, but one needs to be careful with how the severity of crimes is grouped, as this can only escalate the issue by grouping Allen with more severe sex crimes.
Society has often dismissed the harmful effects of males’ actions with the phrase “boys will be boys.” But why is this standard not applicable to females? While I agree that Allen must face the consequences of his actions, I feel that his conviction is problematic. First, I believe Allen is guilty of revenge porn as his motive was to humiliate and harass his ex-partner, not to sell images to predators. After all, revenge porn is the act of using another person’s intimate photos, typically of an ex-partner, without consent to cause harm or humiliation (Nikolov, 2018). Allen did not understand the severity of his actions and used sexting as a scapegoat to avoid accountability (Pech & Leibel, 2006). Acting as if his legal issues stem merely from sexting at the age of 18 is false; he deliberately sent explicit images without the subject’s consent with the intent to cause harm. His actions are revolting and I can not begin to contemplate the psychological consequences Allen had on his victim. Therefore, framing this case as to how sexting made Allen lose his freedom is irresponsible. Placing blame on the victim by suggesting that it is her fault for taking the images; instead of the perpetrator for distributing the images without consent in a malicious manner creates the notion that men cannot be held accountable for their actions (Meyer, 2014). While it is true that sexting laws are outdated as teens are treated the same way as grown adults, who are often decades older than their victims, it is also true that Allen intentionally victimized his ex-girlfriend. Allen is both a victim and a perpetrator; treating him as anything else is wrong. Given the catastrophic consequences of his actions, I feel that he should be on the sex offender registry but with legal limits that better matched his case. All in all, what Allen did was incredibly damaging, and he should be disciplined accordingly.
The media often recklessly frames cases like Allen’s by perpetuating victim-blaming myths. Many media outlets behaved irresponsibly by projecting blame onto Allen’s ex-girlfriend. The media failed to consider that the images were originally sent with consent to a trusted partner. Allen destroyed that trust when distributing her images without her consent to cause harm (Hasinoff, 2017). I believe that in covering this case the media should have utilized the Virtue Approach framework within their ethical standards. This framework is used to understand one’s actions by analyzing the circumstances and factors that led to an event (Markkula Center for Ethics, 2009). I feel this approach would have helped protect the victim when reporting on this case, as the media sought to generate sympathy for Allen with little consideration for his victim. In the media's efforts to expose problematic elements of Allen’s trial and conviction, they did not take his intent to cause harm into consideration. The press often framed sexting cases to promote sympathy for the perpetrators, but rarely does the victim of these cases receive compassion (Hasinoff, 2017). For example, during Allen’s appearance on The View, he was asked if he specifically asked her to send the nude photograph, which he denied, this suggested that it is his victim's fault for her sending him the images in the first place. This allowed him to evade accountability and to claim that he does not remember logging into her email and sending the images to her family and friends; through this, he is portrayed as a victim when that is not entirely true (The View, 2010). Victim blaming is not an appropriate practice, and when reporting on sexting scandals, one must consider the victimized first. Victims are not at fault for sending intimate content; those who betray their partner’s trust and weaponize their images must be held accountable. In this case, the media failed to adhere to ethics by not understanding that what Allen took part in was much more drastic than just sexting. Discussions about the media’s reporting of sexting cases and how these cases are represented within the criminal justice system are needed to both protect teens from generalized laws and to protect victims from being blamed for the actions of others.
The development and growth of social media and digital communication technologies and the immediacy they provide can result in serious legal ramifications. Unfortunately, revenge porn has become prolific in the digital age and the law has been able unable to take into account the nuances of digital crimes. While the law catches up with technology, the media must accurately report on crimes such as revenge porn to prevent victim-blaming from occurring. One must adequately report these instances and hold perpetrators accountable without lumping them with more severe crimes. Also, while perpetrators of sexting crimes must be held accountable they should not be put in conditions that will expose them to more severe crimes. After all, if we lump teenagers committing revenge porn with violent repeat offenders, how are these people reformed? Is it fitting to define “Allen” as a monster? Or is there a lot of education that is needed to be done? These are the many questions we must ask before we expose those to a system that has proved ineffectual in reforming anything — without these questions, we will end up kindling a more significant fire.
References
Hasinoff, A. A. (2017). Sexting and Privacy Violations: A Case Study of Sympathy and Blame. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(2), 202–217. doi:10.5281/zenodo.1037391
Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. (2009). A framework for thinking ethically. Retrieved from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html.
Meyer, E. (2014, March 14). The Danger of “Boys Will Be Boys”. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/gender-and-schooling/201403/the-danger-boys-will-be-boys
Nikolov, N. (2018, September 11). How women across the globe are fighting back against revenge porn. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://mashable.com/feature/global-fight-against-revenge-porn/
Pahr, K. (2019, July 19). Perspective | Is teen sexting cause for concern, or no big deal? How to help kids stay safe online. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2019/07/19/is-teen-sexting-cause-concern-or-no-big-deal-how-help-kids-stay-safe-online/
Pech, G., & Leibel, R. (2006). Writing in Solidarity: Steps Toward an Ethic of Care for Journalism. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 21(2), 141–155. doi:10.1207/s15327728jmme2102&3_4
Sexting Discussed on The View [Video file]. (2010, March 09). Retrieved November 17, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25t79nrKkpM&t=42s&ab_channel=stupidlaws69
