'Sexting scandal in Cañon City could lead to child porn charges'

[Delta4Embassy]

Sexting scandal in Cañon City could lead to child porn charges

"Sexting scandal in Cañon City could lead to child porn charges

Hundreds of students at Cañon City High School who gave little thought to taking and sharing nude pictures of themselves or classmates could now face criminal charges of child pornography.
...

LeDoux warned that consent doesn't exist when taking or exchanging nude photographs of students under age 18.

"It doesn't matter if it was consensual. There is no distinction according to Colorado state statutes," he said. "The district attorney's office will make distinctions as we see fit.""

lots more at link


This incident clearly shows the need for lawmakers to update legal statutes governing the sexual behaviours of minors.

"What Is the Age of Consent in Colorado?

In Colorado, the age of consent for sexual activity is 17 years old. Like many other states, where a minor is concerned, the age difference between the two parties becomes a big focus.
Are There Any Exceptions?

Close-in-age: In Colorado, a person who is under 15 can legally consent to have sex with someone who is no more than 4 years older.

Additionally, a person under 17 can legally consent to sex with a person who is no more than 10 years older. This is quite a liberal age difference, particularly when compared to other states. Under this law, an individual who is 24 could legally have sex with a 15 year old, provided it is consensual."
Colorado Age of Consent Lawyers | LegalMatch Law Library

The sexual aoc should be used as a baseline for related sexual behaviours. The problem is that photographs or videos of what's legal sexual activity is always illegal once recorded. This is because the material is never limited to the participants. It's going to end up online where others will see it and that raises the problem of child pornography. I don't know what the answer is to that problem. Perhaps we should exclude from prosecution the participants of such material, but retain the prosecutorial capability for any 3rd parties in possession of the material. We shouldn't be ruining children's lives having legal sexual relationships just because they took a picture or recorded the sex.

 

[strollingbones]

we give these kids the tools to do this and act all shocked when they do......no they should not be branded as sex offenders but then how do you stop the 3rd party access......in all my travels on the net ...i have never had child porn "just pop" up

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Our state laws desperately need to be updated to reflect technologies that didn't exist not so long ago as with cellphones with cameras and internet connectivity. Had they not taken pictures of themselves there wouldn't have been any crime. So this is really a technological or statutory sort of crime putting kids into a legal mess by virtue of laws not addressing the technology.

As another article mentioned, 'there isn't a school in the country that hasn't had to do with sexting problems.' And yet we're still making criminals out of kids having sex (often perfectly legally) just for documenting their normal sexual behaviours. That the pics and vids will get away from them once online is certainly true, but they themselves shouldn't be legally liable for its' production or possession where the actual sex was legal. That's just ridiculous. It's like the law is saying 'we condone you having sex, but not taking a picture of it.'

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Something else occurs about this particular case. If the sexual behaviours were legal, where there was sexual behaviour as in the pics, but the pics are illegal since they depict minors, how is that not a 1st Amendment free speech issue? If you're legally allowed to have sex, assuming you are, then why isn't documenting that legal sex free speech?

Two legal adults over 18 can have sex, videotape it, and sell the footage to their hearts content. That's absolutely 1st Amendment territory.

But two minors having legal consensual sex (in a state that says it's legal) aren't protected by the 1st Amendment?

Related issue just found,

Sexting a Minor Isn’t a Crime in Texas

"The state made a few arguments that the court quickly dispatches. First, it argued that the defendant failed to argue how sexually explicit conversations with minors are protected speech–i.e., what possible redeeming quality could this speech have? The court says this is backwards. As a content-based restriction, it’s up to the state to justify the validity of the statute and show that the speech is unprotected. Second, the state argued that the statute was aimed at the “widespread use of the internet and technology as a tool for adults who prey on children . . . .” The court says this is a laudable goal, but the state can catch people when they actually engage in crimes (e.g., solicitation) – the state cannot function as a thought police:

A man’s thoughts are his own; he may sit in his armchair and think salacious thoughts, murderous thoughts, discriminatory thoughts, whatever thoughts he chooses, free from the ‘thought police’.

The court finally notes the law’s sweeping reach. It could apply to someone who engages in a conversation in a foreign country. It also is not restricted to one-on-one communications.

__

This is a very careful and thorough opinion that should go on the reading list of any state legislator or staffer working on this type of legislation. "

lots more at the link as you'd expect of legal analysis.

Surely if an adult and minor are granted free speech when sexting, two minors should be?